Podcasts about Causation

Episode 257: How do you earn the next banking customer's loyalty, one moment at a time? Focus on what customers choose, and why. According to John Finley, head of marketing, technology, and innovation at BMO, a bank operating across North America, customer loyalty shifts with context. His team takes signals—what customers say—and wires them back into the very next touch. They then test whether the micro-fix actually changes the next behavior. The goal is to earn the next choice—and the corresponding interaction. To make this happen, BMO runs targeted interventions wherever friction points show up. For example, "Customers who don't know who their banker is are much more likely to be a detractor," explains John. To address this, BMO will reintroduce the customer to their banker and then track whether that specific change moves the next response. It's a practical and simple playbook: close rapport gaps, personalize the next contact, and measure whether advocacy—not just willingness to recommend alone—drives ongoing loyalty. Guest: John Finley, Managing Director, Head of Marketing, Technology, & Innovation, BMO Host: Rob Markey, Partner, Bain & Company Give us feedback: Customer Confidential Podcast Feedback Send us a note: Contact Rob Time-Stamped Topics [00:03:00] Feeding survey input back into the next interaction [00:03:00] Use case on reintroducing the banker to close detractor risk [00:04:00] Causation vs. correlation: designing tests that read the next response [00:05:00] Post-acquisition noise: how integration affects signals [00:06:00] A multi-bank reality of how loyalty shifts according to the situation [00:07:00] Loyalty (the emotional) compared to retention (the behavioral) [00:09:00] Advocacy and "willing to recommend"; why formal referrals fall short [00:10:00] Don't chase more surveys; mine behavioral data to reap value Notable Quotes [05:00] "Customers who don't know who their banker is are much more likely to be a detractor." [06:00] "We're very much in test mode. … We're going to be able to measure how the interaction [customers] had influences the next time they provide us feedback." [08:00] "If somebody's willing to recommend, that's one thing. But if somebody's advocating strongly, it's that next step of loyalty."

Send us a textThe Causal Gap: Truly Responsible AI Needs to Understand the ConsequencesWhy do LLMs systematically drive themselves to extinction, and what does it have to do with evolution, moral reasoning, and causality?In this brand-new episode of Causal Bandits, we meet Zhijing Jin (Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, University of Toronto) to answer these questions and look into the future of automated causal reasoning.In this episode, we discuss:- Zhijing's new work on the "causal scientist"- What's missing in responsible AI- Why ethics matter for agentic systems- Is causality a necessary element of moral reasoning?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Video version available on Youtube: https://youtu.be/Frb6eTW2ywkRecorded on Aug 18, 2025 in Tübingen, Germany.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------About The GuestZhiijing Jin is a researcher scientist at Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems and an incoming Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto. Her work is focused on causality, natural language, and ethics, in particular in the context of large language models and multi-agent systems. Her work received multiple awards, including NeurIPS best paper award, and has been featured in CHIP Magazine, WIRED, and MIT News. She grew up in Shanghai. Currently she prepares to open her new research lab at the University of Toronto.Support the showCausal Bandits PodcastCausal AI || Causal Machine Learning || Causal Inference & DiscoveryWeb: https://causalbanditspodcast.comConnect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aleksandermolak/Join Causal Python Weekly: https://causalpython.io The Causal Book: https://amzn.to/3QhsRz4

This conversation delves into the complexities of homicide law, focusing on the definitions, mental states, and causation involved in criminal liability. It explores the historical context of malice aforethought, the nuances of causation, and the distinctions between murder and voluntary manslaughter, including mitigating factors like provocation and imperfect self-defense. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding these concepts for law students preparing for exams and practical applications in legal scenarios.In the intricate world of criminal law, understanding the nuances of homicide is crucial for law students and practitioners alike. This post explores the depths of homicide, from its basic definitions to the complex legal doctrines that govern its prosecution.The Foundation of Homicide: Homicide, at its core, is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being by another. However, the legal landscape is far from simple. The concept of "malice aforethought" serves as a cornerstone, historically required for a murder conviction. This term, while ancient, remains pivotal in categorizing the mental states that constitute murder.Degrees of Murder: Modern statutes have evolved to categorize murder into degrees, primarily based on the level of culpability. First-degree murder often involves premeditation, while second-degree murder may not. Understanding these distinctions is vital for legal analysis and application.Defenses and Mitigations: The law recognizes certain defenses that can mitigate a murder charge to manslaughter. These include "adequate provocation" and "imperfect self-defense." The former considers whether a reasonable person would have been provoked to lose self-control, while the latter acknowledges a genuine, albeit unreasonable, belief in the need for self-defense.Causation and Legal Responsibility: Causation in homicide cases is a complex interplay of factual and legal assessments. The "but-for" test establishes a basic link, while legal causation involves a moral evaluation of the defendant's actions. The law also considers intervening acts, such as medical negligence or victim responses, which can break the chain of causation.Conclusion: Navigating the legal intricacies of homicide requires a deep understanding of both subjective mental states and objective legal standards. As you prepare for exams or practice, remember that the law often balances scientific tracing of events with moral judgments about responsibility.Subscribe Now: Stay informed and deepen your legal knowledge by subscribing for more insights into criminal law and beyond.TakeawaysUnderstanding homicide requires grasping the definitions and historical context.Malice aforethought is a technical term that encompasses various mental states.Causation links a defendant's mental state to the outcome of their actions.Factual causation uses the but-for test to establish a connection.Legal causation assesses moral responsibility and foreseeability of outcomes.Voluntary manslaughter can result from adequate provocation or imperfect self-defense.The reasonable person standard is crucial in assessing provocation.The thin skull rule holds defendants liable for the full extent of harm caused.Intervening acts can break the chain of causation under certain conditions.The law balances objective standards with subjective human emotions.homicide, causation, malice aforethought, mens rea, actus reus, criminal law, law student, legal standards, voluntary manslaughter, provocation

This conversation delves into the foundational elements of criminal liability in American law, focusing on actus reus, mens rea, concurrence, causation, and the unique concept of strict liability. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding these elements for law students, particularly in the context of exam preparation. Through various case examples, the conversation illustrates how these legal principles are applied and the underlying policy considerations that shape them.In the realm of criminal law, understanding the foundational elements of culpability is crucial for law students and practitioners alike. This deep dive explores the intricate layers of criminal liability, focusing on the essential components of actus reus and mens rea.The Pillars of Criminal Liability: The discussion begins with the five foundational pillars of criminal liability in American law: actus reus, mens rea, concurrence, causation, and strict liability. These elements form the bedrock of legal analysis, guiding the application of law to various factual scenarios.Actus Reus: The Physical Component Actus reus, or the "guilty act," is the physical component of a crime. It encompasses the conduct, circumstances, and result that constitute the prohibited act. The discussion highlights the importance of a voluntary act, as established in landmark cases like Robinson v. California and Martin v. State.Mens Rea: The Guilty Mind Transitioning from the physical to the mental, the concept of mens rea, or the "guilty mind," is explored. The discussion delves into the Model Penal Code's hierarchy of mental states—purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence—and their application to different elements of a crime.Concurrence and Causation: The blog further examines the necessity of concurrence, ensuring that the guilty mind and act align in time and motivation. Causation, both actual and proximate, is analyzed to establish the link between the defendant's actions and the resulting harm.Strict Liability: A Controversial Exception The discussion concludes with an exploration of strict liability offenses, which require no proof of mens rea for certain elements. The rationale behind these offenses, often related to public welfare, is critically examined, highlighting the tension between regulatory compliance and moral blameworthiness.This comprehensive analysis underscores the importance of understanding both the legal definitions and the underlying policy choices in criminal law. As students prepare for exams, they are encouraged to apply these principles rigorously, considering the moral and social implications of each case.Subscribe now for more insights into the world of criminal law.TakeawaysThe five foundational pillars of criminal liability are actus reus, mens rea, concurrence, causation, and strict liability.Actus reus refers to the physical act or omission that constitutes a crime.Mens rea is the mental state or intent behind the act, crucial for establishing culpability.Concurrence requires that the guilty mind and the guilty act occur simultaneously.Causation links the defendant's actions to the resulting harm, requiring both actual and proximate causation.Strict liability offenses do not require proof of mens rea for certain elements of the crime.The law distinguishes between voluntary acts and involuntary actions, which cannot constitute actus reus.Understanding the nuances of recklessness versus negligence is vital for legal analysis.Legal duties to act can arise from statutes, contracts, special relationships, voluntary assumption of care, or creating a risk.Policy considerations often influence the application of criminal law, particularly in strict liability cases.

Listen Ad Free https://www.solgoodmedia.com - Listen to hundreds of audiobooks, thousands of short stories, and ambient sounds all ad free!

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of the tort of negligence, focusing on its four essential pillars: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. The discussion delves into the nuances of each pillar, including the standards of care, the importance of foreseeability, and the various doctrines that assist in proving negligence. Additionally, it covers defenses against liability, such as contributory and comparative negligence, and the concept of assumption of risk. The conversation concludes with reflections on the balance between legal standards and human judgment in achieving justice.In the realm of civil law, negligence stands as a cornerstone, where carelessness meets legal accountability. Whether you're preparing for a torts exam or simply curious about legal frameworks, understanding the four pillars of negligence—duty, breach, causation, and damages—is essential.Duty: The Foundation of Responsibility The first pillar, duty, asks whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal obligation. This duty is often broad, requiring individuals to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances. However, the standard can shift dramatically based on specific roles or relationships, such as those of professionals or landowners.Breach: Falling Short of Standards Once duty is established, the next question is whether the defendant breached that duty. This involves comparing the defendant's actions to those of a hypothetical "reasonably prudent person." The breach is determined by whether the defendant's conduct fell below this standard, often using tools like the Hand Formula to assess reasonableness.Causation: Linking Actions to Harm Causation connects the defendant's breach to the plaintiff's injury and is divided into two parts: actual cause and proximate cause. Actual cause, or "but-for" causation, asks if the injury would have occurred without the defendant's actions. Proximate cause limits liability to foreseeable consequences, ensuring the harm was a direct result of the breach.Damages: Quantifying Harm Finally, for a negligence claim to succeed, the plaintiff must have suffered legally recognized damages. These can be economic, such as medical expenses and lost wages, or non-economic, like pain and suffering. In some cases, punitive damages may be awarded to punish particularly egregious conduct.The four pillars of negligence provide a structured approach to understanding and analyzing legal accountability. By methodically examining duty, breach, causation, and damages, one can navigate even the most complex legal scenarios. As you delve deeper into the intricacies of negligence law, remember that these pillars are not just legal concepts but tools for achieving justice and accountability.Subscribe Now: Stay informed and deepen your understanding of legal principles by subscribing to our blog for more insights and analyses.TakeawaysNegligence is foundational in civil law.The four pillars of negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages.Duty of care establishes legal obligations to prevent harm.Breach of duty is measured against the standard of a reasonably prudent person.Causation includes both actual and proximate cause.Damages must be legally recognized losses for a claim to succeed.Res ipsa loquitur allows for inferring negligence without direct evidence.Negligence per se simplifies proving breach when a statute is violated.Comparative negligence reduces damages based on the plaintiff's fault.Assumption of risk can bar recovery if the plaintiff knowingly accepted the risk.negligence, tort law, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, damages, res ipsa loquitur, negligence per se, defenses, assumption of risk

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of tort law, focusing on the foundational concepts of intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability. The discussion delves into the distinctions between different types of torts, the importance of consent, various defenses available in tort cases, and the nuances of causation and damages. The conversation emphasizes the complexities of tort law and the ongoing tension between legal principles and social justice.In the realm of tort law, intentional torts stand as a fundamental pillar, distinct from negligence and strict liability. These torts revolve around deliberate actions and the specific mental state of the defendant. This post delves into the nuances of intentional torts, focusing on the transfer of intent, the critical distinctions between assault and battery, and the complexities of consent, including apparent and implied licenses.Transfer of Intent: The concept of transfer of intent is pivotal in understanding intentional torts. It applies to a select group of torts: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. The principle is straightforward: if a person intends to commit one of these torts against one individual but inadvertently affects another, the intent transfers. For instance, if Draco aims a hex at Harry intending assault, but it hits Hermione instead, Hermione can sue Draco for battery. The law recognizes Draco's original intent to commit a wrong within that category, thus transferring the intent.Assault vs. Battery: Assault and battery are often confused, yet they protect different interests. Assault is about the apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact, not the contact itself. It requires a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat. Battery, on the other hand, involves the actual contact—an unpermitted, intentional touching that is harmful or offensive. A key distinction is that the victim need not be aware of the contact for it to be considered battery, underscoring the protection of bodily integrity.Apparent and Implied Licenses: Consent is a primary defense in intentional torts, but it can be complex. Apparent consent, as illustrated in O'Brien v. Cunard's Themeship Company, relies on outward actions rather than internal feelings. In this case, Ms. O'Brien's actions—standing in line and raising her arm for vaccination—were deemed to show consent, despite her internal objections. Implied licenses, such as those in sports or playground activities, suggest that participants consent to certain contacts inherent to the activity. However, context is crucial; a kick during play might be acceptable, but not after the game has ended.Intentional torts require a nuanced understanding of intent, the nature of the act, and the defenses available. The transfer of intent, distinctions between assault and battery, and the intricacies of consent highlight the complexity of these legal concepts. As law students and future practitioners, grappling with these nuances is essential for mastering tort law. Keep exploring these foundational ideas, as they form the bedrock of civil liability and the pursuit of justice.Subscribe now to stay updated on more insights into tort law and other legal concepts.Tort law is foundational for understanding civil liability.Intentional torts require a specific mindset from the defendant.Consent can be actual, apparent, or presumed in tort law.Self-defense and other privileges can serve as defenses in tort cases.Necessity can justify actions that would otherwise be tortious.Negligence focuses on unintentional failures to meet a standard of care.Causation in negligence includes both actual and proximate cause.Damages in tort law can be compensatory or punitive.Comparative negligence is a more equitable approach than contributory negligence.torts, intentional torts, negligence, strict liability, consent, defenses, causation, damages, product liability, law students

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! In today's episode, we're focusing on one of the most highly-tested topics on law school exams: Negligence. In particular, we're talking about the different ways in which factual causation can be demonstrated. In this episode we discuss: Review of the elements of negligence What is factual causation and the five tests that are used to prove it Analyzing two hypos from previous California bar exams Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-substantive-law-topics/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2019 (https://makethisyourlasttime.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Feb-2019-Essays.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2017 (https://makethisyourlasttime.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/July-2017-Essays.pdf) Summers v. Tice (https://casetext.com/case/summers-v-tice) Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (https://wiki.harvard.edu/confluence/display/GNME/Sindell+v.+Abbott+Laboratories) Podcast Episode 382: Listen and Learn – Negligence: Proximate Cause (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-382-listen-and-learn-negligence-proximate-cause/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-523-listen-and-learn-negligence-factual-causation/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Join my FREE 3-Day Water Fast Challenge - October 15th. It's the exact protocol I use with pro athletes and Fortune 500 CEOs to flush inflammation and kickstart autophagy. Sign up here! http://bit.ly/4nTILPt Could the answer to your chronic health struggles be hiding in plain sight inside your mouth? Live from the Health Optimisation Summit stage in London, Dr. Dominik Nischwitz and I answered questions on the connections between oral health and systemic diseases, how root canals, wisdom tooth extractions, and metal fillings create hidden infection sites that burden your immune system for decades. This is your sign to visit a biological dentist near you! Join the Ultimate Human VIP community for Gary Brecka's proven wellness protocols!: https://bit.ly/4ai0Xwg Get Dr. Dominik Nischwitz's book, “It's All In Your Mouth“ here: http://bit.ly/4nFJumU Connect with Dr. Dominik Nischwitz: Website: http://bit.ly/4nGvGZs YouTube: http://bit.ly/47UGqin Instagram: http://bit.ly/4nHgMSM TikTok: http://bit.ly/42Hhx67 Facebook: http://bit.ly/4pJCbg4 LinkedIn: http://bit.ly/42adEqp Thank you to our partners H2TABS: “ULTIMATE10” FOR 10% OFF: https://bit.ly/4hMNdgg BODYHEALTH: “ULTIMATE20” FOR 20% OFF: http://bit.ly/4e5IjsV BAJA GOLD: "ULTIMATE10" FOR 10% OFF: https://bit.ly/3WSBqUa EIGHT SLEEP: SAVE $350 ON THE POD 4 ULTRA WITH CODE “GARY”: https://bit.ly/3WkLd6E COLD LIFE: THE ULTIMATE HUMAN PLUNGE: https://bit.ly/4eULUKp WHOOP: JOIN AND GET 1 FREE MONTH!: https://bit.ly/3VQ0nzW MASA CHIPS: 20% OFF FIRST ORDER: https://bit.ly/40LVY4y VANDY: “ULTIMATE20” FOR 20% OFF: https://bit.ly/49Qr7WE AION: “ULTIMATE10” FOR 10% OFF: https://bit.ly/4h6KHAD A-GAME: “ULTIMATE15” FOR 15% OFF: http://bit.ly/4kek1ij PEPTUAL: “TUH10” FOR 10% OFF: https://bit.ly/4mKxgcn CARAWAY: “ULTIMATE” FOR 10% OFF: https://bit.ly/3Q1VmkC HEALF: 10% OFF YOUR ORDER: https://bit.ly/41HJg6S BIOPTIMIZERS: “ULTIMATE” FOR 15% OFF: https://bit.ly/4inFfd7 RHO NUTRITION: “ULTIMATE15” FOR 15% OFF: https://bit.ly/44fFza0 GOPUFF: GET YOUR FAVORITE SNACK!: https://bit.ly/4obIFDC GENETIC TEST: ⁠https://bit.ly/3Yg1Uk9 Watch  the “Ultimate Human Podcast” every Tuesday & Thursday at 9AM EST: YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RPQYX8 Podcasts: https://bit.ly/3RQftU0 Connect with Gary Brecka Instagram: https://bit.ly/3RPpnFs TikTok: https://bit.ly/4coJ8fo X: https://bit.ly/3Opc8tf Facebook: https://bit.ly/464VA1H LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/4hH7Ri2 Website: https://bit.ly/4eLDbdU Merch: https://bit.ly/4aBpOM1 Newsletter: https://bit.ly/47ejrws Ask Gary: https://bit.ly/3PEAJuG Timestamps: 00:00 Intro of Show 01:33 Identifying Other Health Issues through Biologic Dentistry  03:03 Interconnection of Cavitations and Cancer 05:35 Changing the Healthcare System 09:47 Importance of Biologic Dentistry 11:45 Treatment for Impacted Wisdom Teeth 14:29 Oral Cavitation, Immunofatigue, and Autoimmune Diseases 17:20 Treatment for Tongue-tie  19:29 Hydroxyapatite vs. Flouride 23:13 Causation and Reversal of Scoliosis  26:06 Chronic Inflammations Possibly Caused by Cavitations 29:29 Educating Parents about Proper Nutrition 32:59 Detoxification after Heavy Metals Removal 34:54 Risks for Undergoing Root Canal Procedures The Ultimate Human with Gary Brecka Podcast is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute the practice of medicine, nursing or other professional health care services, including the giving of medical advice, and no doctor/patient relationship is formed. The use of information on this podcast or materials linked from this podcast is at the user's own risk. The Content of this podcast is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Users should not disregard or delay in obtaining medical advice for any medical condition they may have and should seek the assistance of their health care professionals for any such conditions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week the Trump administration announced that Tylenol and its main ingredient acetaminophen could have links to autism if taken when women are pregnant. Dr. Nicole Saphier is a FOX News Medical Contributor and associate professor at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, she joined Annie to discuss the announcement and what expecting mothers can take away from it.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson, Associate Professor of Medicine and Public Health at Yale School of Medicine, joins the show to share his expertise on a highly contentious topic: Does the use of acetaminophen (Tylenol) while pregnant cause, or have a correlation with, autism?

Host: Dr. Susan Buttross, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, and Abram NanneyTopic: In desperation to protect our loved ones who have illnesses or disorders, it is easy to become emotional and overzealous. We may want to quickly react to reported causations and/or treatments that are touted. Of course, if we could prevent a devastating illness or a developmental disorder in our loved one, we would go for it, right. But sometimes jumping to a treatment or stopping a treatment may not be helpful and could even be dangerous. Today we'll be talking about why understanding “correlation without causation” is so important as we make medical decisions.You can join the conversation by sending an email to: family@mpbonline.org. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a textCreate Your Causal Inference Roadmap. Causal Inference, TMLE & SensitivityIf you're into causal inference and machine learning you probably heard about double machine learning (DML).DML is one of the most popular frameworks leveraging machine learning algorithms for causal inference, while offering good statistical properties.Yet...There's another framework that also leverages machine learning for causal inference that was created years earlier.Welcome to the world of targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE).Our today's guest, Prof. Mark van der Laan (UC Berkeley) is the godfather of TMLE.In the episode, we discuss:- Similarities and differences between DML and TMLE- How to build a causal roadmap for your project- How Mark uses math to solve real-world problems- Why uncertainty quantification is so important------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Video version available on the Youtube: https://youtu.be/qr5JolEAuJURecorded on Sep 16, 2025 in Berkeley, California, US.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*About The Guest*Mark van der Laan is a Professor in Biostatistics and Statistics at UC Berkeley. He's the godfather of Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE), a semiparametric framework that uses machine learning to estimate causal effects or other statistical parameters from observational data, and its new incarnation Targeted Machine Learning.*About The Host*Aleksander (Alex) Molak is an independent machine learning researcher, educator, entrepreneur and a best-selling author in the area of causality (https://amzn.to/3QhsRz4 ).Connect with Alex:- Alex on the Internet: https://bit.ly/aleksander-molak*Links*Libraries- Deep LTMLE (Python): https://github.com/shirakawatoru/dltmlePapers- Dang, ..., van der Laan et al. (2023) - "A Causal Roadmap for Generating High-Quality Real-World Evidence" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.06850)- Gruber, ..., van der Laan (2021) - "Developing a Targeted Learning-Based Statistical AnalysisSupport the showCausal Bandits PodcastCausal AI || Causal Machine Learning || Causal Inference & DiscoveryWeb: https://causalbanditspodcast.comConnect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aleksandermolak/Join Causal Python Weekly: https://causalpython.io The Causal Book: https://amzn.to/3QhsRz4

The traditional mechanistic framework must give way to a richer understanding of how brains actually generate behavior over time.

Lauren Ross is a professor of logic and philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. We talk about her work on causation, mechanism, and explanation in neuroscience, Lauren's background in medicine, how to write clearly, and much more.BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith.Support the show: https://geni.us/bjks-patreonTimestamps0:00:00: Why Lauren studied medicine0:04:23: Differences between medicine and philosophy0:21:19: Why Lauren switched to philosophy of science0:25:30: How to learn to write clearly0:30:21: Are doctors practitioners of causality?0:34:25: What's so difficult about causality?0:38:46: Causal structures: mechanism, pathway, cascade, circuit.1:02:11: The practical use of thinking about causal structures and varieties1:11:35: What's the difference between a circuit and a pathway? And what are you trying to do?1:20:31: Secondary features of causation/causal varieties: strength, stability, speed, specificity1:29:29: A book or paper more people should read1:30:45: Something Lauren wishes she'd learnt sooner1:33:29: Advice for PhD students/postdocsPodcast linksWebsite: https://geni.us/bjks-podBlueSky: https://geni.us/pod-bskyLauren's linksWebsite: https://geni.us/ross-webGoogle Scholar: https://geni.us/ross-scholarBlueSky: https://geni.us/ross-bskyBen's linksWebsite: https://geni.us/bjks-webGoogle Scholar: https://geni.us/bjks-scholarBlueSky: https://geni.us/bjks-bskyReferencesAlon (2006). An introduction to systems biology: design principles of biological circuits. [There's a lecture series by Alon that seems to be based on the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6VZeWuME_A&list=PLLbr-B8cNbo6v4kc68JowzUeAYdh6gdQH]Barack, Miller, Moore, Packer, Pessoa, Ross, & Rust (2022). A call for more clarity around causality in neuroscience. Trends in neurosciences.Forsyth (2013). The elements of eloquence: How to turn the perfect English phrase.Hempel (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation.Ross (2021). Causal concepts in biology: How pathways differ from mechanisms and why it matters. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.Ross & Bassett (2024). Causation in neuroscience: keeping mechanism meaningful. Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

1 section- attempt to find the author of the Beraitta who holds that "zeh v'zeh gorem" is assur and need to break the new oven that was initially fired up with issurei hana'ah (arla, kilayim)

What is in the This Week in Science Podcast? This Week: Government Climate Propaganda, Health Gutted, SeeMe, Less Pain With ADRIANA, It's Not You, It's Us, Justin Trashes a Study, Correlation? Causation on the Toilet?, Electrical Immunity?, Spleendid Healing, That Succulent Glow, and Much More Science Unplugged! Become a Patron! Check out the full unedited […] The post 3 September, 2025 – Episode 1028 – Science Unplugged appeared first on This Week in Science - The Kickass Science Podcast.

Send us a textDisclaimer: The views expressed in this episode are Judge Robert Rassp's personal opinions and do not reflect the official position of the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC), or the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).In this episode of Deconstructing Comp, Yvonne and Rafael are joined by Judge Robert Rassp for a straightforward discussion about the fundamental benefits of workers' compensation and why they are important. Judge Rassp walks us through the foundation of the system, from medical treatment to temporary and permanent disability benefits, and explains how these core protections are designed to support injured employees while balancing employer responsibilities.The conversation also explores how utilization review, independent medical review, and evolving case law influence the delivery of these benefits. Judge Rassp emphasizes the importance of fairness, education, and due process in ensuring that both injured employees and employers understand the system and can navigate it effectively.According to Rassp: “Temporary disability keeps food on the table during recovery. Permanent disability recognizes when someone's life has been permanently changed by an injury.”Please join us for this informative episode with one of our industry's most experienced and esteemed educators. Judge Rassp is also an adjunct professor at Pepperdine University's Caruso School of Law, where he teaches workers' compensation law, and he's a founding member of the CC&R Band, a parody band that performs classic rock and roll hits at many Southern California industry events.  Key Terms from the Episode:Medical Treatment – Care provided to cure or relieve the effects of a work-related injury or illness.Temporary Disability (TD) – Wage replacement benefits provided to an injured employee while recovering and unable to work.Permanent Disability (PD) – Benefits awarded when an injured employee has lasting impairment that affects their ability to earn wages.Causation – the link establishing that an injury or illness arose out of and in the course of employment, or more simply put, that the injured employee's work contributed to their injury or illness. This is also referred to as AOE/COE.WCAB (Workers' Compensation Appeals Board) – The judicial body that adjudicates disputes in California's workers' compensation system.Utilization Review (UR) – The process by which an employer or insurer evaluates a medical treatment request for appropriateness and necessity.Independent Medical Review (IMR) – The appeal process when a treatment request is denied through UR, conducted by an independent physician reviewer.Case Law – Published court or WCAB decisions that interpret statutes and guide future workers' compensation cases.¡Muchas Gracias! Thank you for listening. We would appreciate you sharing our podcast with your friends on social media. Find Yvonne and Rafael on Linked In or follow us on Twitter @deconstructcomp

Ask Me A Question For Next Week's Episode!Included in this week's episode: The Negroni you drink in Italy is legit neon orange so let's calm down a bit. Do governments allow intentional poisoning of their citizens? Causation is not correlation. What actually happens when you go to Europe or anywhere for that matter. Why you feel better. What's the rub about America? Our current food supply doesn't match the USDA requirements for nutrient intake. Why is our food environment like this? How can we fix it? The reality of food in America and our interaction with it. Personal accountability is the first step in answering the problem. 

Studies looking at lung cancer in people who smoked showed that those who did experienced a lot more lung cancer than those who didn't. That's a correlation study, says Otis Brawley, a cancer epidemiology expert at Johns Hopkins. Then came … Laboratory studies demonstrate causation when it comes to cancer, Elizabeth Tracey reports Read More »

PodChatLive 192: Some papers that get us thinking about correlation/causation, and should we use heel lifts for Achilles tendinopathy?Contact us: getinvolved@podchatlive.comLinks from this week:Avelo: Meet the world's smartest running shoeDengue Fever with Sever's Disease: A Case ReportBreastfeeding-injury link: are concerns warranted?Efficacy of Heel Lifts for Managing Mid-Portion Achilles Tendinopathy (the LIFT Trial)

This conversation delves into the complexities of causation in criminal law, exploring both factual and proximate causation, the impact of intervening causes, and advanced considerations such as the Model Penal Code. The discussion emphasizes the importance of foreseeability and fairness in assigning legal responsibility, while also providing practical strategies for analyzing causation in exam scenarios.TakeawaysCausation is fundamental to criminal law and essential for legal professionals.Factual causation is established through the 'but for' test, but is not sufficient alone for liability.Proximate causation considers whether the result is fair to impose liability, focusing on foreseeability.Intervening causes can break the chain of causation, especially if they are unforeseeable or independent.The eggshell skull rule holds defendants liable for the full extent of harm caused, even if the victim had pre-existing vulnerabilities.The Model Penal Code provides a structured approach to causation, linking it to the mental state required for crimes.Courts often adapt causation principles based on policy goals and the context of the case.Causation analysis requires a systematic approach, asking critical questions about factual and proximate causes.Understanding the interplay between causation and legal responsibility is key for aspiring legal professionals.Causation is a dynamic area of law that evolves with societal changes and technological advancements.causation, criminal law, factual causation, proximate causation, intervening causes, Model Penal Code, legal responsibility, foreseeability, criminal liability, legal analysis

This conversation delves into the complexities of mens rea, the guilty mind, and its critical role in criminal law. It explores the Model Penal Code's hierarchy of culpability, the importance of concurrence in linking mental state to actions, and the nuances of causation. The discussion also covers inchoate crimes, the challenges of defining intent, and the potential future developments in understanding mens rea in light of emerging technologies.TakeawaysUnderstanding mens rea is crucial for criminal liability.The Model Penal Code outlines four levels of culpability: purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence.Concurrence requires that the guilty mind and guilty act occur simultaneously.Causation links the defendant's actions to the harm caused.Inchoate crimes focus on the intent to commit a crime, even if not completed.Factual impossibility is not a defense in attempt law, while legal impossibility can be.The substantial step test allows for earlier intervention in attempt cases than the proximity test.Emerging technologies challenge traditional notions of mens rea and culpability.The subjective nature of mens rea can lead to inconsistent legal outcomes.Future developments in neuroscience and AI may reshape our understanding of intent.

Explore the intricate layers of Actus Reus, a fundamental concept in criminal law. This episode delves into the challenges of defining and proving the physical act of a crime, examining real-world cases and legal interpretations. Join us as we navigate the complexities of actions, omissions, and the legal thresholds that determine criminal responsibility. In the realm of criminal law, understanding the concept of Actus Reus is crucial. Imagine a scenario where an action—or lack thereof—determines the fate of an individual in the justice system. This blog post delves into the complexities surrounding Actus Reus, the physical act of a crime, and its pivotal role in legal proceedings.The Essence of Actus Reus: Actus Reus, Latin for "guilty act," is a fundamental component of criminal liability. It refers to the physical element of a crime, encompassing actions, omissions, and circumstances that constitute a criminal offense. Unlike Mens Rea, which focuses on the mental state, Actus Reus is concerned with the tangible aspects of a crime.Challenges in Defining Actus Reus: One of the primary challenges in criminal law is defining what constitutes an act. Is it merely the physical movement, or does it include the context and consequences? Legal systems worldwide grapple with these questions, often leading to varied interpretations and applications in court.Real-World Implications: Consider a case where an individual's failure to act results in harm. Is this omission sufficient to establish criminal liability? The complexity of Actus Reus lies in its ability to encompass both actions and inactions, making it a nuanced and often contentious element in legal proceedings.Understanding Actus Reus is essential for anyone navigating the legal landscape. Its complexity underscores the importance of context and interpretation in criminal law. As we continue to explore the intricacies of legal responsibility, Actus Reus remains a cornerstone of justice, shaping the outcomes of countless cases.Actus reus is the physical act or omission that constitutes a crime.Voluntariness is a critical requirement for establishing actus reus.Omissions can lead to criminal liability under specific circumstances.Possession is considered an act under criminal law, involving both an initial act and a continuing omission.The law punishes conduct, not mere thoughts or status.Causation is essential in linking the act to the resulting harm.Mens rea must coincide with actus reus for most crimes to establish liability.Strict liability crimes do not require proof of mens rea.Defenses like automatism can negate the actus reus requirement.The principles of actus reus are evolving with technology and societal changes.

In this episode, we delve into the intricate world of negligence, a cornerstone of tort law and a frequent topic in exams. Join us as we explore the essential elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. We'll break down complex legal tests, landmark cases like Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., and practical explanations to equip you with the knowledge needed to tackle challenging negligence questions. Whether you're preparing for a law exam or seeking a deeper understanding of tort law, this episode offers a comprehensive guide to mastering negligence. Tune in to gain insights that will help you confidently navigate the complexities of tort law.The core purpose of damages in a personal injury case is to "make the plaintiff whole." This means financial compensation is provided to, as much as possible, put the injured victim back into the position they would have been in if they had not suffered the injury as a result of the defendant's negligence or intentionally bad actions.General damages compensate for abstract, non-financial losses like emotional and physical pain, while special damages repay concrete, financial losses. An example of general damages is pain and suffering, while an example of special damages is past and ongoing medical bills.Punitive damages are awarded to punish defendants for wanton, reckless, or malicious acts, and to discourage similar behavior in the future. They are normally only allowed in negligence cases where the defendant's conduct was more than just ordinary negligence, such as drunk driving.A duty of care is a legal obligation for a defendant to act with a particular standard of conduct to protect others from unreasonable risk of harm. This means all individuals have a general duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to others.The "reasonable person standard" is an objective test that asks how a hypothetical, average person of reasonable caution and competence would have behaved under the same circumstances. Courts use this standard to assess whether the defendant's conduct fell below the expected level of care.Actual cause (or cause-in-fact) uses the "but-for" test to determine if the injury would have occurred without the defendant's actions. Proximate cause (or legal cause) is concerned with foreseeability, limiting liability to harms that were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct.If the Wright Brothers' invention of the airplane is considered an "actual cause" of 9/11 because the event wouldn't have happened "but for" their invention. However, it is not a "proximate cause" because the 9/11 tragedy was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of inventing the airplane nearly a century prior.Res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine that allows a jury to infer negligence without direct evidence. It applies when an injury typically doesn't occur without negligence, the instrumentality causing harm was under the defendant's control, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the harm.Comparative negligence reduces a plaintiff's damage award based on their percentage of fault, allowing for some recovery even if partially at fault. Contributory negligence, in contrast, completely bars the plaintiff from recovering any damages if they are found to be even slightly negligent.Two examples of a breach of duty in medical malpractice include a misdiagnosis of a serious condition, such as failing to diagnose cancer despite apparent symptoms, or a medication error, like prescribing an incorrect medication or dosage.

Listen Ad Free https://www.solgoodmedia.com - Listen to hundreds of audiobooks, thousands of short stories, and ambient sounds all ad free!

This podcast explores the legal concept of standing, which dictates who is eligible to bring a lawsuit before a court. They highlight that standing typically requires a concrete, particularized injury that is traceable to the defendant's actions and redressable by a court, as emphasized in U.S. federal law. However, the articles also discuss challenges and criticisms of this doctrine, including concerns about limiting access to justice for public interest issues, inconsistent applications in various legal contexts like reproductive rights or anti-corruption efforts, and the debate around third-party or public interest standing in different jurisdictions. Potential solutions are also considered, such as using institutional plaintiffs or expanding standing through legislative action.The fundamental purpose of the standing doctrine is to limit federal courts to adjudicating "cases or controversies" involving actual injuries. It upholds the separation of powers by preventing courts from issuing advisory opinions or overstepping into political or hypothetical grievances."Injury-in-fact" requires a plaintiff to show they have suffered a concrete and particularized harm that is actual or imminent. "Concrete" means the injury is real, even if intangible (like reputational harm), while "particularized" means it affects the plaintiff individually, not merely as part of the general public.The "causation" element ensures the alleged injury is directly attributable to the defendant's conduct, and not to actions by independent third parties not involved in the case. This establishes a clear and logical link, preventing speculative claims where the defendant's role in the harm is unclear."Redressability" means it must be likely that a favorable court decision will remedy the plaintiff's injury. It does not require that the court's judgment completely eliminate the harm; incremental redress is sufficient to satisfy this requirement.Prudential standing requirements are judicially created limits on federal court jurisdiction, such as prohibitions on third-party standing or generalized grievances. Unlike the constitutional elements, Congress can modify or override these prudential doctrines through legislation.The general rule is that federal taxpayers do not have standing to challenge government expenditures based solely on their taxpayer status because the injury is too speculative and widely shared. A narrow exception exists for challenges under the Establishment Clause to specific congressional taxing and spending measures.Associational standing allows an organization to sue on behalf of its members if its members would individually have standing, the interests are relevant to the organization's purpose, and the claim or relief does not require individual member participation. This enables collective representation for shared harms within a group.TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez clarified that for intangible harms to be "concrete," they must have a "close historical or common-law analogue." This limits Congress's ability to define new intangible harms for standing purposes, leading to continued ambiguity and circuit splits on how to apply this historical analogy test.State standing is often easier to establish due to the "special solicitude" afforded to states as sovereigns and their broad array of proprietary and quasi-sovereign interests. States can sue parens patriae to protect the health and well-being of their residents, unlike private citizens who must show a particularized injury.Qui tam actions allow private individuals (relators) to sue on behalf of the federal government for injuries suffered by the government, often in exchange for a financial reward. This expands standing by effectively assigning the government's injury-in-fact to the relator, rooted in a long historical practice.

Virtual Course: November 6-8, 2025 (Course #2503269) Learn more and register at https://www.aaos.org/education/courses/2503269-3345/ Course Directors: J. Mark Melhorn MD FAAOS, Marilyn L. Yodlowski MD PhD FAAOS, and Barry Gelinas MD DC FIAIME Supplemental articles: Review article “A Comprehensive Review of Injury Causation Analysis Methodology for the Assessment of Workers' Compensation and Motor Vehicle Collision Injuries” from the March 1, 2025 issue. JAAOS Global Research article “Workers' Compensation: The Burden on Healthcare Resource Utilization After Foot and Ankle Surgery” from the December, 2023 issue. Research article “The Influence of Workers' Compensation Status on Patient-Reported Outcomes after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty at an Ambulatory Surgical Center” from the September 1, 2023 issue. AAOS Now article “Why Workers' Compensation Expertise Still Matters for Orthopaedic Surgeons” 17:16-2023. AAOS Now article “Workers' Compensation Cases: Learn the Differences between ‘Medically Necessary,' ‘Reasonable,' and ‘Appropriate'” 15:28-29, 2021.   The JAAOS Journal Club podcast series is brought to you by the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the AAOS Resident Assembly. The opinions expressed in the podcast are those of the speakers and not necessarily those of AAOS. The opinions, information, and discussions presented in the podcast are for general informational and educational purposes only.  The podcast is not intended to provide legal advice as each case and jurisdiction will vary.  Medical professionals should consult with their own attorney or an attorney involved in the claims process to address questions or concerns about any legal aspects associated with the patient evaluation.

Discover how causal AI transforms marketing analytics by solving the correlation vs. causation dilemma. Learn why outdated Marketing Mix Modeling (MMM) can't keep up, and how causal AI provides actionable, real-time insights for CMOs and CFOs. SHOWPAGE:  https://www.ninjacat.io/blog/wgm-podcast-make-better-bets-with-causal-ai  © 2025, NinjaCat

As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe Professor John Norton has spent decades dismantling the hidden assumptions in physics from Newton's determinism to the myth of Landauer's Principle. In this episode, he explains why causation may not be real, how classical physics breaks down, and why even Einstein got some things wrong. If you're ready to rethink the foundations of science, this one's essential. Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 03:37 Norton's Dome Explained 06:30 The Misunderstanding of Determinism 09:31 Thermodynamics and Infinite Systems 14:39 Implications for Quantum Mechanics 16:20 Revisiting Causation 18:15 Critique of Causal Metaphysics 20:21 The Utility of Causal Language 24:58 Exploring Thought Experiments 33:05 Landauer's Principle Discussion 49:48 Critique of Experimental Validation 52:25 Consequences for Maxwell's Demon 1:13:34 Einstein's Critiques of Quantum Mechanics 1:28:16 The Nature of Scientific Discovery 1:42:56 Inductive Inferences in Science Links Mentioned: •⁠ ⁠A Primer on Determinism (book): https://amzn.to/45Jn3b4 •⁠ ⁠John Norton's papers: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=UDteMFoAAAAJ •⁠ ⁠Causation as Folk Science (paper): https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/003004.pdf •⁠ ⁠Lipschitz continuity (wiki): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipschitz_continuity •⁠ ⁠The Dome: An Unexpectedly Simple Failure of Determinism (paper): https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2943/1/Norton.pdf •⁠ ⁠Norton's Dome (wiki): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton%27s_dome •⁠ ⁠Approximation and Idealization (paper): https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Ideal_Approx_final.pdf •⁠ ⁠On the Quantum Theory of Radiation (paper): https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/einstein/1917_Radiation.pdf •⁠ ⁠Making Things Happen (book): https://ccc.inaoep.mx/~esucar/Clases-mgc/Making-Things-Happen-A-Theory-of-Causal-Explanation.pdf •⁠ ⁠Causation in Physics (wiki): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-physics/ •⁠ ⁠Laboratory of the Mind (paper): https://www.academia.edu/2644953/REVIEW_James_R_Brown_Laboratory_of_the_Mind •⁠ ⁠Roger Penrose on TOE: https://youtu.be/sGm505TFMbU •⁠ ⁠Ted Jacobson on TOE: https://youtu.be/3mhctWlXyV8 •⁠ ⁠The Thermodynamics of Computation (paper): https://sites.cc.gatech.edu/computing/nano/documents/Bennett%20-%20The%20Thermodynamics%20Of%20Computation.pdf •⁠ ⁠What's Actually Possible? (article): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/p/the-unexamined-in-principle •⁠ ⁠On a Decrease of Entropy in a Thermodynamic System (paper): https://fab.cba.mit.edu/classes/862.22/notes/computation/Szilard-1929.pdf •⁠ ⁠Landauer's principle and thermodynamics (article): https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10872 •⁠ ⁠The Logical Inconsistency of Old Quantum Theory of Black Body Radiation (paper): https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Inconsistency_OQT.pdf SUPPORT: - Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join - Support me on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal - Support me on Crypto: https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/de803625-87d3-4300-ab6d-85d4258834a9 - Support me on PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=XUBHNMFXUX5S4 SOCIALS: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs #science Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Are you like Kurt, stuck wearing a pair of 'lucky socks' every time your team plays, no matter what the outcome of the game turns out to be? In this month's bonus, we explore why we hold onto superstitions, like lucky socks, even when we know they don't work. From BF Skinner's pigeons to social identity theory, we unpack the behavioral science behind our game-day rituals, however irrational, and discuss the sense of agency, control, and belonging that they create.  Topics [0:00] Intro: Kurt's Lucky Socks [3:38] The Placebo Effect [7:27] Mistaking Correlation for Causation [11:58] Social Identity and Group Belonging [16:34] The Psychological Benefits of Superstitions Links Join our Substack! Join the Behavioral Grooves community Subscribe to Behavioral Grooves on YouTube  

Get a free 8-count Sample Pack of LMNT's most popular drink mix flavors with any purchase at https://DrinkLMNT.com/THEORIES Top physicists Emily Adlam and Jacob Barandes deliver a powerful takedown of the Many Worlds Interpretation. In this episode, they expose why it's more philosophical fantasy than scientific theory, revealing its lack of testability, predictive power, and real-world grounding. If you've ever questioned whether parallel universes are legitimate physics or just sci-fi masquerading as science, this conversation will challenge everything. As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Watch on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 01:08 Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics 3:22 The Nature of Self-Identity 10:59 Exploring Branching Universes 12:54 Collaboration Between Physicists and Philosophers 16:51 Understanding Probability and Credence 29:12 The Role of Indexicals in Consciousness 36:36 Causation and Its Implications 45:45 Disagreement on Personal Identity 51:03 The Hard Problem of Consciousness 1:00:35 Reflections on Conscious Experience 1:08:05 Concluding Thoughts on Mind and Identity 1:08:48 Time and Mind 1:09:09 The Concept of the World Line 1:14:43 Active Consciousness and Agency 1:19:12 The Hard Problem of Consciousness 1:36:15 Emergence in Physics 1:55:46 Speculation vs. Rigorous Argument 2:06:13 Philosophy's Contribution to Physics 2:12:43 Bridging Philosophy and Physics Links Mentioned: •⁠ ⁠Emily's first appearance on TOE: https://youtu.be/6I2OhmVWLMs •⁠ ⁠Emily's profile: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emily-Adlam •⁠ ⁠Jacob's first appearance on TOE: https://youtu.be/7oWip00iXbo •⁠ ⁠Jacob's website: https://www.jacobbarandes.com/ •⁠ ⁠Jacob Barandes on TOE: https://youtu.be/YaS1usLeXQM •⁠ ⁠Against Self-Location (paper): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.05259 •⁠ ⁠Eddy Chen & Barry Loewer on TOE: https://youtu.be/xZnafO__IZ0 •⁠ ⁠Julian Barbour on TOE: https://youtu.be/bprxrGaf0Os •⁠ ⁠Robert Sapolsky on TOE: https://youtu.be/z0IqA1hYKY8 •⁠ ⁠Curt's Consciousness Iceberg: https://youtu.be/65yjqIDghEk •⁠ ⁠Iain McGilchrist on TOE: https://youtu.be/Q9sBKCd2HD0 •⁠ ⁠Stories of Your Life and Others (book): https://www.amazon.com/dp/1101972122 •⁠ ⁠Matt Segall on TOE: https://youtu.be/DeTm4fSXpbM •⁠ ⁠TOE's Free Will compilation: https://youtu.be/SSbUCEleJhg •⁠ ⁠Manolis Kellis & Jacob Barandes debate: https://youtu.be/MTD8xkbiGis •⁠ ⁠“The Incompatibility of Free Will and Determinism” (paper): https://iweb.langara.ca/rjohns/files/2013/01/van_inwagen.pdf •⁠ ⁠After Physics (book): https://www.amazon.com/dp/067497087X •⁠ ⁠Michael Levin on TOE: https://youtu.be/c8iFtaltX-s SUPPORT: - Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join - Support me on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal - Support me on Crypto: https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/de803625-87d3-4300-ab6d-85d4258834a9 - Support me on PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=XUBHNMFXUX5S4 SOCIALS: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs #science Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This lecture provides a comprehensive overview of substantive criminal law, focusing on the elements of crimes, defenses available to defendants, and specific categories of crimes such as homicide and inchoate offenses. It emphasizes the importance of understanding actus reus, mens rea, and various defenses to criminal liability, which are crucial for success in bar examinations and legal practice.TakeawaysCriminal law principles are essential for bar exam success.Actus reus and mens rea are foundational to criminal liability.Causation is critical in determining liability for result crimes.Specific intent crimes allow for defenses like voluntary intoxication.General intent crimes permit reasonable mistakes of fact as defenses.Strict liability crimes do not require proof of mens rea.Homicide is a heavily litigated area of criminal law.Manslaughter is categorized into voluntary and involuntary types.Inchoate offenses punish conduct directed toward a crime.Defenses to criminal liability include self-defense and necessity.criminal law, substantive crimes, defenses, actus reus, mens rea, homicide, inchoate offenses, property crimes, defenses to liability

Matt Slick Live (Live Broadcast of 06-24-2025) is a production of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM). Matt answers questions on topics such as: The Bible, Apologetics, Theology, World Religions, Atheism, and other issues! You can also email questions to Matt using: info@carm.org, Put "Radio Show Question" in the Subject line! Answers will be discussed in a future show. Topics Include:Is There a Difference Between Support of Israel and Zionism?/ How Much Does God Predestine in Our Personal Lives?/Principles of Causation and How They Relate to God's and Man's Wills/ A Caller Suffering The Heartache of a Dying Loved One/ Why Do Christians and Others Say “They” Are The Chosen Ones?/ The Acceptance of Bodily Death for Christians/ What is The Doctrine of “Laying On of Hands”/ How Does Matt Approach His Study of The Bible?/ June 24, 2025

Matt Slick Live (Live Broadcast of 06-24-2025) is a production of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM). Matt answers questions on topics such as: The Bible, Apologetics, Theology, World Religions, Atheism, and other issues! You can also email questions to Matt using: info@carm.org, Put "Radio Show Question" in the Subject line! Answers will be discussed in a future show. Topics Include: Is There a Difference Between Support of Israel and Zionism?/ How Much Does God Predestine in Our Personal Lives?/Principles of Causation and How They Relate to God and Man's Wills/ A Caller Suffering The Heartache of a Dying Loved One/ Why Do Christians and Others Say "They" Are The Chosen Ones?/ The Acceptance of Death for Christians/ What is The Doctrine of "Laying On of Hands"/ How Does Matt Approach His Study of The Bible?/ June 24, 2025

Matt Slick Live (Live Broadcast of 06-24-2025) is a production of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM). Matt answers questions on topics such as: The Bible, Apologetics, Theology, World Religions, Atheism, and other issues! You can also email questions to Matt using: info@carm.org, Put "Radio Show Question" in the Subject line! Answers will be discussed in a future show. Topics Include:Is There a Difference Between Support of Israel and Zionism?/ How Much Does God Predestine in Our Personal Lives?/Principles of Causation and How They Relate to God's and Man's Wills/ A Caller Suffering The Heartache of a Dying Loved One/ Why Do Christians and Others Say “They” Are The Chosen Ones?/ The Acceptance of Bodily Death for Christians/ What is The Doctrine of “Laying On of Hands”/ How Does Matt Approach His Study of The Bible?/ June 24, 2025

This lecture provides a comprehensive overview of tort law, focusing on intentional torts and negligence. It covers the definitions, elements, and defenses associated with these legal concepts, along with practical examples and exam strategies for bar exam preparation. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding these principles for both the MBE and MEE portions of the bar exam.TakeawaysIntentional torts involve deliberate conduct that causes harm.Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise reasonable care.Consent can negate liability in intentional torts.Self-defense allows for reasonable force against imminent harm.Assumption of risk can bar recovery in negligence cases.Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme conduct.Duty is a legal obligation to conform to a standard of care.Breach occurs when the standard of care is not met.Causation includes both actual and proximate causes.Understanding tort law is crucial for bar exam success.torts, intentional torts, negligence, legal defenses, bar exam, civil liability, tort law, legal standards, exam strategies, MBE, MEE

As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe Are the laws of physics governing forces or elegant summaries? In this deep and often humorous debate, Barry Loewer of Rutgers and Eddy Chen of UC San Diego clash over the very nature of physical reality. Are the laws of nature real, mind independent constraints that shape what's possible or are they human made descriptions of observed patterns? Together they explore metaphysics, causation, probability, and whether the universe is truly ruled by anything at all. A must watch for anyone questioning the foundations of science itself. Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Timestamps: 00:00 The Nature of Physical Reality 42:28 The Circularity of Scientific Understanding 1:05:44 Reality Explored 1:08:28 Describing Human Experience 1:10:10 The Role of Science 1:10:58 Understanding Motion and Laws 1:12:19 The Nature of Laws 1:14:55 Possible Worlds in Philosophy 1:18:05 Configuration Space Debate 1:21:10 Quantum Mechanics and Reality 1:22:50 Metaphysical Necessity 1:27:13 The Nature of Free Will 1:30:14 Bridging Philosophy and Science 1:32:05 Constraints and Freedom 1:34:57 Philosophical Disputes 1:39:08 The Journey of Learning 2:05:16 Teaching and Learning Dynamics 2:07:23 Closing Reflections Links Mentioned: •⁠ ⁠Barry's published papers: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=n_RTOwO00oEC&hl=en •⁠ ⁠Eddy's published papers: https://arxiv.org/a/chen_e_1.html •⁠ ⁠Neil Turok on TOE: https://youtu.be/ZUp9x44N3uE •⁠ ⁠Greg Chaitin on TOE: https://youtu.be/zMPnrNL3zsE •⁠ ⁠Leonard Susskind on TOE: https://youtu.be/2p_Hlm6aCok •⁠ ⁠Emily Adlam on TOE: https://youtu.be/6I2OhmVWLMs •⁠ ⁠Laws of Nature and Chances (book): https://www.amazon.com/Laws-Nature-Chances-Breathes-Equations/dp/0198907699 •⁠ ⁠Laws of Physics (book): https://www.amazon.com/Laws-Physics-Elements-Philosophy/dp/100901272X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1CHA72RYFUOI8&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.OjkhTXRzZw_SWTMFZp8dUtREsTxacKuwg03AsLUUp6qLCuygS74CtEgujWl7wMvVEt-ErFEz-CfFLiiXTmuUCwKq0TW4WLFIA3DIhDNVaV4.gRuqaZldjUa8Kv_j1ew-CfZGQqtdt00X55fyMZ9NGD4&dib_tag=se&keywords=eddy+chen&qid=1749667626&s=books&sprefix=eddy+chen%2Cstripbooks%2C128&sr=1-1 •⁠ ⁠On the Plurality of Worlds (book): https://www.amazon.com/Plurality-Worlds-David-K-Lewis/dp/0631224262 •⁠ ⁠Tim Maudlin on TOE: https://youtu.be/fU1bs5o3nss •⁠ ⁠Tim Maudlin and Tim Palmer on TOE: https://youtu.be/883R3JlZHXE •⁠ ⁠How Physics Makes Us Free (book): https://www.amazon.com/How-Physics-Makes-Us-Free/dp/0190269448 •⁠ ⁠From Time Asymmetry to Quantum Entanglement (paper): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.05029 •⁠ ⁠Jacob Barandes on TOE: https://youtu.be/7oWip00iXbo •⁠ ⁠Realism with a Human Face (book): https://www.amazon.com/Realism-Human-Face-Hilary-Putnam/dp/0674749456 •⁠ ⁠Causation and Laws of Nature in Early Modern Philosophy (book): https://www.amazon.com/Causation-Nature-Early-Modern-Philosophy/dp/0199664684/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0 •⁠ ⁠The Maniac (book): https://www.amazon.com/MANIAC-Benjamin-Labatut/dp/0593654471 •⁠ ⁠When We Cease to Understand the World (book): https://www.amazon.com/When-We-Cease-Understand-World/dp/1681375664 •⁠ ⁠Eddy's paper on time and nature: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.09226 SUPPORT: - Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join - Support me on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal - Support me on Crypto: https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/de803625-87d3-4300-ab6d-85d4258834a9 - Support me on PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=XUBHNMFXUX5S4 SOCIALS: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs #science Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Podcast sponsors:1) Trinergy Health offers a 6-month program for mind-body recovery and wellness. Based on the foundational framework of Diet/trauma/toxins. To schedule an intake appointment, go to https://psychiatry2.com/schedule/ or call 262-955-6601. Use code Rav10 to get 10% discount for holistic psychiatry program.2) Alcami Elements - a natural, adaptogenic herbal supplement to kickstart your day! https://www.alcamielements.com/ Receive 10% OFF first order or 30% OFF subscription order using code: ILLUSIONIn this episode, Rav is joined by journalist and author Mia Hughes (The WPATH Files) for a wide-ranging conversation on the rise of gender dysphoria, particularly among adolescent girls. They explore the psychological and cultural forces driving this trend, including trauma, social contagion, and the influence of online communities. Mia shares her personal journey and offers a critical perspective on gender-affirming care, the phenomenon of autogynephilia, and the concept of diagnostic overshadowing—where gender identity becomes the sole focus of treatment at the expense of underlying mental health conditions. Together, they reflect on the ethical dilemmas within the trans rights movement, the medicalization of nonconforming identity, and the growing cultural shift toward victimhood over resilience.Chapters:00:00 Introduction to Gender Affirming Care02:02 Mia Hughes' Journey and Background05:20 The WPATH Files and Medical Scandal07:49 Statistics and Social Contagion in Gender Dysphoria12:55 Counterarguments: Transgender Identification vs. Homosexuality15:45 The Nature of Gender Dysphoria21:16 Understanding Autogynephilia27:26 The Impact of Trans Rights Movement33:01 Comparing Autogynephilia and Homosexuality40:23 Understanding Autogynephilia and Its Implications44:04 The Debate on Gender-Affirming Care50:29 Demographics of Gender Dysphoria58:49 The Role of Trauma in Gender Dysphoria01:12:32 Causation vs Correlation in Gender Identity01:14:58 Understanding Mental Health: Symptoms vs. Explanations01:18:47 The Role of Trauma in Mental Health01:21:35 The DSM and the Nature of Psychiatric Diagnoses01:24:29 The Impact of Labels on Mental Health01:27:48 Mindfulness and Mental Health01:32:23 The Utility of Diagnoses in Self-Discovery01:36:34 Navigating ADHD and Attention Issues01:42:11 The Paradox of Modern Life and Mental Health01:45:53 Victimhood Culture and Mental Health Perspectives This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

Send us a text*Causal Inference From Human Behavior, Reproducibility Crisis & The Power of Causal Graphs*Is Jonathan Heidt right that social media causes the mental health crisis in young people?If so, how can we be sure?Can other disciplines learn something from the reproducibility crisis in Psychology, and what is multiverse analysis?Join us for a conversation on causal inference from human behavior, the reproducibility crisis in sciences, and the power of causal graphs!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Audio version available on YouTube: https://youtu.be/YQetmI-y5gMRecorded on May 16, 2025, in Leipzig, Germany.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*About The Guest*Julia Rohrer, PhD, is a researcher and personality psychologist at the University of Leipzig. She's interested in the effects of birth order, age patterns in personality, human well-being, and causal inference. Her works have been published in top journals, including Nature Human Behavior. She has been an active advocate for increased research transparency, and she continues this mission as a senior editor of Psychological Science. Julia frequently gives talks about good practices in science and causal inference. You can read Julia's blog at https://www.the100.ci/*Links*Papers- Rohrer, J. (2024) "Causal inference for psychologists who think that causal inference is not for them" (https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12948)- Bailey, D., ..., Rohrer, J. et al (2024) "Causal inference on human behaviour" (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01939-z.epdf)- Rohrer, J. et al (2024) "The Effects of Satisfaction with Different Domains of Life on GenInspiring Tech Leaders - The Technology PodcastInterviews with Tech Leaders and insights on the latest emerging technology trends.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the showCausal Bandits PodcastCausal AI || Causal Machine Learning || Causal Inference & DiscoveryWeb: https://causalbanditspodcast.comConnect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aleksandermolak/Join Causal Python Weekly: https://causalpython.io The Causal Book: https://amzn.to/3QhsRz4

Summary In this episode, Ali Damron introduces the concept of neuroplastic symptoms, explaining how they manifest as real physical symptoms generated by the brain and nervous system. She discusses the importance of understanding neuroplastic pain, the confusion surrounding correlation versus causation in medical diagnoses, and the cycle of fear that can exacerbate symptoms. Ali emphasizes the brain's ability to rewire itself and the potential for healing through awareness and understanding of these processes. She encourages listeners to explore resources and take actionable steps towards healing. Takeaways Neuroplastic symptoms can change your view on health. Symptoms like pain and fatigue are brain-generated. Chronic pain often has neuroplastic origins. Correlation does not imply causation in medical tests. Many people have abnormal scans without symptoms. Fear can exacerbate the symptom cycle. Healing requires understanding the brain's role. You are not broken; healing is possible. Resources are available for understanding neuroplastic pain. You have the power to heal yourself. Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Neuroplastic Symptoms 01:01 Understanding Neuroplastic Pain 05:35 The Confusion of Correlation vs. Causation 10:11 Breaking the Symptom Fear Cycle 12:31 Path Forward and Resources     Ali's Resources:  Calm the Chaos: Practical Tips and Tools for Stopping Anxiety in It's Tracks Course! Consults with Ali  BIOptimizers Magnesium Breakthrough 10% off using code ALIDAMRON10 www.alidamron.com/magnesium Master Your Perimenopause Course + Toolkit "Am I in Perimenopause?" Checklist.  What Hormone is Imbalanced? Quiz! Fullscript (Get 10% off all supplements) "How To Balance Your Hormones For Better Sleep, Mood, Periods and Energy" Free, On Demand Training Website  Ali's Instagram Ali's Facebook Group: Holistic Health with Ali Damron 

In this episode of “Beyond the Pill: Demystifying Evidence, Numbers & Causation in Psychopharmacology,” we pull back the curtain on how psychiatric medications earn their stripes—and what their numbers really mean. You'll learn: • Why all studies aren't created equal, from meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials down to cohort studies and case reports, and the ethical or practical reasons behind each design. • How to interpret NNT (Number Needed to Treat) and NNH (Number Needed to Harm) so you can weigh benefits against risks in plain English. • The danger of assuming causation from correlation, illustrated by the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy—think ice cream sales and shark attacks—and how the Bradford Hill criteria help us tease out true cause-and-effect relationships.Whether you're a patient curious about why your psychiatrist chose a particular drug or a clinician sharpening your critical-thinking toolkit, this episode will give you the evidence-based perspective you need to make informed decisions—beyond the pill.

Podcast Show Notes: Scoliosis Treatment with Dr. Tony Nalda Episode Title: What Are the Different Types of Scoliosis? Episode Summary: Not all scoliosis is the same. While a diagnosis of “scoliosis” can sound straightforward, the type, cause, location, and severity of the curve make a huge difference in how it should be treated. In this episode of Scoliosis Treatment with Dr. Tony Nalda, we break down the different types of scoliosis, what causes them, and how these distinctions impact treatment decisions. If you or a loved one has been told, "You have scoliosis," this episode is essential for understanding what that truly means—and why personalized care is key to long-term success. Key Topics Covered: ✅ How Scoliosis Is Diagnosed: Defined as a sideways spinal curve of 10° or more, with rotation Measured using a Cobb angle on spinal X-rays Severity Categories: Mild: 10–25° Moderate: 25–40° Severe: 40°+ Very Severe: 80°+ ✅ Types of Scoliosis Based on Cause: Idiopathic Scoliosis (80% of cases): No clear cause; most common form Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) is the most typical subtype Neuromuscular Scoliosis: Secondary to conditions like cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, or tethered cord Often linked to poor muscle tone or connective tissue dysfunction Congenital Scoliosis: Caused by malformations during fetal development, such as hemivertebrae Degenerative (De Novo) Scoliosis: Develops later in life due to asymmetrical spinal degeneration, often from old injuries or unresolved misalignments Traumatic Scoliosis: Caused by a severe injury, such as a fall or accident ✅ Types of Scoliosis Based on Curve Location: Cervical (Neck) Thoracic (Mid-Back) Lumbar (Lower Back) Thoracolumbar (Transitional Area) Multi-curve presentations such as double major or cervicothoracic scoliosis ✅ Why Curve Type and Cause Matter in Treatment: Treatment plans must consider: Causation (neuromuscular, congenital, idiopathic, etc.) Curve location Severity at diagnosis Age and growth stage These factors help determine whether a patient would benefit most from: Chiropractic-based conservative treatment Bracing Specialized exercises Therapy tailored to their unique curve pattern Key Takeaways: ➡️ Saying "you have scoliosis" is too vague—type, cause, and location all affect treatment strategy.➡️ Idiopathic scoliosis is the most common, but other types like neuromuscular or degenerative require very different approaches.➡️ Every scoliosis curve has the potential to progress—that's why addressing the structural problem early is essential.➡️ At Scoliosis Reduction Center, treatment plans are built around each patient's specific curve and contributing factors. Resources & Links:

Title: Journal Club Series Episode 11- Measurement of association and effect (eg, correlation & causation) Target Audience This activity is directed to physicians, medical students, nurse practitioners, nurses, and physician assistants. Objectives: Upon completion of this activity, participants should be able to:      Review measurement of association and effect.      Review relative risk & Odds ratio.  Course Directors: Tony R. Tarchichi MD — Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC.) Paul C. Gaffney Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine. No relationships with industry relevant to the content of this educational activity have been disclosed. Matthew Wilkinson MD, MPH - Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School Dr. Wilkinson discloses that he is a consultant for Koru Medical and is a stockholder with EM Device Lab. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: No other planners, members of the planning committee, speakers, presenters, authors, content reviewers and/or anyone else in a position to control the content of this education activity have relevant financial relationships to disclose. Accreditation Statement: In support of improving patient care, the University of Pittsburgh is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.  The University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine designates this enduring material activity for a maximum of 0.5 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditsTM. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Other health care professionals will receive a certificate of attendance confirming the number of contact hours commensurate with the extent of participation in this activity.   Disclaimer Statement: The information presented at this activity represents the views and opinions of the individual presenters, and does not constitute the opinion or endorsement of, or promotion by, the UPMC Center for Continuing Education in the Health Sciences, UPMC / University of Pittsburgh Medical Center or Affiliates and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.  Reasonable efforts have been taken intending for educational subject matter to be presented in a balanced, unbiased fashion and in compliance with regulatory requirements. However, each program attendee must always use his/her own personal and professional judgment when considering further application of this information, particularly as it may relate to patient diagnostic or treatment decisions including, without limitation, FDA-approved uses and any off-label uses. Released 4/15/2025,  Expires 4/15/2028 The direct link to the course is provided below: https://cme.hs.pitt.edu/ISER/app/learner/loadModule?moduleId=25794&dev=true

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today we're exploring some complex aspects of criminal law that frequently appear on exams -- the felony murder rule and causation in homicide cases. We have included an analysis of two hypothetical scenarios to illustrate these legal principles. In this episode, we discuss: Review of the felony murder rule Which felonies are considered inherently dangerous? The death of a co-felon rule Causation in homicide cases, and when is the chain of causation broken? Analysis of two hypothetical criminal law scenarios Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) Podcast Episode 87: Listen and Learn – Homicide  (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-87-listen-and-learn-homicide/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-309-listen-and-learn-felony-murder-and-causation-criminal-law/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Today we are joined by physicist and philosopher Emily Adlam for her first appearance on Theories of Everything to challenge one of the deepest assumptions in science: that time flows. In this thought-provoking conversation, Adlam presents her “all-at-once” view of physics, where the universe is more like a completed Sudoku puzzle than a film playing forward. We explore the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, the role of the observer, the illusion of causality, and why these foundational questions demand both philosophical clarity and scientific precision. As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Listen on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/SpotifyTOE Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join Links Mentioned: •⁠ ⁠Emily's profile: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emily-Adlam •⁠ ⁠Spooky Action at a Temporal Distance (paper): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7512241/pdf/entropy-20-00041.pdf •⁠ ⁠Quantum Field Theory and the Limits of Reductionism (paper): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.20457 •⁠ ⁠Two Roads of Retrocausality (paper): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.12934 •⁠ ⁠Taxonomy for Physics Beyond Quantum Mechanics (paper): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.12293 •⁠ ⁠Strong Determinism (paper): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.02886 •⁠ ⁠Carlo Rovelli on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF4SAketEHY •⁠ ⁠Stephen Wolfram on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YRlQQw0d-4 •⁠ ⁠Emily interviewed about Nonlocality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR7aPlZg7dE&ab_channel=GeorgeMusser •⁠ ⁠Tim Palmer on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlklA6jsS8A •⁠ ⁠Tim Maudlin on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU1bs5o3nss •⁠ ⁠Algorithmic Randomness and Probabilistic Laws (paper): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.01411 •⁠ ⁠Governing Without a Fundamental Direction of Time (paper): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.09226 •⁠ ⁠Matt Segal on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeTm4fSXpbM •⁠ ⁠Jacob Barandes on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oWip00iXbo&list=PLZ7ikzmc6zlN6E8KrxcYCWQIHg2tfkqvR&index=33 •⁠ ⁠Sabine Hossenfelder on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3y-Z0pgupg&t=1s •⁠ ⁠Bernardo Kastrup and Sabine on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJmBmopxc1k&t=755s&ab_channel=CurtJaimungal •⁠ ⁠Sean Carroll on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AoRxtYZrZo Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 00:56 Observers in Quantum Mechanics 02:15 The Measurement Problem 06:23 Dogmas in Quantum Foundations 08:24 Causation and Its Philosophical Implications 09:12 The Arrow of Time and Its Mysteries 10:28 Exploring Coarse Graining and Reductionism 13:21 Non-Locality: Temporal vs. Spatial 16:06 The Nature of Non-Locality 19:34 Temporal Non-Locality and Its Implications 21:51 Retrocausality: The All-at-Once Perspective 26:25 The Measurement Problem and All-at-Once Framework 28:24 Observer-Centric Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics 31:29 Probabilities in Physics 32:51 The Process Matrix and Causal Structures 38:33 Foundations of Physics and Philosophy 1:05:16 The Emergence of Space-Time 1:08:11 Exploring Correlations in Physical Parameters 1:10:44 Epistemology of the Measurement Problem 1:13:26 Lessons in Patience and Persistence Support TOE on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs #science Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Correlation or causation for the miracle GLP-1 drugs. Hour 3 4/7/2025 full 1994 Mon, 07 Apr 2025 21:00:00 +0000 ngLal5OyBYHJDND4z3CPL2jmjPkNSPpW news The Dana & Parks Podcast news Correlation or causation for the miracle GLP-1 drugs. Hour 3 4/7/2025 You wanted it... Now here it is! Listen to each hour of the Dana & Parks Show whenever and wherever you want! 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News False https://player.amperwav

Steven Myers of the Pharaoh's Pump Foundation joins us to discuss the fascinating idea, and engineering, that the Great Pyramid of Giza was once a water pump, a kind of Egyptian aqueduct system used to create incredible property for its builders. The idea was first proposed by Edward Kunkel in the mid-20th century, though there are hints of this idea within the writings of Herodotus and mainline archeological facts such as: water tight construction, the pyramid retaining wall, and a limestone facing long since removed. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tst-radio--5328407/support.

Send us a textWhat happens when we no longer consume scarce information through trusted, verified institutions, but instead through an abundance of unbundled content without context or curation? John Green, rising star in political science from Duke University, takes us on a tour of the rapidly evolving  landscape of political information.Green challenges conventional wisdom about how ideologies function, arguing they're not so much coherent philosophical systems as they are socially shared belief networks. In these networks, most people specialize in just one or two issues they deeply care about, while adopting their coalition's positions on everything else. This creates an environment where signaling group loyalty becomes crucial—explaining why people sometimes make outrageous claims not despite their falsity, but precisely because the willingness to say something costly signals authentic commitment.The conversation takes an illuminating turn when Green unpacks his groundbreaking research on "curation bubbles." Unlike echo chambers or filter bubbles, these environments emerge when people strategically share content based on its utility for their side, regardless of source. A conservative might enthusiastically share a New York Times article criticizing Democrats, while generally dismissing the publication as biased. This selective curation creates information environments that are neither completely closed nor genuinely diverse.Perhaps most troubling is Green's insight about misinformation in the digital age. The real danger isn't simply false claims from unreliable sources, but rather the strategic repurposing of true information to create misleading narratives. When accurate statistics or facts are stripped of context and woven into deceptive frameworks, traditional fact-checking approaches fall short.As we navigate this unbundled media landscape, the question remains: can we rebuild institutions that verify and curate information effectively? The answer may determine the future of our shared reality and democratic discourse.Jon Green at Duke"Curation Bubbles" in APSRConverse on Belief SystemsMunger on "Direction of Causation"Letter Response:Sweden is NOT socialist!  (If you don't believe me, believe Andreas Bergh...)Book'o'da Month:  Alexander Kirshner, Legitimate Opposition, 2022, Yale University Press.  ISBN:  9780300243468. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300243468/legitimate-opposition/Excellent podcast with Kirshner on the book. If you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz