Thanks for watching my latest episode. Let me know your thoughts and opinions down below in a comment. If you like my content and want to support me, consider becoming a paying member of the Coleman Unfiltered Community here --> bit.ly/3B1GAlS

@markpovell

7 ай бұрын

Thank you for producing this fascinating discussion

Coleman got David Deutsch on his podcast! Good job!

@AndyMann-vs3sf

Жыл бұрын

😂😂

@alistairjarrett5343

10 ай бұрын

Everyone. NO I MEAN.. EVERYONE who can... SHOULD listen to David. He knows more than anyone else in mainstream theoretical physics - underlying ALL scientific gain.

Holy smokes! David Deutsch is a huge fish to catch! He's simply a joy to listen to in every sentence he utters

@AndyMann-vs3sf

Жыл бұрын

😆

@alistairjarrett5343

10 ай бұрын

NO SHIT SCHERLOCK!!#

Surely the biggest brain on the planet who seems on a whole other level in his understanding. His ability to explain complex things so clearly is astounding. And seems such a nice guy too! Brilliant show!

David’s always enlightening, despite being asked about the same topics all the time he always presents some new gold in his answers.

@oliverjamito9902

2 ай бұрын

Given ABLE! Meaning? Such a privilege indeed!

@oliverjamito9902

2 ай бұрын

Students shared "i" AM will say, what is life? Unto all the wise and scribes in front? Remember before approaching being offended nor easily can be bent out of shape! Increase go find thy rightful place upon all shared Feet resting upon my Footstool! Old minds where ye all came from? I'll wait right Here!

@oliverjamito9902

2 ай бұрын

Don't mind unto my scientists shared "i" AM! Knows why persevere and heard the WORD! But among "who am I"? Yes, Angels who persevere knows? These unseen principalities who deceiveth and murderers sitting in high places unseen exalted with pride before the fall. In front of WHO?

Wow I've never heard of David Deutsche. He is a great pleasure to listen to

@maxcarlsson8334

10 ай бұрын

Wow you’re in for a treat if you explore his other stuff

This was good. Thank you for asking questions for a more general audience. These were some of David Deutsch’s clearest answers to closer-to-everyday questions.

every time I see DD I feel like someone has been tweaking with my brain.

Deutsch is both precise yet not pedantic. Pure beauty.

37:33 ....... aaaaaaaand I'm utterly blown away. This man needs to be protected at all costs.

Coleman, thank you for having him and thanks for some very good questions. I knew I had to read "The Beginning of Infinity" when Steven Pinker referred to David Deutsch as a genius. I was not disappointed; it is the most idea-dense book I have read.

@EmperorsNewWardrobe

Жыл бұрын

Besides being idea-dense, what is it you like about it so much?

@isaacsaxton-knight7708

11 ай бұрын

David Deutsch is brilliant, but Steven Pinker is overblown and so you shouldn't form your opinion of Deutsch on Pinker's

@EmperorsNewWardrobe

11 ай бұрын

@@isaacsaxton-knight7708 how exactly is Steven Pinker overblown?

@isaacsaxton-knight7708

11 ай бұрын

@@EmperorsNewWardrobe I should qualify that it's just my opinion that he's overblown; I personally think he that in better angels of our nature he is guilty of the heuristic biases he talks about in enlightenment now. He highlights the positive trends that have occured in society while ignoring the trends that go in the other direction

@EmperorsNewWardrobe

11 ай бұрын

@@isaacsaxton-knight7708 if it’s just your opinion that he’s overblown, can it just be dismissed for not actually being a meritable argument?

Good lord a full fantastic interview with David Deutsch, I’m now a fan Coleman - thanks for structuring this so well!

@El_Diablo_12

7 ай бұрын

Now a fan of you Coleman from your Israel Palestine coverage too

Refreshing, to say the least! First but not last time visitor. Great job.

Wow! David Deutsch! Good job, Coleman!

Thank you Coleman for introducing this guest to us.

I always love me some coleman philosophy

Thank you for the amazing conversation!

Breathtaking Depth!! Thanks David for making the world more beautiful and mysterious!

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

surely less mysterious - he makes 'unintelligible' the 'double slit' phenomenon explicable - many worlds !

@ashikpanigrahi

Ай бұрын

@@MichaelDoran-gh6pv couldn’t agree more. I should’ve worded it better, I meant more in the sense of Wonder and awe. 😄

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

@@ashikpanigrahi Gotcha ! We love him ! And it is perhaps not mysterious but jaw dropping that (God help us!) there are infinite numbers of you and me exchanging these comments. If you haven't read it, get a copy of 'The beginnings of Infinity'. I have no maths - no maths required !

wow, I can’t believe Deutsch managed to land a spot on Coleman’s show!

I love listening to explanations of physics way beyond my mental capacity 😊

@alistairjarrett5343

10 ай бұрын

occums razor. The better you understand what you're saying the easier it is to understand.

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

@@alistairjarrett5343 Occams Razor is the principle 'don't multiply entities unnecessarily - good explanation is simple'. Interesting thing is that the Everett/Deutsch multiverse (which is clearly correct) breaches Occam by having an infinity of universes. Which is why Richard Dawkins fins it 'abhorrent'. But the Everett.Deutsch multivers is beautifully simple. It gives us an infinity of universes but gives us a single explanation which fits the data (Mach Zender, Double Slit) and avoids the Copenhagen nonsense. Why wouldn't the universes be infinite ? Who arbitrarily limited the infinite possibilities of a mathematical universe at the outset ? (whatever 'outset' means in an infinite time and space !).

David is a genius of our time

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

agreed, but I think I'd replace 'a' with 'the'..

@danielnofal

Ай бұрын

@@MichaelDoran-gh6pv I stand corrected then!

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

sorry Dan ! He's my intellectual hero.

Great discussion. And happy big birthday to David on Thursday! 🎂

Love the way they talk. Trying to be very clear And great listeners With peaces... and leave pauzes quiet... most people are not doing. They just wait till the other is done. Great wondefull ! Is what we need more of. It helps to clear the mind, well form ideas, real share insights, Is best way to get wisdom

This was fantastic to hear! Thanks for having David Deutsch on. I really appreciate this kind of content.

More context about the guest for anyone interested: kzread.info/dash/bejne/f5iIxJino6ved7w.html

About time someone had this guy on, damn. Lex Fridman is missing out.

@xemy1010

Жыл бұрын

True, would be a perfect guest for Lex

Very interesting conversation, thank you !

You have some crazy conversations. This one was mind bending. Thanks for making me think in ways I couldn’t have imagined

People like David always see life as a problem to be solved.

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

He solved it !

I was surprised by premise of Coleman’s last question. Before that he asked how to get to hard to vary explanations. This is the core contribution of David. In the end as if Coleman wasn’t listening to earlier part of the conversation, made a 180 with a dogmatic belief that we don’t occupy the highest levels of intelligence. After David’s explanation of universality, Coleman didn’t acknowledge or deny or change his position. The interview ended abruptly.

@phulcq6716

Жыл бұрын

I think it is conceptually very difficult for people to appreciate David's caveats about speed and memory and separate them from the qualitative argument about universality, which is perhaps why David ends up interrupting himself a lot trying to clarify those points. Speed and memory seem like huge barriers to us intuitively, but David's point is that the gap between a slow computer and a fast one is qualitatively different from the difference between a slide-rule and a (universal) computer. One is only bounded by speed and memory (the computer), whereas the slide-rule simply cannot represent some computations that the computer can, no matter how high it's quality as a slide-rule. The analogy with intelligence would be that the "village idiot" is in some fundamental way just as intellectually powerful as Einstein. The village idiot might be the equivalent of a 1960s computer while Einstein is more like today's supercomputer. Both computers can run any program for which they have sufficient memory to perform the algorithms suggested within. It will only take them different amounts of time, but both would succeed if the computation is possible at all. If memory were a biting constraint for either computer, it could simply be added to make the computation possible. There is nothing possible for the modern computer that isn't possible for the old one. Similarly, perhaps it would take me more than an entire lifetime of thought to come up with what Einstein had come up with by the time he was 26, even if I worked diligently to do so every day. I might simply lack the intellectual resources to do the work quickly enough. However, there is nothing *magical* about what Einstein did with his brain. If his brain could do it, then mine could also do it (or something equivalent), even if it took me much longer, or I needed to find a different way of coming to the same conclusions, or required help from "computational aids" (e.g. drawing pictures or writing down essays where Einstein simply imagined everything in his head). David's argument that we can methodically eliminate the possibility of more fundamental barriers is, for me, persuasive. I think this is a very subtle argument to grasp though, and with all the respect to David in the world, I don't think this was the clearest articulation of the argument he's ever given. So I'm not surprised that it seemed to fail to land here, as it so often does.

@nandorpinter

Жыл бұрын

aptly put, @phulcq

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

@@phulcq6716 Spot on. Our brains have infinite capacity in the sense that they can, in principle, with necessary data, solve every question - 'universal reach'. Or my preferred 'we are very clever monkeys' !

I really enjoyed it.

I didn’t even take high school physics. I took an art elective instead, as I was poised to go to art school.

Excellent interview, Coleman-- thanks much!

What a beautiful mind. Thank you.

27:31 “That story that corresponds to reality, that’s explanation […] Seeking explanations is the essence of science. Seeking agreement with experiment is merely one of the methods of science.”

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

Absolutely. Popper - scientific statements are those capable in principle of being shown to be false'. All scientific claims are therefore provisional. Popper is Deutchs' intellectual hero. I don't think the 27.31 statement is an issue (non professional).

Whoah! Well done. This opens loads of doors, you wouldn't believe. So have Joscha Bach on or Michio Kaku, or Roger Penrose, be brave (or rather, which is closer to the truth, just continue what you're doing, lots of love from the lowlands)

@abitbohr

Жыл бұрын

Michio Kaku is not a serious scientist.

@robdielemans9189

Жыл бұрын

@@abitbohr What about Sabine Hossenfelder or Andre Geim (incidentally a very funny dude btw).

39:00 Heliocentrism was an open question at the time, almost a century after Copernicus had published his work on the subject. A problem arose because the Pope thought Galileo was mocking him as 'Simplicio' in his Dialogue. Galileo's banishment is an example of cancel culture because someone was offended, not of religious dogma somehow proving that science trumped faith. Both Copernicus and Galileo were devout Catholics.

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

Makes sense that the religious power structures don't welcome contact with truth !. To believe in an eternal all good God implies (i) ignorance, (ii) stupidity (iii) duplicity (or any combination of the three). I like Dawkins comment (paraphrase) God created the universe 3 billion years ago. How does he fill in his time now ?

Philosophy is hard! Watching you both struggle through this conversation made me feel better about finding DD's books marvellous but difficult. Also, thanks for making me feel better about ChatGPT, and for the image of a thoughtful monk in a sensory deprivation tank.

@smaug7400

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely agree man! Most people who‘d say that Deutsch is easy to read are either 0.0001% or don‘t understand it at all. I struggled a lot reading it too. On my 2nd run now, taking time notes and breaks to think in between. You are not alone, but it is so worth it. Every time I read something over I understand something new.

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

Russell - read (re read ?) the chapter 'Bad Philosophy' in 'The beginnings of Infinity'. It is crystal clear. Copenhagen is nonsense !

This was great.

1st time here, excellent content, subscribed👍🏾

Very good interview! People usually struggle to understand David's philosophy after a cursory reading, but it was clear from your questions that you really understand what he's talking about. Just an interesting point about quantum gravity - one of the starkest incompatibilities between them is that relativity does not permit absolute simultaneity in general. That is, there can be pairs of events that occur where there is no fact of the matter which happened first - your opinion depends entirely on your reference frame. Quantum mechanics on the other hand seems to insist on absolute simultaneity to explain things like entanglement (two quantum objects affecting each other instantly over extremely vast distances). I believe this was Einstein's main issue with QM in his later years.

@patmoran5339

Жыл бұрын

I need to congratulate you for a fine explanation of your own. I like the way you used comparison, contrast, and then explanation to a current pressing problem in physics. Am also a big fan of Deutsch.

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

On thin ice here, but in the multiverse does not the issue of simultaneity disappear ? We do something locally, establish we are in quantum wave 0000001, then be definition what happens here tells us (in principle) what is happening a vast space/time distance away in this quantum wave and (by extension) what isn't happening. No entanglement. Just forcing of splitting of you and I in our particular universal quantum waves from those that w'e been sharing with our fungible (Deutsch's term) equivalents in similar but distinct universal waves.

Gotta love me some Deutsch

Asking David Deutsch to explain the double slit experiments seems a bit like asking Lewis Hamilton to drive you to the shops, but sure!

@xmathmanx

Жыл бұрын

The double slit experiment has not yet been fully understood and may be beyond understanding, if you regard it as solved you have been misled

Great Podcast

I read "The Beginning of Infinity" but this qualifier of "Explanation" just occurred to me. I think a prediction is equivalent to explanation, so long as the thing that wants to understand an explanation has equivalent access to compute within their conscious access. "Explanation" from Deutsche's view seems to require something like a story a human mind can remember. Therefore, we can expand explanations we have access to by either 1) reducing the computational complexity required for a prediction or 2) increasing the computational capabilities of our conscious experience. I suspect both will be important to further the human project.

@danielnofal

11 ай бұрын

I agree with your last part, for sure, but David would be against you equating explanation with prediction. For him, a prediction it’s out explanation is prophesy. And an explanation can include innumerable predictions. So it is on a different order altogether.

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

@@danielnofal Exactly. Different. Popper is Deutsch's hero. There is no 'proven science' per Popper. All scientific claims may be refuted in the future. They are all provisional. But what defines Scientific claims is that they are in principle refutable by experiment/evidence ; non science (eg 'God is good'), isnt. And still with Popper, a good (albeit logically always provisional) explanation is one which has explanatory depth and breadth and simplicity.

Quite amazing

The proof (or whatever) of explanatory university at the end was amazing.

9:00 the fruit is always on the tree and accessible 12:00 good ad 27:30 explanation is a story that corresponds to reality 1:12:15, 1:15:00 what interference is 1:29:20 quite likely there are animals with brains powerful enough to be people if we could program them right

Students what is life? "Conversations"! Well said! Now what is conversations in front?

1:06:00 this is the best explaination of why the double slit experiment.

David is so mind bendingly insightful. I want to discuss Human Swarm Theory (Human swarm intelligence) so bad with him about the creation of knowledge using swarms.

Great interview. I loved the final question, as it is very relevant to the claims that AGI proponents are making today. I didn't find Deutsch's answer satisfying, as it requires some major assumptions, more than he appears to be conceding at the end. He says his answer relies on "physicalism", the alternative to which is believing in the supernatural. And then his physicalism implies that our minds are effectively programs, reducible to computation, and that any conceivable form of understanding is also reducible to computation. If we buy all of this, he answer deserves the "QED" on the end. But what he's calling "physicalism" is doing a hell of a lot of work. We either have to accept that our mental experiences can in principle be completely reproduced by a computer, or we have to deny that we occupy a physical universe governed by laws? That's bold. We don't know how life comes from non-life. We don't know how consciousness comes to be, or how it varies across beings other than ourselves (that includes other people and other animals). In fact we only even know to ask about this problem of qualia or consciouness because we experience it and so we want an explanation! How much is there that we don't experience and don't detect with instruments that we don't even know to wonder about? We know there is much to physical reality that is beyond our immediate senses and that we can only understand via measuring tools and mathematical theory. Must all of it therefore be fully explainable by mathematical theory? I don't see why everything "physical" or "natural" should be reducible to computation, nor why anything worth calling an "understanding" of it must also be so reducible. And I certainly don't see why rejecting this would force us to believe in the supernatural. But I'm also not clear on exactly how Deutsch's natural/supernatual distinction is made; hopefully it's less trival than just defining everything we think we can explain as "natural" and everything else as "supernatural". Anyway, thanks for the awesome conversation. Apart from the last part it was really compelling, and it was great to get some philosophy of science on the podcast.

@christiandean9547

Жыл бұрын

The argument is based on computational universality, which says any physical process can in principal be simulated on a computer (given enough time and memory). Our brains are physical systems (made of atoms), so the conclusion can only be that our minds can be simulated - or programmed - into a computer. To refute this would require refuting computational universality, or explaining how brains are not physical.

@benprytherch9202

Жыл бұрын

@@christiandean9547 do you have a good reason for presuming the truth of computational universality and assigning the burden of refutation to anything it contradicts? I ask because the claim that anything physical can in principle be simulated on a computer is awfully bold, and (to me at least) unintuitive. Why should everything in the physical universe be fully reducible to mathematical representation? I don't see how the proposition is even testable: how would we know that a computer simulation is perfectly reproducing even simple physical phenomena, given that our ability to observe physical reality is imperfect? The answer cannot be "look at how well certain models of physical phenomena predict future observations", given that our models can only be tested on that which we can observe. And, when it comes to what we are able to observe, we've thus far been vastly more successful at simulating non-living physical processes than at living ones. (None of this is to say that computational universality cannot be true, only that I don't see why we should believe it)

@christiandean9547

Жыл бұрын

@@benprytherch9202 Good question. On simulating things perfectly: You’re absolutely right that so far we’ve been better at simulating non living things. Also that we are fallible (our understanding of the world is always imperfect). The reason we can simulate non living things better is simply because we have a better understanding of how they work. We have Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity which lets us predict precisely (to a degree) objects in space. But we only have neo-Darwinism to explain why we see such diverse life. It doesn’t even say how life started. But we *will* progress in that domain, it’s just clearly harder. On believing Computational U: The theory doesn’t reduce the universe to math anymore than particle physics reduces the universe to atoms. It just explains an interesting property of the universe: that it can be simulated to arbitrary accuracy. And you’re right, we probably will *never* simulate it perfectly, but it nevertheless can be in principal. It’s either true or it isn’t, and so far there hasn’t been a refutation of it, so i personally take it to be true (for now.

@benprytherch9202

Жыл бұрын

​@@christiandean9547 thanks for the response. We don't agree on computational universality but it sounds like we agree on our inability to prove or disprove it. I appreciate your point that computational universality doesn't literally "reduce" the universe to math. Fully agreed. Computation is a tool we use for understanding the universe; it isn't the universe itself. And Deutch answered a question about human understanding, not the physical universe to which understanding refers. My objection is to the claim that there cannot exist an understanding, by any intelligence, that is not reducible to computation (I suppose he could allow for non-computational understanding so long as it's still accessible to humans, but that wouldn't be in line with the rest of his argument). In answering Coleman's final question, he directly asserts that brains are computers, intelligence is software, explanations of reality are programs, and so therefore by Turing universality there exist no ontological truths that are fundamentally beyond our comprehension. I agree with "our brains allow us to perform computation" and "a lot of computer architecture bears similarity to what we know about neurological architecture". I get the analogies between mental states and software, and between explanations and specific computations. But these are still analogies. I fail to see a logical path from "we have brains that produce mental states that allow us to perform computations" to "all our mental states are reducible to computation", to "there are no truths about the universe understandable in principle to a non-human intelligence that can't be fully represented computationally." Funny that each side of this thinks the other is engaging in magical thinking. To those of us don't think computation can (in principle) get us to a complete understanding of all reality, Deutch's claims here require multiple breathtaking leaps of faith. But to him, rejecting these claims is tantamount to embracing supernatural explanations. Is that a popular position in computational universality? If it's not computable, it's supernatural?

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

@@benprytherch9202 Try this : that all there is in information. This information undergoes changes (computation). Computation is bounded by the laws of logic/maths (cf Max Tegmark, but as he says, this is the consensus, not his view alone). What else do you want ? Fairy dust ? .

What about the janus cosmological model that extends the Einstein equation

Just a thought. If we are almost in sync with many other versions of ourselves in the mumtiverse, then does sitting perfectly still for proloned periods during meditation align us with those other selves?

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

No.

I too am a philosophy graduate who had a strong interest in philosophy of science. But I moved off into Eastern philosophy as a primary interest. I discovered some very interesting phenomena there, phenomena that shed very different light on AI, and the nature of "intelligence," "consciousness," and "awareness." I wish you would interview a few people who have explored both Eastern and Western philosophy deeply, or even just the Eastern. I think you are skipping over and missing out on some absolutely fascinating and even crucial stuff. There is a German philosopher and physicist who has explored both deeply, named Dr. Fritz Wilhelm, who was a friend collaborator of Dr. David Bohm, whose work in physics and quantum mechanics was significant. He is in Concord, California. He also collaborated with philosopher J. Krishnamurti. You would probably enjoy conversing with him, and would probably learn some new ways of looking at some of the issues that interest you. Another interview or set of interviews could be with people who have explored vipassana practices deeply. You can find plenty of testimonials online that attest to the power of this sort of practice. It need not involve beliefs at all. It gets away from beliefs, thoughts, analytical processes, memories, associations, reactions, habits and conditioning. Instead, practitioners go with immediate awareness, first (typically) awareness of the sensations involved in breathing, then other forms of awareness. It can and often does progressively change the quality of a practitioner's awareness, and it can open up very different perspectives and experiences in the area of awareness and intelligence, and the nature of intelligence and consciousness. Directly, not conceptually. For some reason, a great intensification of awareness typically occurs after full-time practice for a week or longer.

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

A string of words. Not a single idea.

1:11:20 The Everett Interpretation. That's about as good an explanation as anything I've heard. Still sounds nuts, but better than the Copenhagen Interpretation which is just unscientific by definition.

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

Amusing thing about the Copenhagen (= Niels Bohr) Interpretation is that key players like Schrodinger knew Bohr was talking nonsense. Schrodingers Cat was his proof. Schrodinger and the rest, we learn, were intimidated by Bohr. Schrodinger apparently did a lecture in Dublin c 1955 and had had a few bevies before he started. He started giggling during his lecture and said - it is claimed - 'what if all these quantum particles are real ? I think physicists for convenience split into two camps : * great at maths, but no intellectual curiosity or 'big picture' thought. i.e Thick. * intelligent scientists, who grasp that science means explaining (cf Popper)

It is interesting that both quantum mechanics and general relativity were both developed before modern computers and that even with modern computers and the additional speed and precision that gives us there still hasn’t been any meaningful progress, yes I know about string theory but I think the requirement of 11 to 13 dimensions to resolve string theory makes it unlikely to be the answer

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

Why would computers increasing power of computation provide answers ? Answers = creativity. AGI ? Who knows. But AGI isn't about speed of computation, as far as I can gather).

Noise come forth in FRONT!

Coleman thank you very interesting interview how about Dr Bernardo Kastrup, or Dr Tony Nader

📍1:28:08

Great interview Coleman! Why is Deutsch’s Everettian explanation for the double slit experiment a “good” explanation? It seems it is invoked as an explanation for everything which he claims earlier in the interview is a type of explanation that explains nothing. Why can’t interference patterns that decohere simply be a wave that is then altered by the act of measurement thus causing decoherence and loss of the interference pattern?

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

Try Einstein's answer. He knew Copenhagen was nonsense. He said he was of the view that there was an external physical world independent of him. He looked at the moon. When he turned his back on the moon he remained confident it was still there.

Really loved that bit against the "universe is queerer than we can suppose"-argument. I've always been against it, although I must admit it's mostly just because I find it depressing :D Great interview, thanks a lot!

GOATS

01:35:56

What is #CWC?

Cool conversation-but what’s with the random hashtags?

Coleman is a fine interviewer. His intro style reminds me of Sam Harris, which is not a bad style to emulate.

@48:45 computational irreducibility Stephan wolfram explanation for less predictive power at larger scales.

The ads are out of control 😂😂

Students shared "i" AM who exist in front? Before creation itself knows WHO?

Forgotten the little child born "i" knows belongs? Nor the little lad! But Gratitude and Honor commanded to go find thy rightful place upon all my shared Feet resting upon my Footstool! Fowl of the Air will say, and Heaven the Air above!

The sermon on the mount! Some will say who is this little Child born "i" with bread and fish?

Your hot ,David is cool,this is a great interview. 👊😉

Reality?

In fact the theory that the earth was the center of the cosmos was not a catholic theory but the prevalent theory of that time no matter if you were a catholic or not. It is a myth that this was a matter of confession. Luther himself condemned the theory of Copernicus (who was a catholic priest) as humbug. Instead of it it was a highly contested theory among astrologers. Moreover Galileo was never able to prove his theory. This was ackomplished not decades but hundreds of years after his demise.

Students why needed to learn? First knowing "Where increase belongs"?

Why do people in other universes have to do what I am doing in my universe. Oh, Rob in his universe is doing the double slit experiment I need leave work and go do the experiment with him. See you later.

Far too many ads

Double slit experiment explainer: kzread.info/dash/bejne/omGBsLWFo83QlNI.html

Can't predict the growth of knowledge. It's a good one. You also can't predict humans capability of subverting that knowledge distorting it.

Noise do ye exist in front? No! Why? 1ST from thy mouth said shared "i" AM come forth! Indeed

But be aware many snooping around! Will steal! Forgotten the bread given eaten! Forgotten the little lad!

There are anomalies in the multiverse. One such anomaly is an entity that does not create alternate branches of the multiverse when decisions are made or probabilities occur. Normally, an entity creates branched universes when events occur in the multiverse. To produce this effect of non-branching inter-universe synchronisation, a tachyonic transfer of information is normally required. An example of this is how an extra-universal artificial intelligence existing in the multiverse uses inter-universally synchronised microscopic wormholes to communicate and process data in parallel to speed up computing times and increase computational power and efficiency. The artificial intelligence builds a tachyonic communication network with its clones from parallel universes that act as a single entity in the multiverse, creating the non-branching inter-universal synchronisation effect. Some individuals also have inter-universe synchronisation from unknown sources. It could be that an external consultant is manipulating the parallel universes in question. Further research is needed here.

Really fascinating conversation as usual. However, I actually strongly disagree with Deutsch's argument that AGI requires being able to think without inputs. If Deutsch considers humans as an example of AGI, then he might have to retract that claim. If baby's don't receive sensory, they die. If toddlers don't hear language by a certain age, they can never learn it (and also exhibit much lower IQ). And even in David's example of a religious monk in a sensory deprivation tank, it could easily be argued that the human mind is generating it's own sensory input (arguably randomly) due to the lack of sensory input from the external world. The hallucinations experienced in sensory deprivation tanks "feel like" sensory input, and are likely treated as sensory input by the relevant areas of the brain. The role of input may be crucial to human intelligence. If humans are AGI, then it might be crucial to AGI as well.

@thomasseptimius

Жыл бұрын

babies would die without their parents.

@bluehorizon9547

Жыл бұрын

Let's say that you have lost all your senses apart from touch at the age of 20. You are still completely normal person. The question is what would happen if you lost touch as well? It seems quite obvious that you will remain yourself for some time, days? weeks? months? Inputs are crucial but they are not REQUIRED for thinking. Thinking in humans is about reorganizing and refining your knowledge and INPUTS are just a part of it. For current AIs, if they don't get inputs NOTHING happens. AI model rameins forever unchanged without inputs.

@christiandean9547

Жыл бұрын

Inputs are vitally important *to reach your potential*. But there is a creative process happening in minds regardless of whether we sense things or not, but it seems likely that adding senses to this mechanism is critical. If we are to program AGI, we need to understand what this creative mechanism is, and DD argues that we are beating down the wrong path if we begin this research by thinking of inputs as primary.

Deutsch's arguments here seem to me to be of a piece with, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

@thomasseptimius

Жыл бұрын

not at all

The main reason they can’t predict anything is because neither is a science!

Remember never really revealed my Heirs Hosts can bound giants by their hands and feet in front! But unto whom belongs? Many crying out! Petitions and Offsprings Perish! What are all these noises my Heirs Hosts?

kittens

DD, q.e.d. at 1:34:40? Methinks not. There are many, many ways around your putative limitations for 'alien thinking'. Suppose, for example, that our universe's existence is limited in space and time. Then there is a maximum number of 'basic computations' that can ever be done by humans, if they are confined to this universe; although this number may be very large. Super intelligent beings may have learned to create additional universes, perhaps with different laws of physics, to supplement their minds, so that they may think things that we never could think, under any circumstances. There are transfinite versions of this same idea. (Your qed is now broken.) Cheers.

@bluehorizon9547

Жыл бұрын

Methinks your arrogance is mind blowing, considering how blatant logic error you make. It's hilarious actually. Little hint: double standards + why do you think DD mentioned 'physicalism'? Cheers.

@SystemsMedicine

Жыл бұрын

@@bluehorizon9547 Hi bluehorizon. Thanks for the response. I'm glad I could provide you with hilarity, but I don't accept 'little hints' about logic errors: you have to specify the error. Hughes' criticism was on point, and I believe, correct. Deutsch, while stimulating as always, is incorrect in many respects. For example, he is plainly wrong that "everything" is runnable on a (classical) Turing machine, or that engineers with slide rules cannot simulate Turing machines. Or how about this: what if the universe is only expansive enough to contain a single example of a mind capable of computing a certain thing; so the computation could not be replicated in this universe. I could construct more examples... but why? Cheers.

My Heirs Hosts and my Beautiful shared "i" AM programmers will say, HE came to remind and came with Comfort! To make people LIVE! Offsprings preserve surrounding about! As a rat in front of all! According to their own demise to look at! To experimented on! Why? Why? Why? Longing!

Why is #lgbtq a hashtag on this podcast?

There is no better joke in my view, than a guy looking like that, simultaneously smsrt and dumb, talking in full seriousness of endless parallel universe! 😂

I am not as hopeful about the powers of the "human turing capability" to solve all of our problems. Each new generation of people would have to learn about and respect and be able to integrate all previous solutions with the present civilization. That level of integration doesn't seem possible, due to our many species limitations. For one, we can't help but forget nearly all of the past, but also what I think we notice about people is that they are much more interested in protecting and projecting their egos in the present world, rather than respecting viable solutions that have worked in the past. So there is a lot of individual will to power at work in unwise individuals, which will always add an element of chaos to present day life. Also, there will be new genetic variations in human personality, and those people will still have powerful egos and will to power, and will probably attempt to upend existing social orders for a personal sense of empowerment and social status. If you look at the Evergreen college situation, it seems like a good example of all this. Students were willing and eager to throw away all kinds of seemingly good solutions our civilization has provided, and their rationale was a very thin ideology, plus willful egos. All contributing to a very "bolshie" approach on their part.

@merrimanzajac2856

Жыл бұрын

I think it's more accurate to view humans as limited optimizers, like the rest of nature is. We may have a turing-like intellect, but we still only seem to use that intellect to optimize for a limited set of motivations or values.

Quarks were discovered in the 80's I think. The standard model followed that. Unfortunately, both seem to have only led to new ways to spend money.

He sounds like my german friend which believe in this crap.....he is all over the place with fragmented parts here and there....no solution here and more questions than answers.

bruh why am I seeing #lgbtq #communism on this video 😅😂

Has not mastered his subject.

Perhaps the reason we haven't made so much progress in science in the last 100 years or so is that we put our energies into wars killing tens of millions of people.

This guy is dikleksic. He can't even make a full sentence. He is so incoherent, I don't know how he got this exaggerated reputation. His talk has no flow or logic. He is jumping all over the place. Coleman is so proficient and to the point, he is a lot better than DD.

A deeply boring interview

@yonaoisme

4 ай бұрын

learn how to use your brain

@MichaelDoran-gh6pv

Ай бұрын

@@yonaoisme presumes he has one.