Podcast Summary
Discovering Quality Candidates with Indeed and Managing Subscriptions with Rocket Money: Use Indeed for hiring and find high-quality candidates quickly, while Rocket Money helps manage subscriptions, save money, and lower bills.
For hiring needs, instead of searching for candidates, use a platform like Indeed. Indeed is a matching and hiring platform with over 350 million monthly visitors and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates quickly. It offers features for scheduling, screening, and messaging to help you connect with candidates faster. Employers agree that Indeed delivers the highest quality matches compared to other job sites. Additionally, Mindscape listeners can get a $75 sponsored job credit for more visibility on Indeed.com/mindscape. Another takeaway is the importance of managing subscriptions to save money. Use a personal finance app like Rocket Money to find and cancel unwanted subscriptions, monitor spending, and help lower bills. Rocket Money has helped its members save an average of $720 a year with over 500 million canceled subscriptions. Lastly, we had a special episode featuring David Deutsch, a major proponent of the Everettian version of quantum mechanics and pioneer of the idea of quantum computers. Although we didn't delve deep into quantum mechanics, we discussed his thoughts on epistemology and the idea of seeking the best explanation for the world based on available data.
David Deutsch discusses limitations of Bayesian vocabulary and introduces constructor theory: David Deutsch, a physicist, critiques Bayesian approach, cites Popper Miller theorem, and proposes constructor theory as a new physics framework, emphasizing possibilities and constructors.
David Deutsch, a renowned physicist, shared his insights on the limitations of traditional Bayesian vocabulary in understanding theories, citing the Popper Miller theorem as a key consideration. He also discussed his work on constructor theory, a new approach to physics that views it in terms of possibilities and constructors, which could potentially be groundbreaking. Deutsch also reflected on the significance of systems that can think, store information, and create explanations, marking a dramatic shift in the universe's evolution. His encounter with Everett in the late 1970s was a formative experience, with Everett's expertise and knowledge leaving a lasting impression.
Unexpected encounters and conversations shape perspectives: New ideas and perspectives can emerge from unexpected encounters and conversations, shaping one's understanding of the world, and progress in various fields often occurs in bursts after long periods of stagnation.
That unexpected encounters and conversations can significantly influence one's perspective and path in life. This was evident in the speaker's encounter with DeWitt, which led him to become convinced of the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics. The speaker also reflected on how progress in various fields is not always uniformly rapid, and that it often takes a long time for significant advancements to occur, despite the seemingly insurmountable challenges. The speaker's TED talk on the end of monotony touches on this idea, highlighting how progress in various domains, from the origin of life to the Enlightenment, has occurred in bursts after long periods of stagnation. While the reasons for these long waits are not always clear, the speaker suggests that they may be due to the complexity and size of the steps involved. Overall, the discussion underscores the importance of being open to new ideas and the role that chance encounters and conversations can play in shaping one's understanding of the world.
Observed patterns of sudden change in evolution: Sudden changes in evolution, like punctuated equilibrium, are observed but not fully explained, and may be compared to phase transitions and metastability in physics.
The evolution of knowledge and adaptations in the natural world can occur suddenly after long periods of stability, but this is not a definitive theory about how or why this happens. This concept, known as punctuated equilibrium, was proposed by scientists like Stephen Jay Gould, but it is not a comprehensive theory of evolution. Instead, it is a description of observed patterns. As a physicist, I see similarities between these observations and phase transitions and metastability. While we can predict when phase transitions will occur based on high-level theories, the evolution of knowledge and adaptations in the natural world are more indeterministic. They cannot be fully explained by probability alone. The origin of life and the development of complex organisms are examples of significant changes that occurred after long periods of stability. These changes were crucial because they allowed for the creation and manipulation of knowledge, which is essential for human survival and development. However, not everything in nature is fully understood, and it's important to remember that much is still unknown.
Understanding the Unexplainable with Knowledge: Explanatory knowledge flips the dynamic of 'big things pushing little things around' in the universe, allowing us to understand phenomena on Earth by considering everything from quasars to the big bang.
Knowledge plays a unique role in the universe, allowing us to understand and explain physical phenomena that would otherwise be inexplicable. Using the examples of eucalyptus leaves and the Earth's ability to repel asteroids, the speaker highlights how explanatory knowledge flips the usual dynamic of "big things pushing little things around" on its head. Furthermore, to truly understand phenomena on Earth, such as the behavior of champagne bottles, we must consider everything in the universe, from quasars to the big bang and beyond. This interconnectedness of knowledge is a defining characteristic of life, from primitive organisms to advanced civilizations, and will continue to be a crucial factor as we explore the mysteries of the universe.
Universality of Humans, Extraterrestrials, and AGIs: Humans, extraterrestrials, and AGIs share the universality of being Turing complete, but humans also possess explanatory universality, making us unique in understanding complex concepts.
Humans, extraterrestrials, and AGIs can be considered as people, as they all possess the essential universality of being Turing complete, which means they can execute any program that can be executed. This is a well-established concept in computing, proven by Alan Turing in 1936. Furthermore, humans have an additional universality, explanatory universality, which is a property of software. Our unique ability to explain and understand complex concepts sets us apart from other organisms on earth. These two universality properties make us confident that when we encounter advanced beings, they will not be able to compute non-Turing computable functions, which is a fundamental aspect of our current scientific understanding.
One kind of software universality: Both Turing universality and explanatory universality follow an all-or-nothing principle, with only one kind of each. While explanatory universality is not fully formalized, the optimistic perspective is that we can make significant strides and discover new things.
Both Turing universality and explanatory universality follow an all-or-nothing principle. Just as there is only one kind of hardware universality, there is only one kind of software universality. While we may not have a rigorous mathematical definition of explanatory universality, we do have a rigorous mathematical understanding that we may never be able to fully formalize it due to the openness of science and the non-formalizability of explanations. However, this optimistic perspective also applies to the limitless potential for discovery and transformation in various fields, including mathematics and artificial intelligence. Despite the challenges, the speaker expresses belief in our ability to make significant strides and discover new, interesting things. The quest for understanding and knowledge remains a driving force in human progress.
Unlocking AGI may require a philosophical breakthrough: The development of AGI might involve a deep philosophical understanding rather than just computational advancements, representing a significant shift in our interaction with the universe.
The development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) might involve a philosophical breakthrough rather than just computational or mathematical advancements. This new perspective could be simple in theory but difficult to achieve, much like how the understanding of life or the concept of a computer took time to fully grasp. The idea that could unlock AGI might seem obvious in the future, but for now, it remains elusive. This idea could be related to the concept of constructor theory, which distinguishes between physical transformations that can be brought about and those that cannot. The speaker believes that AGI could represent a profound change in our ability to interact with the universe, but the exact nature of this connection is not yet clear.
Understanding physics through construction: Constructive Theory in physics focuses on what can be constructed, rather than just predicting outcomes, and sees the human body as a controller and programmer for a universal constructor. It is about knowledge and error correction, and becomes especially valuable for complex challenges.
Constructive Theory in physics is an approach that focuses on understanding the laws of physics in terms of what can be constructed and what cannot, rather than just predicting outcomes based on given initial conditions. This perspective is connected to the philosophical idea of optimism and the belief that all possible transformations can be brought about by a universal constructor. The human body is seen as a hybrid entity, both a controller and a programmer for a universal constructor, and imperfect in its obedience to commands. Constructive Theory is ultimately about knowledge and the ability to correct errors. While some physicists may question the usefulness of this approach for specific problems like planetary motion, it is argued that this perspective becomes more valuable when considering complex challenges, such as ensuring safety from asteroid impacts. The Constructive Theory framework can complement existing ways of formulating physics by providing a more comprehensive understanding of what is possible and how to achieve it.
A theoretical framework for understanding scientific laws: Constructive theory proposes to offer deeper insights into why subsidiary theories have the properties they do, potentially transcending specific fields and yielding momentous principles
Constructive theory is a proposed framework that aims to be an overarching principle governing various scientific laws, much like the principle of conservation of energy. It intends to provide a deeper understanding of why subsidiary theories have the properties they do, and potentially constrain other theories. Constructive theory and thermodynamics are examples of theories that transcend specific physics and offer principles that apply to various fields, including biology, chemistry, and physics. One of the hoped-for advantages of constructive theory is that it could yield momentous principles that provide a deeper understanding of why certain scientific phenomena occur as they do. However, it's important to note that constructive theory is not a definitive truth but a theoretical construct that may evolve as our understanding of the universe deepens. The speaker also mentioned that Newton may have had a deeper understanding of modern dynamics than is commonly believed, but chose not to include it in his work.
Popper's Epistemology and Constructive Theory: Popper's epistemology and constructive theory emphasize critically evaluating implications and separating possible transformations from impossible ones, leading to a constructive and optimistic approach to scientific inquiry.
The ideas of separating out possible transformations from impossible ones and Popper's epistemology share an intellectual affinity. Popper taught us that the content of a scientific theory lies in what it rules out. This perspective leads naturally to constructive theory. Popper also emphasized the importance of optimism and making things better. The speaker has long advocated for Bayesian reasoning and epistemology, but objects to Bayesian epistemology, specifically the idea that knowledge consists of propositions in a rational mind accompanied by numbers representing probabilities. The speaker argues that these numbers don't exist and don't obey the probability calculus. The key issue is that increasing your credence for a theory doesn't necessarily mean you've proven all its implications, unlike in logical reasoning. Instead, it's important to critically evaluate the implications of theories and separate out possible transformations from impossible ones. This perspective, when combined with Popper's epistemology, can lead to a constructive and optimistic approach to scientific inquiry.
Evidence and its impact on theory consequences: A single piece of evidence can affect the credibility of a theory's consequences, with closer resemblance or restatement increasing credibility, and Popper and Miller's theorem offers a criterion for determining such impacts.
A single piece of evidence can increase the credibility of a general theory while decreasing the credibility of some of its consequences. However, not all consequences are equal, and only those that closely resemble or restate the evidence will have their credibility increased. Popper and Miller's theorem provides a criterion for determining which consequences have their credibility increased and which have their credibility decreased. This result is independent of the prior probability distribution function, meaning it holds true regardless of the specific distribution. The theorem's focus on the relationship between evidence and consequences is an essential contribution to understanding how theories are evaluated and updated in the face of new information.
The Intransitivity of Support in Scientific Discoveries: Bayesian epistemology can't always account for the complexities of real-life scientific discoveries, as evidence doesn't always follow logical rules or probability calculus, and the relationship between theories and their consequences isn't always straightforward.
While Bayesian epistemology provides a framework for adjusting credences based on new evidence, real-life scientific discoveries often don't follow the rules of logic or probability calculus. An explanation's negation doesn't provide new insight, and increasing credence in a theory doesn't necessarily increase credence in its consequences. The example of Linda, a woman believed to be a banker and a feminist, illustrates this point. Finding evidence that she's a banker increases the belief that she's both a banker and a feminist, but being a banker doesn't support the belief that she's a feminist. Instead, it's probabilistically evidence against it. This paradox, known as the intransitivity of support, highlights the complexities of scientific discovery and the limitations of using probability calculus to understand it.
Beliefs don't always follow probability calculus: We evaluate theories based on their explanatory power, not absolute truth, and can hold high credence in multiple plausible explanations
Our credences, or beliefs, in different theories or hypotheses don't always follow the probability calculus, especially when we have multiple plausible explanations for the same phenomena. We can't know which theory is true, but we can evaluate their explanatory power and decide which one to test or fund based on that. Our credences represent our judgments about the prospects for increasing knowledge, not our beliefs in the theories themselves. Even if we hold contradictory beliefs, we can still have high credence in both, as in the case of quantum theory and general relativity. Ultimately, we're after good explanations, not absolute truth.
Scientific discovery is about finding the best explanation, not probabilities: Scientific discovery prioritizes the best explanation over probabilities, even if it's less likely. The goal is to make the fewest assumptions based on available data.
In the realm of scientific discovery, the focus is not on probabilities but on the best available explanation. Probability comes into play when dealing with frequencies or when making approximations, but it's not the primary factor in decision-making. The scientific process involves evaluating explanations, ruling out poor ones, and considering the cost and potential impact of experiments. The goal is to find the explanation that best fits the available data and makes the fewest assumptions, even if it may not have the highest probability. This approach was exemplified by figures like Galileo, who preferred the less probable but more explanatory theory of planets moving in ellipses over the more probable theory of epicycles.
Approximating frequencies doesn't increase general knowledge or help decide between theories: Explanations, crucial for progress in philosophy, cannot be formalized and some perspectives like solipsism or skepticism are excluded. Quantum theory, uncertain and lacking a way to determine effects across universes, is not a true theory, but semi-classical approximations work well.
While approximating frequencies using numbers that follow probability calculus can be useful, it does not increase general knowledge or help decide between theories as the set of individuals is infinite. A good explanation, which is crucial for making progress in philosophy, cannot be formalized, and we exclude certain perspectives like solipsism or skepticism that could explain anything but do not contribute to the truth. Quantum theory, which is in conflict with general relativity, is uncertain and lacks a way to determine the sun's effect on planets in different universes, making it not a true theory in the logical sense. However, there are semi-classical approximations where general relativity works well.
Limits of Relativity and Quantum Theories: Both relativity and quantum theories have limitations and some researchers propose alternative theories where fields at separate points can fail to commute and be continuous instead, challenging conventional notions of causality, measurement, and system separation.
Both relativity and quantum theories are valuable approximations in specific situations, but they may not fully explain phenomena in other contexts, such as the early universe. The limitations of quantum field theory, specifically the assumption that space-like separated fields commute, have led some researchers to propose alternative theories where fields at separate points can fail to commute and be continuous instead. These theories challenge conventional notions of causality, measurement, and system separation. The criterion for evaluating these theories is that the algebra of quantum fields remains constant in space and time, which leads to a finite number of possible second-order equations of motion. Researchers are investigating simpler versions of these theories, such as those involving cubits that don't have to commute, with the potential for experimental testing.
Exploring non-commutative quantum field theory and its applications in Everettian quantum theory: Non-commutative quantum field theory, a concept within Everettian quantum theory, may lead to unique forms of entanglement and is being explored for potential applications in quantum systems during decoherence and computations.
Quantum physics, particularly in the context of entangled particles, may lead to non-commuting events that could result in a unique form of entanglement different from what we typically see in quantum theory. This concept, known as non-commutative quantum field theory, is still under exploration. This idea can be explored within the framework of Everettian quantum theory, specifically in the Heisenberg picture, where the focus is on observables rather than the global state of the universe. Furthermore, there are two situations where it is useful to consider quantum systems as splitting into separate worlds: during decoherence and during quantum computations. In the case of decoherence, the worlds remain separate due to the loss of quantum coherence, making recombination impossible. In contrast, during quantum computations, the worlds are evolving independently but are expected to recombine at the end of the computation. Lastly, the speaker mentioned working on several books, including a textbook on quantum mechanics and a science fiction book containing conjectures that might not be seriously presented in academic articles but are worth exploring in the context of science fiction.
Chaptering quantum mechanics differently: David Deutsch's textbook shifts focus from Schrödinger equation and hydrogen atom models to Heisenberg picture, Everett interpretation, and quantum information theory for a more contemporary and conceptually modern approach to teaching quantum mechanics.
David Deutsch's quantum theory textbook aims to challenge the traditional approach to teaching quantum mechanics by prioritizing the Heisenberg picture, Everett interpretation, and quantum information theory over the Schrödinger equation and hydrogen atom models. This textbook is conceptually modern, closer to contemporary experiments, and free from the conceptual baggage of existing textbooks. Although there are other textbooks that focus on cubits, Deutsch's work might go further in changing how quantum mechanics is taught. Despite his sympathetic stance towards the philosophy in the book, Deutsch plans to cater to both old-fashioned and modern audiences to ensure wider acceptance. The textbook's potential popularity is not a concern for him, and he expresses gratitude for being on the Mindscape Podcast.