David Deutsch — Knowledge Creation and the Human Race - Naval  ## Metadata - Author: **Naval** - Full Title: David Deutsch — Knowledge Creation and the Human Race - Category: #podcasts - URL: https://share.snipd.com/episode/5c5fd21e-05d1-4f99-9fd9-06b33491c608 ## Highlights - The Beginning of Infinity: How Optimism, the Principle of Infinity, and Sustainability Are Intertwined Key takeaways: (* Optimism is a key principle in the philosophy of optimism, and it overturns many central dogmas in base reasoning., * Humans are very different and very exceptional, and knowledge creation is a very exceptional thing that only happens in evolution., * The Earth is not this hospitable, fragile spaceship Earth biome that supports us, but rather it's something that we engineer and we build to sustain us.) Transcript: Speaker 2 And we want to introduce them to the principles of optimism, the beginning of infinity, what sustainability really means about anthropomorphic delusions. As an example, you overturn induction as a way of forming new scientific theories. That's this idea that repeated observation is what leads you to the creation of new knowledge, and that's not the case at all. This obviously came from Popper, but you built upon it. You talk about how humans are very different and very exceptional, and knowledge creation is a very exceptional thing that only happens in evolution. And the human brain, as far as we know, and you talk about how the Earth is not this hospitable, fragile spaceship Earth biome that supports us, but rather it's something that we engineer and we build to sustain us. I always recommend to people start with the first three chapters of beginning of infinity because they're easy to understand, but they overturn more central dogmas that people are taking for granted in base reasoning than almost any other book I've ever seen. I think it's important to point out the list there's, that your philosophy isn't just some arbitrary set of axioms based on which you view the world. I think of it as a crystalline structure held together by good explanations and experimental evidence that then forms a self-consistent view of how things work, and it operates at the intersection of these four strands that you talk about in the fabric of reality, epistemology, computation, physics, and evolution. Let's get into humans. ([Time 0:00:49](https://share.snipd.com/snip/cc273b35-51a1-498c-ad20-ed78b1f9883d)) - The Human Species: How We Are Unique and How We Should View Our Place in the World Key takeaways: (* Humans are unique and exceptional because of the unique combination of chemical and physical properties that make them special., * Humans should be thought of relative to other species on the planet in a different way than other species are typically thought of.) Transcript: Speaker 2 And the human brain, as far as we know, and you talk about how the Earth is not this hospitable, fragile spaceship Earth biome that supports us, but rather it's something that we engineer and we build to sustain us. I always recommend to people start with the first three chapters of beginning of infinity because they're easy to understand, but they overturn more central dogmas that people are taking for granted in base reasoning than almost any other book I've ever seen. I think it's important to point out the list there's, that your philosophy isn't just some arbitrary set of axioms based on which you view the world. I think of it as a crystalline structure held together by good explanations and experimental evidence that then forms a self-consistent view of how things work, and it operates at the intersection of these four strands that you talk about in the fabric of reality, epistemology, computation, physics, and evolution. Let's get into humans. So there's a classic model, we start with a fish, and then it comes to a tadpole and then a frog and then some kind of monkey and then an upright, hunched over creature, and a human is just this progression along all the animals. But in your understanding, in your explanation, there's something fundamentally different that happens, and you talked about this in a great video, which I encourage everybody to look up, it's titled, Chemical Scum that Dream of Distant Quasars. What are humans? How are they unique and how are they exceptional? And how should we think of the human species relative to the other species that are on this planet? ([Time 0:01:20](https://share.snipd.com/snip/00cdec00-87b4-44db-9e8e-0ad48dfac59d)) - Einstein's Theory of General Relativity Key takeaways: (* Every animal is exceptional in some way, otherwise we wouldn't call different species different species., * In order to understand what humans are trying to achieve, aliens would need to know everything about general relativity.) Transcript: Speaker 1 Every animal is exceptional in some way, otherwise we wouldn't call different species different species. There's the bird that can fly faster than any other bird, and there's a bird that can fly higher than any other one and so on. It's intuitively obvious that we are unique in some way that's more important than all those other ways. As I say in the beginning of infinity, in many scientific laboratories around the world, there is a champagne bottle. That bottle and that fridge are physical objects. The people involved are physical objects. They all obey the laws of physics. And yet, in order to understand the behavior of humans in regard to champagne bottles stored for long periods in fridges, I'm thinking of aliens looking at humans, they have to understand what those humans are trying to achieve and whether they will or won't achieve it. In other words, if you were an alien that was looking down on the earth and seeing what's happening there and was trying to explain it, in order to explain everything that happens on earth, and let's suppose that these aliens are so different from us, there's nothing familiar about us. In order to understand stuff that happens on earth, they would need to know everything, literally, for example, general relativity, because they need that to explain why this one monkey, Einstein, was taken to Sweden and given some goal. ([Time 0:02:46](https://share.snipd.com/snip/9e3ee165-2d04-47a3-afd0-8d8af32525c6)) - The Influence of Knowledge on the Physical Universe Key takeaways: (* Knowledge is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe than almost anything else., * To understand the physical universe, you have to understand knowledge.) Transcript: Speaker 2 You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don't even try and tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. There were some really good examples you gave. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge, so they cause themselves to be replicated as their survivors. And the same way knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it's an incredibly useful thing, so I'm going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. And your underlying point that you repeated here was, if you want to understand the physical universe, you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can't just say particle collisions, because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It's not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There's evolution, and there's humans. But there's a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, aren't there? Between evolution and between humans? ([Time 0:05:25](https://share.snipd.com/snip/1860cdc0-b1ae-403d-b588-b547dc64c893)) - The Virus of Overpopulation Key takeaways: (* We have the ability to beat viruses., * We may decide not to use this ability., * The base philosophy today is that humans are a virus that is using up scarce resources, and we should limit the number of people.) Transcript: Speaker 2 Related to that, I had the realization after reading your books that eventually we're likely as humans to beat viruses in a resounding victory because viruses obviously evolve as biological evolution, and we're using memes and ideas and jumping far ahead, so we may be able to come up with some technology that can destroy all viruses. We can evolve our defense as much faster. We tweet something along these lines, and a lot of people attacked me over it because I don't think they understand this difference between the two forms of knowledge creation we're talking about here. Speaker 1 We have what it takes to beat viruses. We have what it takes to solve those problems and to achieve the victory. That doesn't mean we will. We may decide not to. Speaker 2 So related to that, the base philosophy today that seems to be very active in the West is that we're running out of resources. Humans are a virus that has overrun the earth and is using up scarce resources. Therefore, the best thing we can do is to limit the number of people. And people don't say this outright because it's tasteful, but they say it in all sorts of subtle ways, like use less energy, we're running out of resources, more humans are just more mouths to feed. ([Time 0:09:57](https://share.snipd.com/snip/d74b664e-dc3c-4dd6-a7e4-c78c349e8148)) - The Libertarian Philosophy of Birth Control Key takeaways: (* Humans are a virus that has overrun the earth and is using up scarce resources., * The best thing we can do is to limit the number of people., * People don't say this outright, but they say it in all sorts of subtle ways, like use less energy, we're running out of resources, more humans are just more mouths to feed.) Transcript: Speaker 2 So related to that, the base philosophy today that seems to be very active in the West is that we're running out of resources. Humans are a virus that has overrun the earth and is using up scarce resources. Therefore, the best thing we can do is to limit the number of people. And people don't say this outright because it's tasteful, but they say it in all sorts of subtle ways, like use less energy, we're running out of resources, more humans are just more mouths to feed. Whereas in the knowledge creation philosophy, it says actually humans are capable of creating incredible knowledge, and knowledge can transform things that we didn't think of as resources into resources. In that sense, every human is a lottery ticket on a fundamental breakthrough that might completely change how we think of the earth and biosphere and sustainability. So how did you come around to your current views on everything from natalism? Should we have more children to sustainability? Are we running out of resources to spaceship earth? Is this a unique and fragile bio that needs to be left alone? Speaker 1 I remember when I was a graduate student and I went to Texas for the first time, I encountered libertarians for the first time, and those people had a slogan about immigration, and the slogan was, two hands, one mouth, which succinctly expresses the nature of human beings. They are on balance productive. They consume and they produce, but they produce more than they consume. And I think that's true of virtually all human beings. I think virtually all humans, apart from mass murderers or whatever, create more wealth than they destroy. ([Time 0:10:38](https://share.snipd.com/snip/70e83d31-175b-40db-8a4f-92d8f23ef0ee)) - The Debate Over Whether or not We're Getting to the Point Where AGI is Possible Key takeaways: (* AI is not progressing in the direction of AGI, but instead is improving in the opposite direction., * The debate over whether or not we have the theory yet to create AGI is still ongoing.) Transcript: Speaker 2 That's about high-end physics, which very few people do. That's not what we're talking about. We're going to have a computer that can do good enough pattern recognition to navigate the environment well enough through pattern matching. And it will convince the average person through text formation and through conversation that it is creative and is capable of solving problems. Usually the place where I manage to stop them right now is I say, I know you have some clever text engine that can make good sounding stuff. And you pick the one out that sounds interesting. Of course, you're doing the intelligent part there by picking that one out. But let me have a conversation with it. Very quickly, I will show you that it has no underlying mental model of what is actually happening in the form of good explanations. So this is where the debate currently is. The AI people view this as clear evidence of getting to maybe not the theoretical good explanations of scientists, but for the everyday person, yes, we're going to have thinking machines. So that's the current claims that I deal with, especially in the Silicon Valley text context. Do we have the theory yet to create AGI? Speaker 1 No, I don't want to say anything against AI because it's amazing and I wanted to continue to go on improving even faster. But it's not improving in the direction of AGI. It's if anything, improving in the opposite direction. ([Time 0:16:49](https://share.snipd.com/snip/88973079-59e6-4366-99f5-5aa69dd1f9db)) - The Best Explanation is the One That Contains Knowledge Key takeaways: (* An explanation is a description of reality that meets all the criticisms that we have at the moment., * The best explanation is the one that has been found to be the best by rejecting the rivals., * Knowledge is hard to come by, and it is also hard to change once it has been acquired.) Transcript: Speaker 1 In the fabric of reality, I completely avoided saying what an explanation is. I just said, it's hard to define, and it keeps changing, and we can keep improving our conception of what it is. But what makes an explanation good is that it meets all the criticisms that we have at the moment. If you have that, then you've got the best explanation, and that automatically implies that it already doesn't have any rivals by then, because if it has any rivals that have anything going for them, then the existence of two different explanations for the same thing means that neither of them is the best explanation. You only have the best explanation when you've found reasons to reject the rivals. Of course, not all possible rivals, because all possible rivals include the one that's going to supersede the current best explanation. If I want to explain something like how come the stars don't fall down, I can easily generate 60 explanations an hour and not stop and say that the angels are holding them up, or they are really just holes in the firmament, or I can say they are falling down, and we better take cover soon. Whereas coming up with an explanation that contains knowledge, an explanation that's better than just making stuff up, requires both creativity and experiment, and interpretation, and so on. As Papa says, knowledge is hard to come by, because it's hard to come by, it's also hard to change once we've got it. Once we have an explanation, it's going to explain several ([Time 0:28:05](https://share.snipd.com/snip/ffdd1747-a61f-41a1-9b9e-5fb3e8f8eade)) - Constructive Explanation: What It Is and What It Isn't Key takeaways: (* Falsifiability is very important in science, as it helps to ensure that explanations are good ones., * Testability is not always available in the same way as it is in science, and it has to make sense within the context of the explanation., * The oracle that is reality can be used to help test the outcome of an explanation, but it is not a given at the beginning.) Transcript: Speaker 1 So falsifiability is very much part of what makes a good explanation in the science. I'm trying to find my way into constructive theory at the moment. Yara and I and some other people are trying to build the theory. It's very hard to come by the parts of it that we've got are very hard to change. That's all right. But we're still far away from having any experimental tests of it. That's what we're working towards. We want a theory that is experimentally testable. And the things that will be testable are the things that we haven't yet discovered about it. And we can't fix that deficiency just by adding a testable thing to it. We can't say, we'll take constructive theory as it is now and add the prediction that the stock market is going to go wildly up next year. That's a testable prediction. But the whole thing doesn't make an explanation at all, let alone a good one. Speaker 2 So testability can't be an arbitrary testability. It has to be a testability within the context of the explanation. It has to make sense within the explanation. And as to arise from the explanation, while you're in the process of coming up with the explanation, you don't know if testability is necessarily going to be available in any reasonable time frame. You hope eventually that will happen. And we can use this amazing oracle that we call reality to help test the outcome. But it's not a given at the beginning for sure. And it's highly contextual. And all that is within science. Speaker 1 As soon as you get outside science, for example, in mathematics or in philosophy, then testability is not really available, not in the same sense that testing is used in science. ([Time 0:31:24](https://share.snipd.com/snip/a45b62dd-30e3-46cf-8c9a-a06db5a3e814)) - The Importance of Being Precise Key takeaways: (* Narrow and risky are important components of a good explanation, and not just within science., * Hard to vary is also important, as it means that the explanation is adaptable to different situations.) Transcript: Speaker 1 It is, but that kind of formulation is proper, not mine. I'm a little bit uncomfortable expressing it like that because you just hear the opponent saying narrow by what criterion, risky by what criterion, hard to vary by what criterion. Speaker 2 Wouldn't risky be unexpected and narrow would be within the range of possibilities. The more precise with unexpected that prediction was before I made that prediction, the more testable I'm making it, the better adapted my explanation is. Speaker 1 Those are criteria that come up when trying to think more precisely what testable means. I think the important thing is that you're testing an explanation, not just a prediction, but it's also true that hard to vary means you're sticking your neck out when you try to vary it. And the few variants that survive were hard to come by. So it's perfectly true that narrow and sticking your neck out are indeed components of a good explanation and not just within science. ([Time 0:34:26](https://share.snipd.com/snip/4a851316-7b98-4d4d-8659-86c696d61b3b))