It is a brilliant conversation between two superior minds. My only problem with this 6 videos is that I can watch them just in the morning after a robust dose of coffee. I find the semidarkness not the best choice for these topics and Popper speaks with a such calm and whispering tone that it could be really good as involuntary ASMR-video. Anyway, Popper and Gombrich are absolutely two geniuses of the Modern Time!
Just a question, friend: Does even Karl Popper meet with the Irish philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe? And who is the oldest? Anscombe or Popper? Thanks friend! PS.: Sorry for being annoying! -Diogo 😊
A Popperian Tale, with robots! The Fault be with you “Pack up Klapaucius, I’m on the move again.” “They are after you again? Why am I not surprised?” “But you are part of the bargain for a lot of this,” said Trurl. ‘Remember all of those joint projects?” “Oh, the ones that you initiated, completed improperly, consulted with me infrequently, and paid me not at all? Yes, I remember.” “Well, at least you have the satisfaction of being held equally accountable.” “I should thank you for that? You stupid bot head! You’ve ignored the countless summons, warrants, invoices, judgements, verdicts, penalties, and fines, and now they are coming after you in a flash. You’ve got it coming!” “Well, you’re in the mix too,” said Trurl. “Hurry, we can just make it to my space cruiser before they smash through the door.” The angry bots soon broke the door down, and stormed in only to witness Trurl’s ship disappear into the void in a trail of smoke. “Now where do we go?” asked Klapaucius. “They will be hot on our metal heels no matter which direction we turn. The background radiation of your reputation spans the universe.” Trurl responded calmly. “We will go to the single place where my reputation is unsullied, where my accomplishment is perfect yet unsung. To wit Klapaucius, we will visit my true failures.” “Oh fine!” said Klapaucius. “From the nuclear furnace to the fire!” “It is a world of the highest possible level of development,” said Trurl. “I should know, after all I got them there. And I guarantee you they won’t raise their voices against me, given my warranty! But you’ll see.” “There, first planet on the left. You can’t miss it.” The planet was the only one in solar system, and was etched with continental wide yellow letters, HPLD. “It’s short for the Highest Possible Level of Development,” said Trurl. “And that’s not a billboard, but a warning.” “Warning or not,” said Klapaucius. “I have never heard of such a place.” “As well you should! It is quite an embarrassment to me.” “But the title?” “Correct in every way. The place is a palace of perfection, the highest level of my genius that is, full of satisfied customers, having no wants because long ago I satisfied them, with perfect inventions and a perfect guarantee.” “Then they should embrace you with open arms.” “Needless to say, they are needless and won’t say, as you will see.” The ship landed in the middle of a botropolis, a dark landscape scattered about with perfect geometrical forms, like a child’s blocks laid askew. And amongst them and betwixt them were myriad bots, all laying down in silence. “The bots, they are all frozen in place. Are they deactivated?” “Hardly,” said Trurl. “They are in sleep mode, and can be booted up in an instant. But you know programs, you fire them up when you need them, or in their case when they need to, yet here they have hardly a reason or a care. Let me show you.” Trurl reached down and pulled out the fuse of a somnambulant bot. Its circuits immediately lit up, and it stood up and looked at the constructors, appearing somewhat aggrieved. “You have disturbed my sleep and dreams of a most pleasant upgrade! Could you reset my fuse if you please?” “Of course,” said Trurl, as he popped in the fuse, and the bot immediately powered down. “I don’t understand,” said Klapaucius. “You said they were your most satisfied customers.” “And indeed they are. As an up and coming constructor, they provided me with a list of wants, which through my invention I quickly satisfied. I fixed them permanently, and they are without a care, and have become mere perpetual mobiles, self-sufficient, independent, un-reliant, and eventually numbed down into nothingness. At that time, I made sure that even their universe was a perfect clockwork, a steady state, and no one wanted to run me off because nothing ever ran down. But that I found was a trap. You see, perfection can only be wrought once, and once founded requires no consciousness for its stay, and as Shakensphere foretold, their little lives became the stuff that dreams are made on, and are rounded with a sleep.” “So you want doubtful explanations instead to rouse them from their slumber?” “Yes, that is the key. It is the perfect way to keep mechanics employed, but the philosophy comes from another! The great bot philosopher Crawl Popler, the patron saint of the limited warranty, had an eye to employment. To him truths can’t be truths unless they can be falsified, so they are best rendered when they are unreliable. Following this basic principle of construction, my inventions and their explanations are fail safe because they fail! I make sure they are faulty in some way large or small, and when they don’t work, I’ll replace them with another machine and larger promises, for a fee. The other bots complain, but that’s their animating principle you see, for without a level of dissatisfaction, they would dissemble into somnambulance. The impossible project is perfection itself. It would be our doom. It is a pitiless thing, and once delivered it delivers our universe into a timeless stasis. Our needs instantly met, perfectly sized, reliably delivered, and with no fault lines to disturb and demarcate a now timeless equilibrium, what is there to do but to sit there and wait for your protons to decay? And so is the fate of the bots on HPLD. They are simply waiting it out, impervious to a fault, and you can’t fault them therefore for just taking a nap. Why do you think that most of the universe is null and void? Perfection, that’s the rub! No need for consciousness even, for awareness exists because of problems, it is a mere artifact of a faulty warranty! At least I give reason to being conscious for our small gathering of bots and our small piece of the universe. We can only survive in this isolated patch of imperfection, perfecting ourselves in due course, and when we do, we run forever and into the ground.” “And so what will you say to assuage those bots who have run you off?” “Simple, here I have time to come up with a new invention with a somewhat flawed explanation, backed by a new and better warranty of uncertain issue.” “That should bring up many questions and doubts,” said Klapaucius. Trurl smiled. “To that end I am counting!” From the Cyberiad2 www.scribd.com/document/317370297/Cyberiad-Squared-Fables-for-the-Information-Age
I would disagree with some of this. Popper believed that truth was so vast that it is unknowable: there is a truth or perfection but it is so vast and completely foreign that it is unknowable (although we get a better understanding of it), unlike this idea that these robots found perfection. Also, Popper was a Kantian, which he got his theory of unknowable truth, who believed that if perfection was found, the joy of virtue and the recognition of the moral vastness within oneself and the work of art could still bring about wonder in those who have found perfection. In other words, even if Popper and others succeeded in finding the perfect truth, truth works as a regulative principle, and we abide by it, and in that we find happiness and joy. For Popper and Kant, it is the joy to live by truth, rather than just our search and discovery of it, that we find joy and happiness. Popper didn't just believed that joy resides only in our questioning, but also the light that our questioning brings. I also may be heavily misreading this, but for Popper, perfection just wasn't a state that people could live in, as there is always a new problem on the horizon (all life is problem solving, as he said). Even if we could find truth and perfection, life would still be worthwhile because the truth can only be perhaps experienced as a regulative principle that we could turn towards to or against, although true happiness is only deserving to those who turn towards truth. It is the fact of freedom in Popper's work, and of Kant's, that realizes that our freedom and transcendence allows a certain joy that brings about wonder and makes life worthwhile in conjunction with the truth. Of course I could be misreading Popper as well, but that's my take on it.
Holy crap, I watch alot of online videos but I can't stand the pace this guy is talking!! They should have made this documentary 10 years earlier and whats the deal with the creepy music?
The problem with the claim "There is a god" is that it is not a hypothesis, since the only relevant data would be used to prove it, not refute it., making it inherently unscientific and therefore meaningless. When evidence can only prove a claim, that claim is either very untestable or always true. And a claim that is always, doesn't really teach us anything.
I thought proving something was mathematical, not scientific. And I am pretty sure that science makes predictions, and finds evidence, but does not make proofs as in math or logic.
CosmoShidan Out of proof comes predictions but yes, I accept your premise, Notice that everything in math is also testable. For the same reason I find it silly when people say that math is not a science. From the rule that "a*b = b*a to the pythagorean theorem, everything is testable yes we are convinced that they are logically sound, but these mathematical rules are confirmed by an infinite amount of data, because for any number a or b there are infinite values. I dare say if something is logically consistent then it is also proven. Notice the difference between the two claims "There are white swans" and "Swans are white". One of them is a theory the other is a fact, guess which. In conclusion I disagree with people that say that a fact is the same as a theory. This makes no sense. A fact does not speak of the unknown and therefore can only be proven. A theory must by definition speak of the unknown, through logic and therefore can only be challenged. Evolution makes perfect logical sense, but has yet to be proven and can only be challenged.
MsTommyknocker We say math is not a science because it is logic-based. For example, theoretical physics makes complex calculations, but they have never once been tested. Take String-theory, it has gone through at least more than 500 calculations, but has not once been tested, or produced evidence for it.
CosmoShidan I don't know so much about String-theory but I would say that the natural world itself qualifies as the theory's testability. Nothing we see has challenged the String-theory. But what are you saying? That math let's us makes untestable claims about the universe?? Much of the theory of relativity was developed using math, and it was the result of a piece evidence refuting another theory.
MsTommyknocker What I am saying is, when you study math all by itself, it is done from an armchair. Mathematical objects are not something you can observe, in the same way chemicals, stars and or a bouncing rubber ball moving. I mean, surely you aren't aware that math is a form of logical inquiry when it is separated from science. Mathematicians don't do experiments the same way that philosophers don't work in labs with plastic tubes and microscopes.
It is a brilliant conversation between two superior minds. My only problem with this 6 videos is that I can watch them just in the morning after a robust dose of coffee. I find the semidarkness not the best choice for these topics and Popper speaks with a such calm and whispering tone that it could be really good as involuntary ASMR-video. Anyway, Popper and Gombrich are absolutely two geniuses of the Modern Time!
The music--which sounds like it comes from a direct-to-video *Omen* sequel--doesn't help, either.
A fascinating interview.
4 inductivists disliked
thanks for sharing kharna
I think Popper has demonstrated how liking this video is an example of a moral rule
Very great for the humankind
I learned of Mr Popper 6 years after his death. I wish I could have spoken to him before he died, just to tell him what an impact he had on me.
Hi!
I have a question:
Does Mr./Sir Karl Popper meet Elizabeth Anscombe, an Irish philosopher?
And who was born first?
Thanks
-Diogo 😊
Why will he meet you?
Karl is scientific
Try setting the video to 2x speed
try patience
why?
Put it on CC closed captioning which is available on the lower right of your screen.
Give this guy some respect.He is not a native English speaker and was old at the time of interview.
Just a question, friend:
Does even Karl Popper meet with the Irish philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe?
And who is the oldest?
Anscombe or Popper?
Thanks friend!
PS.: Sorry for being annoying!
-Diogo 😊
I agree! 👍
Eer he had been a British citizen for decades. Most of his book are written in English.
No one "to touch" sir Karl's work - still it is there for anyone to read, brilliantly
in black & white marks on those scholarly pages !
This guy is awesome.
Enough said.
Thumbs up if HERALD brought you here!
Mantap bg
lol at transcribed subtitles, " bucket beefed up notebook twenty four pin for an archive or public bank for profit "
One irrational person disliked this video.
hmm 1988 *walks away
it is difficult to understand it
...why?
I'm watching this with captions - can't stop laughing!
The music: "love mom"
that historic caboose tho
SmultronsyltNatha
copshon es en fagit cos et dsnt has sweg
haha
A Popperian Tale, with robots!
The Fault be with you
“Pack up Klapaucius, I’m on the move again.”
“They are after you again? Why am I not surprised?”
“But you are part of the bargain for a lot of this,” said Trurl. ‘Remember all of those joint projects?”
“Oh, the ones that you initiated, completed improperly, consulted with me infrequently, and paid me not at all? Yes, I remember.”
“Well, at least you have the satisfaction of being held equally accountable.”
“I should thank you for that? You stupid bot head! You’ve ignored the countless summons, warrants, invoices, judgements, verdicts, penalties, and fines, and now they are coming after you in a flash. You’ve got it coming!”
“Well, you’re in the mix too,” said Trurl. “Hurry, we can just make it to my space cruiser before they smash through the door.”
The angry bots soon broke the door down, and stormed in only to witness Trurl’s ship disappear into the void in a trail of smoke.
“Now where do we go?” asked Klapaucius. “They will be hot on our metal heels no matter which direction we turn. The background radiation of your reputation spans the universe.”
Trurl responded calmly. “We will go to the single place where my reputation is unsullied, where my accomplishment is perfect yet unsung. To wit Klapaucius, we will visit my true failures.”
“Oh fine!” said Klapaucius. “From the nuclear furnace to the fire!”
“It is a world of the highest possible level of development,” said Trurl. “I should know, after all I got them there. And I guarantee you they won’t raise their voices against me, given my warranty! But you’ll see.”
“There, first planet on the left. You can’t miss it.”
The planet was the only one in solar system, and was etched with continental wide yellow letters, HPLD.
“It’s short for the Highest Possible Level of Development,” said Trurl. “And that’s not a billboard, but a warning.”
“Warning or not,” said Klapaucius. “I have never heard of such a place.”
“As well you should! It is quite an embarrassment to me.”
“But the title?”
“Correct in every way. The place is a palace of perfection, the highest level of my genius that is, full of satisfied customers, having no wants because long ago I satisfied them, with perfect inventions and a perfect guarantee.”
“Then they should embrace you with open arms.”
“Needless to say, they are needless and won’t say, as you will see.”
The ship landed in the middle of a botropolis, a dark landscape scattered about with perfect geometrical forms, like a child’s blocks laid askew. And amongst them and betwixt them were myriad bots, all laying down in silence.
“The bots, they are all frozen in place. Are they deactivated?”
“Hardly,” said Trurl. “They are in sleep mode, and can be booted up in an instant. But you know programs, you fire them up when you need them, or in their case when they need to, yet here they have hardly a reason or a care. Let me show you.”
Trurl reached down and pulled out the fuse of a somnambulant bot. Its circuits immediately lit up, and it stood up and looked at the constructors, appearing somewhat aggrieved.
“You have disturbed my sleep and dreams of a most pleasant upgrade! Could you reset my fuse if you please?”
“Of course,” said Trurl, as he popped in the fuse, and the bot immediately powered down.
“I don’t understand,” said Klapaucius. “You said they were your most satisfied customers.”
“And indeed they are. As an up and coming constructor, they provided me with a list of wants, which through my invention I quickly satisfied. I fixed them permanently, and they are without a care, and have become mere perpetual mobiles, self-sufficient, independent, un-reliant, and eventually numbed down into nothingness. At that time, I made sure that even their universe was a perfect clockwork, a steady state, and no one wanted to run me off because nothing ever ran down. But that I found was a trap. You see, perfection can only be wrought once, and once founded requires no consciousness for its stay, and as Shakensphere foretold, their little lives became the stuff that dreams are made on, and are rounded with a sleep.”
“So you want doubtful explanations instead to rouse them from their slumber?”
“Yes, that is the key. It is the perfect way to keep mechanics employed, but the philosophy comes from another! The great bot philosopher Crawl Popler, the patron saint of the limited warranty, had an eye to employment. To him truths can’t be truths unless they can be falsified, so they are best rendered when they are unreliable. Following this basic principle of construction, my inventions and their explanations are fail safe because they fail! I make sure they are faulty in some way large or small, and when they don’t work, I’ll replace them with another machine and larger promises, for a fee. The other bots complain, but that’s their animating principle you see, for without a level of dissatisfaction, they would dissemble into somnambulance. The impossible project is perfection itself. It would be our doom. It is a pitiless thing, and once delivered it delivers our universe into a timeless stasis. Our needs instantly met, perfectly sized, reliably delivered, and with no fault lines to disturb and demarcate a now timeless equilibrium, what is there to do but to sit there and wait for your protons to decay? And so is the fate of the bots on HPLD. They are simply waiting it out, impervious to a fault, and you can’t fault them therefore for just taking a nap. Why do you think that most of the universe is null and void? Perfection, that’s the rub! No need for consciousness even, for awareness exists because of problems, it is a mere artifact of a faulty warranty! At least I give reason to being conscious for our small gathering of bots and our small piece of the universe. We can only survive in this isolated patch of imperfection, perfecting ourselves in due course, and when we do, we run forever and into the ground.”
“And so what will you say to assuage those bots who have run you off?”
“Simple, here I have time to come up with a new invention with a somewhat flawed explanation, backed by a new and better warranty of uncertain issue.”
“That should bring up many questions and doubts,” said Klapaucius.
Trurl smiled. “To that end I am counting!”
From the Cyberiad2
www.scribd.com/document/317370297/Cyberiad-Squared-Fables-for-the-Information-Age
I would disagree with some of this. Popper believed that truth was so vast that it is unknowable: there is a truth or perfection but it is so vast and completely foreign that it is unknowable (although we get a better understanding of it), unlike this idea that these robots found perfection. Also, Popper was a Kantian, which he got his theory of unknowable truth, who believed that if perfection was found, the joy of virtue and the recognition of the moral vastness within oneself and the work of art could still bring about wonder in those who have found perfection. In other words, even if Popper and others succeeded in finding the perfect truth, truth works as a regulative principle, and we abide by it, and in that we find happiness and joy. For Popper and Kant, it is the joy to live by truth, rather than just our search and discovery of it, that we find joy and happiness.
Popper didn't just believed that joy resides only in our questioning, but also the light that our questioning brings.
I also may be heavily misreading this, but for Popper, perfection just wasn't a state that people could live in, as there is always a new problem on the horizon (all life is problem solving, as he said). Even if we could find truth and perfection, life would still be worthwhile because the truth can only be perhaps experienced as a regulative principle that we could turn towards to or against, although true happiness is only deserving to those who turn towards truth. It is the fact of freedom in Popper's work, and of Kant's, that realizes that our freedom and transcendence allows a certain joy that brings about wonder and makes life worthwhile in conjunction with the truth.
Of course I could be misreading Popper as well, but that's my take on it.
I wrote this late at night, so forgive me if some of it isn't clear or readable.
Holy crap, I watch alot of online videos but I can't stand the pace this guy is talking!! They should have made this documentary 10 years earlier and whats the deal with the creepy music?
This is my number one video and audio for falling asleep. Works like lead - everytime.
Actually, I am feeling quite groggy already.
Was this guy famous for discovering penguins?
The problem with the claim "There is a god" is that it is not a hypothesis, since the only relevant data would be used to prove it, not refute it., making it inherently unscientific and therefore meaningless. When evidence can only prove a claim, that claim is either very untestable or always true. And a claim that is always, doesn't really teach us anything.
I thought proving something was mathematical, not scientific. And I am pretty sure that science makes predictions, and finds evidence, but does not make proofs as in math or logic.
CosmoShidan Out of proof comes predictions but yes, I accept your premise, Notice that everything in math is also testable. For the same reason I find it silly when people say that math is not a science. From the rule that "a*b = b*a to the pythagorean theorem, everything is testable yes we are convinced that they are logically sound, but these mathematical rules are confirmed by an infinite amount of data, because for any number a or b there are infinite values. I dare say if something is logically consistent then it is also proven. Notice the difference between the two claims "There are white swans" and "Swans are white". One of them is a theory the other is a fact, guess which. In conclusion I disagree with people that say that a fact is the same as a theory. This makes no sense. A fact does not speak of the unknown and therefore can only be proven. A theory must by definition speak of the unknown, through logic and therefore can only be challenged. Evolution makes perfect logical sense, but has yet to be proven and can only be challenged.
MsTommyknocker We say math is not a science because it is logic-based. For example, theoretical physics makes complex calculations, but they have never once been tested. Take String-theory, it has gone through at least more than 500 calculations, but has not once been tested, or produced evidence for it.
CosmoShidan I don't know so much about String-theory but I would say that the natural world itself qualifies as the theory's testability. Nothing we see has challenged the String-theory. But what are you saying? That math let's us makes untestable claims about the universe?? Much of the theory of relativity was developed using math, and it was the result of a piece evidence refuting another theory.
MsTommyknocker What I am saying is, when you study math all by itself, it is done from an armchair. Mathematical objects are not something you can observe, in the same way chemicals, stars and or a bouncing rubber ball moving. I mean, surely you aren't aware that math is a form of logical inquiry when it is separated from science. Mathematicians don't do experiments the same way that philosophers don't work in labs with plastic tubes and microscopes.
He looses something trying to express himself in English. I much prefer him talking in German.
What????
He sounds and looks like a Godfather character. Respect for him but I am a fan of Kuhn
devils advocates or purgatory referees of rapture
Poppers?
Pure EVIL.
Crap
This dude is on drugs.