The Rise of Superman

Interesting book about performance.

Biggest ‘mistake’, I think, is that he sees large leaps of progress as exponential. Whilst it can just be an S-curve and/or the benefits are only incremental (computing/moore’s law)

But still an addition to the book I have about Flow already.

Note: Update the summary with notes from the book one day, TBD

Leonardo Da Vinci

Leonardo Da Vinci by Walter Isaacson is another one of the great biographies that he has done. Although I wasn’t interested in reading the one about Steve Jobs, I have read his other work about The Innovators.

The book is interesting in that it covers all aspects of Leonardo. Not just his accomplishments, but also with a focus on the things he didn’t complete. All in all, it’s a very inspiring read. Here is a synopsis from Goodreads:

Based on thousands of pages from Leonardo’s astonishing notebooks and new discoveries about his life and work, Walter Isaacson weaves a narrative that connects his art to his science. He shows how Leonardo’s genius was based on skills we can improve in ourselves, such as passionate curiosity, careful observation, and an imagination so playful that it flirted with fantasy.

He produced the two most famous paintings in history, The Last Supper and the Mona Lisa. But in his own mind, he was just as much a man of science and technology. With a passion that sometimes became obsessive, he pursued innovative studies of anatomy, fossils, birds, the heart, flying machines, botany, geology, and weaponry. His ability to stand at the crossroads of the humanities and the sciences, made iconic by his drawing of Vitruvian Man, made him history’s most creative genius.

His creativity, like that of other great innovators, came from having wide-ranging passions. He peeled flesh off the faces of cadavers, drew the muscles that move the lips, and then painted history’s most memorable smile. He explored the math of optics, showed how light rays strike the cornea, and produced illusions of changing perspectives in The Last Supper. Isaacson also describes how Leonardo’s lifelong enthusiasm for staging theatrical productions informed his paintings and inventions.

Leonardo’s delight at combining diverse passions remains the ultimate recipe for creativity. So, too, does his ease at being a bit of a misfit: illegitimate, gay, vegetarian, left-handed, easily distracted, and at times heretical. His life should remind us of the importance of instilling, both in ourselves and our children, not just received knowledge but a willingness to question it—to be imaginative and, like talented misfits and rebels in any era, to think different.

Also see Bill Gates’ take on the book here.

…but mostly because he was insatiably curious about pretty much every area of natural science and the human experience. He studied, in meticulous detail, everything from the flow of water and the rise of smoke to the muscles you use when you smile.

Switch

From the great brothers who’ve also brought us Made to Stick, comes Switch by Chip & Dan Heath. A book about how to make a lasting change. A change in your customers, employees or fellow countrymen. It’s a wonderful read, full of examples and actionable as can be. Here is a short summary, followed by a few personal implementation ideas.

Summary

The book uses the following analogy. You are a rider (rational) who is guiding an elephant (emotional) along a path (environment). It’s a great way of looking at the world and in line with other writings from Wait But Why and others (and makes me also think about Thinking Fast and Slow).

Direct the Rider

1. Follow the bright spots: Investigate what’s working and clone it
2. Script the critical moves: Don’t think big picture, think in terms of specific behaviours.
3. Point to the destination: Change is easier when you know where you’re going and why it’s worth it.

Motivate the Elephant

1. Find the feeling: Knowing something isn’t enough to cause change. Make people feel something.
2. Shrink the change: Break down the change until it no longer spooks the Elephant.
3. Grow your people: Cultivate a sense of identity and instil the growth mindset.

Shape the Path

1. Tweak the environment: When the situation changes, the behaviour changes. So change the situation.
2. Build habits: When behaviour is habitual, it’s “free” – it doesn’t tax the Rider. Look for ways to encourage habits.
3. Rally the herd: Behaviour is contagious. Help it spread.

Made to Stick

Made to Stick – Chip Heath & Dan Heath
Summary:

1. Simplicity
   Simplicity is about making the intention very clear (Commander Intent). Example, general asks of platoon to take the hill, not where every soldier needs to stand exactly.
   Simplicity is about finding the core of the idea. The hard part is weeding out ideas that may be really important but just aren’t the most important idea. Goal: nothing left to take away. Elegance and prioritisation, not dumbing down.
   Example. Southwest airlines. ‘We are THE low-fare airline’. So do they serve lunch?
   Simplicity is about starting with the lead. If you say three things, you don’t say anything.
   Prevent decision paralysis by eliminating uncertainty about a decision.
   Example. Local newspaper. ‘Names, names, and names’. This way they share their core message.
   Step 1. Define core message. Step 2. Communicate core message to others.
   Simple messages are core and compact. The more we reduce the information in an idea, the stickier it will be. But information behind core message can be huge. E.g. Better one bird in the hand than 10 in the air.
   Proverbs are simple yet profound. Short sentences (compact) that draw from long experience (core). E.g. it’s easier to remember JFK than KJF. Ideas with profound compactness are valuable. You use what is already there.
   If simple ideas are staged and layered correctly, they can very quickly become complex. Use schema (concepts) to build on. Schemas enable profound simplicity.
   Give just enough information to be useful. Then a little more, etc. Pyramid structure text.
   Simplicity is analogies. Aliens was Jaws on a spaceship. Imagine how the spaceship looks!
   Good metaphors are generative. Create new perceptions, explanations, and inventions. E.g. Disney employees are cast members.
   Metaphors and proverbs substitute something easy to think about for something difficult.
   Feature creep is the enemy of simplicity. Message needs to be short because we can learn and remember only so much information at once.

How does this apply to Queal?
The question is how we can use simplicity as a way to describe Queal. I think it’s one of our biggest challenges because we (ourselves) think that the product is difficult to explain. So let’s try and make it simple, yet profound.
Another questions is about how we prevent feature creep and don’t overload people with information. Therefore we should be very conscious of how we present information in what order. And what to just not tell people about.
Another question is about how to prevent decision paralysis. What if they have to choose between Queal and WundrBar/Go? Should we present them as alternatives and/or what about presenting it as alternatives to a dinner/breakfast/etc.

Ideas
Queal – it’s a meal
Queal – easy meal
Queal – easier meal
Queal – it’s a meal, stupid
Queal – healthy breakfast
Queal is a quick meal, like a sandwich (analogy) only better.
Queal is an easy meal. Like a sandwich only better. Easier to make, store & to go. Easier to get vitamins & minerals. Easier to do more in life.
Boost is 21st century (schema) coffee (analogy & schema). Caffeine for energy, LT for focus. Take it with any drink. (v2)
Connecting you.
Queal Go your portable meal. Nutritious like a salad, tasty like a Mars.
Random idea: 400kcal and 700kcal as serving sizes, do Queal in tub. Prices online for 400kcal.
Lieke: More access to life. Door to efficiency. A productive lifestyle. Complete nutrition for body and mind. Enjoy life to the fullest. Key to productivity.

• Getting more out of daily life
  Easy food. The smoothiest meal. No cooking skills required.
  Nutritious bar food (bar double).
  Brain extender. Open hidden doors.
• Improve and optimise. Getting more things done.
  Onno: A great meal in a short minute. Smart fuel. The ultimate nutrition lifehack. It’s your sandwich, multivitamin and veggies in one. Your efficiency powerup. Effortless but tasty fuel to get you started – to turbo charge your day.
• Fuel (analogy) – functional, not to replace the enjoyable foods
  Shotgun approach to food. Hit all the marks. A+ nutrition. Tick all the boxes. Score 100% on your next meal. Be your own personal trainer.
  Super snickers.
  Kala: The best things in life are simple. Perfect nutrition for a better you.
• Not nutrition related (on purpose) – focus on concept
  Shaken not stirred. Everything in one place, everything in one shake.
  Two birds one bar. (time & money)
  Conclusions:
• Kala: The best things in life are simple. (image: only show shaker or bar?). (vague fb ad)
  o A/B with or without description
• Kala: shaken not stirred. (cooked. Dead animal. Grilled. Fried. Pouched. Peeled. Gutted.) video or picture? (Floris: draft of picture) (Onno: draft of video)
• Floris: give feedback to bar ads
• Kala: Brain extender. Open hidden doors. Brain power-up. 22nd century coffee.

Where to implement
Prospecting advertisements (how to leverage this info to grow)

• Paar dingen bedenken
  Website A/B test homepage & shop pages – or – improve text without A/B test
  Email funnel, what do we say to people
  What do we say with our packaging (GO bar, Queal, Boost)
  PR copy for America

Goal
Friends & customers describe Queal as: easy meal. (now they say different things 3=0)
 

1. Unexpected
   To get attention, we must attract it. You can do this by breaking a pattern (expectations). Our brain is designed to be keenly aware of changes. This is why warning lights blink.
   Surprise gets our attention. Interest keeps it.
   Example Dollar Shave Club, what pattern did it break? (high price for blades)
   Unexpectedness violates our schemas. When our guessing machines fail, surprise grabs our attention. Surprise makes us pay attention and think. It makes us want to find an answer.
   Avoid gimmickry. Surprise should be about your core message. Surprise with insight.
   To surprise it can’t be predictable. To be satisfying it should be post-dictable. If you want your ideas to be stickier, you’ve got to break someone’s guessing machine and then fix it.
   Identify core message. Find what is counterintuitive about the message? What are the unexpected implications? Why isn’t it already happening naturally? Communicate your message in a way that breaks your audience’s guessing machine along the critical counterintuitive dimension. Then help them refine their thinking.
   Expose the parts of your message that are uncommon sense.
   Keep attention with a mystery. It creates a need for closure. Mystery is created from an unexpected journey.
   Curiosity is the intellectual need to answer questions and close open patterns. Story plays to this universal desire by doing the opposite, posing questions and opening situations. Curiosity happens when we feel a gap in our knowledge. Gap causes pain. Itch to scratch. First open gap, then close it.
   If we (audience) gain knowledge we are more and more likely to focus on what we don’t know. E.g. human interest stories. Give people enough information to start caring about their gap in knowledge. Provide context. Sequencing of information is important. More like flirting than lecturing.
   Create insight, dramatic shift of how and why world changes. Create knowledge gaps, that need to be resolved.

How does this apply to Queal?
How to break a pattern/schema? (about food)
How to break & fix guessing machine?
How to create mystery?
What questions do I want my audience to ask?
What is our information sequence?

Ideas
Shake = healthy = all you need
Unexpected story = how I lived of shakes for 30 days…
The stories about soylent and not eating work because they invoke mystery. They also break the pattern of needing to eat your food and/or prepare it. They are post-dictable because it explains that the nutrients are in the mix. The questions of people are: how does this work, does it really work?
A story that combines the different aspects of Queal? Never go to the grocery story again? Everything your body needs, and more.
Unexpected (but maybe not core?) about apocalypse and not needing to go grocery shopping. Having it all, already delivered to you.
Or showing grocery store in bad way. Then ‘save yourself the trouble’. Exposing the unexpected shit of finding groceries, but maybe gimmicky?
Random idea: video that explains why it has everything. Lab-coat-ish story. Then stop, it’s not really about the science of the food (ok it is). But it’s about the research (show stacks of paper). Stock footage research on people nutrition. Maybe even funny with measuring scoop of food or excrement XD.

Where to implement
A

Goal
Aa

1. Concrete
   Abstraction makes it harder to understand an idea and to remember it.
   Example: land-reserve company that ‘gave’ people specific plots of land. (putting a name on it)
   !!!If you can examine something with your senses, it’s concrete.
   Concrete language helps people, especially novices, understand new concepts. Novices crave concreteness.
   The more memorable concrete details survived and the abstractions evaporated.
   The more hooks an idea has, the better it will cling to memory. Example: brown & blue eyes experiment.
   The difference between an expert and a novice is to think abstractly. So be concrete with novices. Curse of Knowledge. Customers are seeking easy and reliable (not complex and sophisticated).
   Use concrete (physical) props if possible.

How does this apply to Queal?
Make time concrete. Say: save 1 hour per day. Or have 1 hour more to do x. Or see your loved ones more. Possible other examples, but question is which one to use?
Compare Queal to other existing food things. E.g. sandwich.
In our copy, not focus on the complicated. Focus on the easy and reliable!
Ideas
Where to implement
Goal

1. Credible
   We believe because our parents or our friends believe. We trust authorities. Experts. Celebrities. Or anti-authorities (anti-smoking).
   About honesty and trustworthiness of sources, not their status.
   Messages can have internal credibility. Concrete details can help. Vivid details boost credibility.
   Statistics are eye-glazing (don’t use them). Use human-scale principle, intuition works on this scale. Statistics aren’t inherently helpful, it’s the scale and context that make them so.
   Testable credits, things that can be falsified (example: Wendy’s burger size). “Are you better off than 4 years ago?”.
   A few vivid details might be more persuasive than a barrage of statistics.

How does this apply to Queal?
Who is a trustworthy source that we can tap into for endorsing Queal. Any random IT person or can we find a ‘famous’ one who can endorse us. Or business person. Or hiker. That has honesty and can speak from the hearth (also not focus on the ingredients but on benefits of the benefits).
In our own messages, use vivid details of 1) ingredients (maybe – focus on grains?) and 2) use case. “When popping down for a great coding session on the 45th floor of the .. building, Peter Jackson sits down at his XSID computer. Before the starts he opens his … bag and out comes a shaker. With precision he measures 3 scoops … etc)”
Dashboard: good use of statistics, see if all are on human-scale (p145)
Ideas
Where to implement
Goal

1. Emotional
   One individual trumps the masses. Thinking in statistics shifts people into a more analytical frame of mind. The mere act of calculation is bad.
   For people to take action, they have to care.
   But using words or feelings too much is semantic stretch (unique). Find associations that are distinctive for our ideas.
   Appeal to self-interest. People matter to themselves. Try to get self-interest into every headline you write. Emphasize benefits, the benefit of the benefit. What’s in it for you?
   People make decisions based on identiy.
   How does this apply to Queal?
   Always incorporate the self-interest (why it’s good for you). Use self-interest and not money or other more ‘basic’ motivations. Maybe even use self-actualisation.
   Ideas
   Queal is not the tastiest food. It’s food that is made to make you perform the best.
   Ready, Steady, Go. Meals to make you do more. Be Ready. Do more.
   Or So you can take control (if that is more important than doing more)

• Control of destiny/time/etc
  Where to implement
  Goal

1. Stories
   Aa
   How does this apply to Queal?

Ideas

Where to implement

Goal

The Fountainhead

I read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand because two good friends recommended the book to me. I can’t say I agree with the philosophy presented (in a rather round-about way). I do see that some of the points (sticking to your convictions) can be good, but I think the underlying basis (where do these convictions come from?) is not sound.

Here are some of my notes:

Criticism – ‘good/main’ characters seem to know it all – that it’s innate already and not, –influenced by environment – is there not uncertainty? – are principles good? – what about guidelines, is that not better? – deontology versus consequentialism – torture is bad, but in some situations break the rules – struggle? – is that what is fulfilling? – goal of life? (bad questions?) happy days, why principles and struggle? – what is her main point? – zero-sum game – everything is written in terms of lose and win

Theme – certainty versus uncertainty – principles versus no-spine – deontology versus consequentialism – the love for the struggle – obedience versus dominance – at least 50x mentioned – about status roles / power roles – who is the boss over another? – or are you the boss over yourself? (is that even possible) – creator vs parasite – but everything is a remix (link to docu) – unsacrificed self

Musings before reading any other critique – I think the main goal was (/should be) that you live life on your own terms. You’re not being led by others and make your own way in life. And that Rand tries to say that sticking to your principles may hurt in the short-term but lets you be the ‘right’ person in the long-term. I don’t understand the whole struggle and why everything needs to be so difficult. Why not enjoy along the way, whilst still sticking to principles. But is there then room for improvement or forgiveness, change of mind and adaptation?

In my opinion, life could be seen as two phases that move in and out. One is rigid and planning and sticking to it. The other is more loose and seeing what life brings you. The second is what many people are being lived by (without themselves being ‘in control’) and the first is what you might want to aspire to. But that is also too rigid and maybe less enjoyable.

How to Change Your Mind

TBD

Ending Aging

Ending Aging by Aubrey de Grey is one of the more revolutionary books I’ve read ever. It doesn’t just ask the question ‘Can we live forever’? No, it proposes concrete research directions for solving the causes of death.

I currently follow some of the research and it’s amazing to see what has happened in the last 11 years (since 2008). In some time I would very much like to be involved with solving ageing.

Here are some of my notes from the book:

• dedication: “To the tens of millions whose indefinite escape from ageing depends on our actions today”
• Aubrey’s insight was to stop focusing on the (very difficult) problem of metabolism. He just looked at the damage it causes and how to heal that
• All you have to understand is the damage itself. Take that away, take ageing away
• In industrialised countries, more than 90% of people die of ageing (vs homicide, suicide, road accidents, etc)
• “The average person in the industrialised world consumes more health-care resources in his or her last year of life than in an entire life up to that point” (in other words, what if you could keep someone healthy, that seems to save an awful amount of money)
• Aubrey wrote the book to shift public perception. To make ageing the new smoking. To let people think about the possibilities
• He predicts that (from 2008) there is a 50/50 chance of finding solutions to the current ageing diseases by 2038. And that after that we will discover more and more at a rate that is quicker than that things will kill us
• One thing I question is how equally this will be distributed. And at what rate therapies like this will be adopted. But better be sure that I wish to be part of it
• A good point in the book is about diet. I think you should have a good diet, enjoy your food, and eat mostly plants. Aubrey agrees but doesn’t see it as a viable solution to ageing. It might add a few years but that is not what he is after (he has larger ambitions)
• There is no biological limit/barrier of ageing. Our bodies just haven’t evolved the ‘right’ things to survive, because there was no evolutionary pressure to do so (already reproduced).
• Prevention is better than combating the bad outcomes of a bad lifestyle. “Most people leave the serious maintenance of their car [body] until it’s too late”
• SENS (his non-profit) identified 7 ways the body fails with age (and the path forward):
  1. Cell loss, cell atrophy (cell therapy)
  2. Junk outside cells (phagocytosis by immune stimulation)
  3. Crosslinks outside cells (AGE-breaking molecules/enzymes)
  4. Death-resistant cells (suicide genes, immune stimulation)
  5. Mitochondrial mutations (allotopic expression of 13 proteins)
  6. Junk inside cells (transgenic microbial enzymes)
  7. Nuclear mutations aka cancer (telomerase/ALT gene deletion plus periodic stem cell reseeding)

That is where I will leave it for now. Another day I will talk a bit more about the societal consequences, either here or on a future article on longevity.

The Beginning of Infinity

In some books I’m searching for a philosophy of life. Some guidelines, if you can call them that, that direct you to a better life. One that is more ‘true’, makes you happy, adds positive things to the world. This book is definitely one where I think I’ve found a piece of the puzzle.

The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch is a book where you get taken on a journey of understanding where David is relentless in breaking with other perceptions of the world (e.g. Spaceship Earth) and relies on theory and explanation.

One thing I think best shows what he argues for is his case for optimism. He (and I) believes that the world can get much better (even infinitely better). And that the problems that are created by technology – by the solutions of today – need solutions that we will have to invent (which will cause new problems, etc).

Many people nowadays have become pessimists. Just today I read the same tendency by Jon Evans (technology blogger) who said (article here): “
But just because fire is dangerous doesn’t every new use of it is a malevolent threat. ” (read the article for more, also on the Three Body Problem). I hope that we can instill some positivism, some believe in a better future, and my hope is that I can entice more people to think alike.

Below are some of my notes from the book:

• “Scientific theories are explanations: assertions about what is out there and how it behaves”. They are conjectures/guesses and are not derived (only) from observations (empiricism). Science can make predictions about things we have never experienced before
• (good) Science comes forth from a tradition of criticism, not relying on authority. A theory must be testable, it should make predictions, that if tested could be contradicted (criterion of demarcation)
• Solving a problem means creating an explanation that does not have the conflict (theory and reality not matching)
• A good theory makes it harder for you to fool yourself
• “Reach: The ability of some explanations to solve problems beyond those that they were created to solve”
• (chapter 2) Almost everything we experience is the end of a chain of interpretations (e.g. what we ‘see’ in our mind and what is out there in the world) The closer we come to reality, the ‘truer’ our theories become
• “The growth of knowledge consists of correcting misconceptions in our theories”
• (chapter 3) Many ancient believes (if not all) were false and mostly centred around humans (anthropocentric). This trend has gone the other way with the principle of Mediocracy
• Deutsch argues that this is taking things too far. Humans are unique and we’re in quite a unique place
• The earth (Spaceship Earth) isn’t made for us and is not very hospitable (just try and go outside in the winter in Europe without clothes and see how many days you survive). But it’s special, we’re in a place near a star, not somewhere in deep space where there is virtually no matter around
• What is also special about us is that we find new solutions to problems. Most species don’t do this and constantly live on the edge of disaster and death. The world also isn’t made for them to survive, most species are extinct
• If we are on Spaceship Earth, we are its designers and builders!
• We (humans) can achieve anything with the resources at our hands unless it’s forbidden by the laws of nature. This is an extremely optimistic prediction and is one of the ways in which Deutsch defines the beginning of infinity.
• For instance, living on another planet isn’t limited by if we can breathe oxygen there (heck, even the need for it might someday not be there), it’s about what habitat we can build
• The developments for this are way out there, but remember that once we have discovered one thing, we can keep using this knowledge indefinitely
• Deutsch even mentions the question of extending our lives (see (Ending Aging)
• All we need is matter, energy, and evidence (the information to test scientific theories)
• Deutsch postulates two other maxims: Problems are inevitable, problems are soluble. I think this is quite profound and I think it has changed my view a bit on the climate change problem. Instead of only look at prevention/limiting our impact, I think we can focus even more on the solutions and new things we can do to make the planet more hospitable (for humans)
• (chapter 4) Human knowledge is created by evolution; variation in existing knowledge (via conjecture) and selection by criticism and experiment
• Good adaptations, like good explanations, are distinguished by being hard to vary while still fulfilling their functions
• Deutsch argues (successfully) that Creationism and other old theories are crap. He argues that Neo-Darwinism is the best explanation: evolution favours the genes! that spread best through the population. Not the species or the individual, the genes (also see The Selfish Gene)
• Human knowledge (ideas) are similar to genes (both replicators) but human knowledge can be explanatory and can have great reach
• (chapter 5) Abstractions can be quasi-autonomic (of underlying/smaller) parts of it, this is called emergence
• This should not be mistaken for reductionism, that it’s only just the cumulative effect of the underlying parts
• “All knowledge creation depends on, and physically consists of, emergent phenomena”
• The parts around 118-121 are somewhat convoluted and something to read again later
• (chapter 6) Small changes in a system (like language) can make it jump to universality
• Instead of tallying numbers (IIIIII), the current system (0-9) is universal
• The same goes for movable-type printing (and maybe will do so for 3D printers?)
• Computers are for many things a universal machine (and will maybe one day generate A(G)I (through emergence from a lower level)
• Error-correction (in computer/humans) is part of the beginning of infinity
• RNA/DNA can be seen as the first universality
• What I learned from this chapter is that only a small change will lead to universality, it’s really a jump instead of gradual improvements
• (chapter 7) “Turing did understand that artificial intelligence (AI) must in principle be possible because a universal computer is a universal simulator”
• But attempts to create A(G)I have not gone anywhere in the last 60+ years, the jump to universality still hasn’t happened (although I think some algorithms have quite a bit of reach like Watson and AlphaZero)
• “if you can’t program it, you haven’t understood it”
• “judging whether something is a genuine AI will always depend on explanations of how it works” (and this can be on the emergent/abstract level)
• Deutsch also argues that many of the AI’s we have now are evolutionary algorithms and although they are clever, the outcome is still just the creativity of the programmer (and with a lot of computational power, but still no true/new knowledge that is created during the running of the program (instead of during its development by the programmer))
• I wonder where AI is now and if some of it adheres to the criteria in chapter 7
• “we do not understand how creativity works”
• (chapter 8) “The beginning of infinity – the possibility of the unlimited growth of knowledge in the future – depends on a number of other infinities” 1) universality of the laws of nature (local symbols/formulas that apply everywhere/when), 2) existence of physical objects that are universal explainers (people), and 3) universal classical computers
• The rest of the chapter deals with infinity in the mathematical sense (Hilbert’s Infinity Hotel) and is very interesting to read (see here for more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elvOZm0d4H0 )
• The laws of nature seem so computational-friendly, etc. So are we not in a simulation? Nope, or at least, that could mean it’s simulations all the way down
• (chapter 9) What I like about Deutsch approach is that he argues for innovation, for new thinking, for finding new solutions. In many cases, people say we are doomed if we do the same things again, and that is true but also not what our history shows. “the future of civilization depends entirely on what we think and do”
• “The possible outcomes are not yet known, let alone their probabilities”
• prediction = conclusions about future events that follow from good explanations
• prophecy = anything that purports to know what is not yet knowable
• Stopping innovation (and new ‘weapons’) is not what is going to save us, we messed up before with fire and swords. Only by expanding our knowledge will we make ourselves more capable of surviving
• So we can say: “unless we solve certain problems in time, we are doomed” (so lack of knowledge is bad, but that is exactly the thing that at least some of us are working on improving)
• With more knowledge, we can weather more storms (even literally, by building more insulated houses, better weather models, etc)
• Criticism and good explanations!!!
• The principle of optimism: All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge
• Deutsch also refers to the Enlightenment (see Sophie’s World) and that this time we have a chance of really going through with our own Enlightenment
• (chapter 10) This chapter is about Socrates and uses a dialogue as another way of explaining good theory (exceedingly hard to vary while still remaining a viable explanation). And that by converging on the truth, we will have a chance of better understanding each other
• (chapter 11) The multiverse is one of those counterintuitive and hard to grasp ideas. Many tv series have been made about it (Man In The High Castle, Fringe, Counterpart)
• Deutsch argues for the ‘many-universes interpretation’ (a minority view within physics)
• A lot of the chapter is above my paygrade (at least to reproduce here) so here is the conclusion “The physical world is a multiverse, and its structure is determined by how information flows in it. In many regions the multiverse, information flows in quasi-autonomous streams called histories, one of which we call our ‘universe’. Universes approximately obey the laws of classical (pre-quantum) physics. But we know of the rest of the multiverse, and can test the laws of quantum physics, because of the phenomenon of quantum interference. Thus a universe is not an exact but an emergent feature of the multiverse. One of the most unfamiliar and counter-intuitive things about the multiverse is fungibility. The laws of motion of the multiverse are deterministic, and apparent randomness is due to initially fungible instances of objects becoming different. In quantum physics, variables are typically discrete, and how they change from one value to another is a multiversal process involving interference and fungibility”
• (chapter 12) We are “an emergent, quasi-autonomous flow of information in the multiverse”
• Deutsch argues that quite a lot of work in quantum physics is ‘bad philosophy’, “not merely false, but actively prevents the growth of other knowledge”
• “Happiness is a state of continually solving one’s problems” (unhappiness is thus not knowing how to do this)
• Science should have explanatory power and not just put things in ‘black boxes’ (behaviourism)
• (chapter 13) Deutsch explains how it’s not possible to have ‘perfect’ representation and that this can be proven mathematically
• He also argues that we should focus on expanding the choices/options and not stay focused on how to choose between the current options
• “Rational decision-making consists not of weighing evidence but of explaining it, in the course of explaining the world”
• A political system should be one in which bad choices are punished. He argues that a two party system is better at this (in principle) than having more parties. I think I’m biased by seeing what happens in America, but I think (for now) that in practice his theory here isn’t looking like the best choice (but again, this is the current political system, he could be right about it in principle)
• (chapter 14) Good explanations and beautiful things share an attribute, they are hard to vary and still do the job. It’s a very interesting take on beauty. I think I do agree though.
• “deep truth is often beautiful”
• “Elegance is the beauty in explanations”
• Deutsch argues that those hard to vary characteristics are what makes things like music, landscapes, symmetry in a flower, etc so beautiful
• He also argues that this beauty is universal, it’s between species (signalling)
• (chapter 15) “A culture is a set of ideas that cause their holders to behave alike in some way” (memes are ideas that replicate)
• So culture is a set of ever-slightly changing memes, it’s the transition of long-lived memes over time.
• Genes and memes are replicators, but they spread very differently (a meme has to be interpreted (mental representation) and copied (behaviour) correctly) and have vastly different outcomes
• Creativity is a higher-level emergent phenomenon of conjecture and criticism
• “static-societies: societies changing on a timescale unnoticed by the inhabitants” (slow/unchanging memes, taboos, customs, laws) (anti-rational memes)
• Dynamic societies are the opposite, the memes here are the ones that change things, that survive by finding a deep truth (rational memes)
• There have been some small enlightenments in the past and only now are we in a ‘large’ enlightenment where (at least to some degree) we have a dynamic society.
• (chapter 16) “Of all the countless biological adaptations that have evolved on our planet, creativity is the only one that can produce scientific or mathematical knowledge, art or philosophy”
• “The unique effects of creativity dominate our experience of the world”
• “Creativity, as far as we know, evolved only once” (in humans, and also not yet in AI, hmm)
• Creativity was then used the recreate memes (static society) instead of what we could use it for (new memes)
• “Memes, like scientific theories, are not derived from anything. They are created afresh by the recipient. They are conjectural explanations, which are then subjected to criticism and testing before being tentatively adopted”
• “Creativity is a property of software” I.e. how our brain is structured, not some magical elements. Creativity is, according to Deutch, a combination of genes and memes
• (chapter 17) “Our civilization is unique in history for its capacity to make progress”
• In this chapter Deutsch argues for optimism towards the problems we face. To look at climate change and other things as something we can fix and not worry ourselves to death. I can get behind this idea. At the same time I do believe we can lower our impact (also through technology), for more see Let My People Go Surfing
• “You have to live the solution, and to set about solving the new problems that this creates”
• “progress is sustainable, indefinitely”
• If we look at the future, remember to make predictions, not prophecies
• What I like most about his views here is that we can’t put our heads in the sand or try and push pause, we should go and run ahead and find solutions!
• (chapter 18) We are still at the beginning of infinity and there is so much more to learn and discover. I hope to see much of it in the (far) future!
• “seeking good explanations through creativity and criticism”