web01.fireside.fm Wed, 29 Apr 2026 09:01:48 -0500 Fireside (https://fireside.fm) Increments - Episodes Tagged with “Explanation” https://www.incrementspodcast.com/tags/explanation Wed, 17 Jan 2024 09:00:00 -0800 Vaden Masrani, a senior research scientist in machine learning, and Ben Chugg, a PhD student in statistics, get into trouble arguing about everything except machine learning and statistics. Coherence is somewhere on the horizon. Bribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. en-us episodic Science, Philosophy, Epistemology, Mayhem Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani Vaden Masrani, a senior research scientist in machine learning, and Ben Chugg, a PhD student in statistics, get into trouble arguing about everything except machine learning and statistics. Coherence is somewhere on the horizon. Bribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. no Philosophy,Science,Ethics,Progress,Knowledge,Computer Science,Conversation,Error-Correction Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani incrementspodcast@gmail.com #61 - Debating Free Will: Frankenstein's Monster and a Filmstrip of the Universe (with Lucas Smalldon) https://www.incrementspodcast.com/61 e4357549-eb00-4824-8de7-822f7a647743 Wed, 17 Jan 2024 09:00:00 -0800 Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani full Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani We have Lucas Smalldon on for a good ol' fashion free will debate. In particular, we discuss his blog post "Reconciling Free Will with Determinism" and try to sort of the age old question of whether or not we have the ability to make choices. 1:42:49 no While you're reading this you're having a thought. Something like "wow, I love the Increments podcast", or "those hosts are some handsome" or "I really wish people would stop talking about free will." Do you have a choice in the matter? Are you free to choose what you're thinking in any given moment, or is it determined by your genetics, environment, and existing ideas? Is the universe determined, are we all Frankenstein's monster? How does one profitably think about that question? Today we have Lucas Smalldon on to help us think through these questions. We reference Lucas's blog post titled reconciling-determinism-and-free-will (https://barelymorethanatweet.com/2021/01/05/reconciling-determinism-and-free-will/). Because it's is barely more than a tweet, we've included the entire post here as well: Reconciling Free Will with Determinism Free will and determinism seem to conflict with each other. But the apparent conflict disappears when we understand that determinism and free will simply describe the world from radically different perspectives and at fundamentally different levels. Free will makes sense only within the context of the physical world, whereas determinism makes sense only from a perspective that is outside the physical world. Consider the determinist statement, “The future exists and has always existed”. It seems like a contradiction in terms, but only because our language forces us to express the idea misleadingly in terms of the past and future. If we assign special meanings to the temporal words in the statement—namely, if by the future we mean “objectively real events that from the perspective of our present have not yet happened”; and if by always we mean “transcending time itself” rather than the usual “existing across all time”—then the contradiction resolves. Assigning these special meanings allows us to express determinism as atemporal and objective: as a description of a physical reality of which time is an attribute. Conversely, free will, which is by far the more intuitive concept, is needed to explain certain kinds of events (i.e., choices) that occur within time, and thus within the physical world that determinism describes from the outside. Determinism and free will are compatible. We really do make choices. It’s just that, from an atemporal determinist perspective, these choices have “always” existed. Follow Lucas on twitter (https://twitter.com/reason_wit_me?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) or check out his blog (https://barelymorethanatweet.com/). We discuss Levels of explanation regarding free will The (in)compatibility of different levels of explanation Why the lack of free will does not hinge on reductionism Memetic arguments for the non-existence of free will Whether we can have moral responsibility without free will The universe as a filmstrip Whether we're all just Frankenstein's monster Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Help us find freedom and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here (https://www.patreon.com/Increments). Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here (https://ko-fi.com/increments). Click dem like buttons on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ) How much do you want to want Frankenstein's monster? Send your answer down the tubes and over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com Special Guest: Lucas Smalldon. free will, determinism, moral responsibility, explanation, reductionism While you're reading this you're having a thought. Something like "wow, I love the Increments podcast", or "those hosts are some handsome" or "I really wish people would stop talking about free will." Do you have a choice in the matter? Are you free to choose what you're thinking in any given moment, or is it determined by your genetics, environment, and existing ideas? Is the universe determined, are we all Frankenstein's monster? How does one profitably think about that question? Today we have Lucas Smalldon on to help us think through these questions.

We reference Lucas's blog post titled reconciling-determinism-and-free-will. Because it's is barely more than a tweet, we've included the entire post here as well:

Reconciling Free Will with Determinism

Free will and determinism seem to conflict with each other. But the apparent conflict disappears when we understand that determinism and free will simply describe the world from radically different perspectives and at fundamentally different levels. Free will makes sense only within the context of the physical world, whereas determinism makes sense only from a perspective that is outside the physical world. Consider the determinist statement, “The future exists and has always existed”. It seems like a contradiction in terms, but only because our language forces us to express the idea misleadingly in terms of the past and future. If we assign special meanings to the temporal words in the statement—namely, if by the future we mean “objectively real events that from the perspective of our present have not yet happened”; and if by always we mean “transcending time itself” rather than the usual “existing across all time”—then the contradiction resolves. Assigning these special meanings allows us to express determinism as atemporal and objective: as a description of a physical reality of which time is an attribute. Conversely, free will, which is by far the more intuitive concept, is needed to explain certain kinds of events (i.e., choices) that occur within time, and thus within the physical world that determinism describes from the outside. Determinism and free will are compatible. We really do make choices. It’s just that, from an atemporal determinist perspective, these choices have “always” existed.

Follow Lucas on twitter or check out his blog.

We discuss

  • Levels of explanation regarding free will
  • The (in)compatibility of different levels of explanation
  • Why the lack of free will does not hinge on reductionism
  • Memetic arguments for the non-existence of free will
  • Whether we can have moral responsibility without free will
  • The universe as a filmstrip
  • Whether we're all just Frankenstein's monster

Socials

  • Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani
  • Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link
  • Help us find freedom and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.
  • Click dem like buttons on youtube

How much do you want to want Frankenstein's monster? Send your answer down the tubes and over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com

Special Guest: Lucas Smalldon.

Support Increments

]]> While you're reading this you're having a thought. Something like "wow, I love the Increments podcast", or "those hosts are some handsome" or "I really wish people would stop talking about free will." Do you have a choice in the matter? Are you free to choose what you're thinking in any given moment, or is it determined by your genetics, environment, and existing ideas? Is the universe determined, are we all Frankenstein's monster? How does one profitably think about that question? Today we have Lucas Smalldon on to help us think through these questions.

We reference Lucas's blog post titled reconciling-determinism-and-free-will. Because it's is barely more than a tweet, we've included the entire post here as well:

Reconciling Free Will with Determinism

Free will and determinism seem to conflict with each other. But the apparent conflict disappears when we understand that determinism and free will simply describe the world from radically different perspectives and at fundamentally different levels. Free will makes sense only within the context of the physical world, whereas determinism makes sense only from a perspective that is outside the physical world. Consider the determinist statement, “The future exists and has always existed”. It seems like a contradiction in terms, but only because our language forces us to express the idea misleadingly in terms of the past and future. If we assign special meanings to the temporal words in the statement—namely, if by the future we mean “objectively real events that from the perspective of our present have not yet happened”; and if by always we mean “transcending time itself” rather than the usual “existing across all time”—then the contradiction resolves. Assigning these special meanings allows us to express determinism as atemporal and objective: as a description of a physical reality of which time is an attribute. Conversely, free will, which is by far the more intuitive concept, is needed to explain certain kinds of events (i.e., choices) that occur within time, and thus within the physical world that determinism describes from the outside. Determinism and free will are compatible. We really do make choices. It’s just that, from an atemporal determinist perspective, these choices have “always” existed.

Follow Lucas on twitter or check out his blog.

We discuss

  • Levels of explanation regarding free will
  • The (in)compatibility of different levels of explanation
  • Why the lack of free will does not hinge on reductionism
  • Memetic arguments for the non-existence of free will
  • Whether we can have moral responsibility without free will
  • The universe as a filmstrip
  • Whether we're all just Frankenstein's monster

Socials

  • Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani
  • Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link
  • Help us find freedom and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.
  • Click dem like buttons on youtube

How much do you want to want Frankenstein's monster? Send your answer down the tubes and over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com

Special Guest: Lucas Smalldon.

Support Increments

]]> #25 - Mathematical Explanation with Mark Colyvan https://www.incrementspodcast.com/25 1a5864a9-d5d7-43af-b8d6-e78dcb1d90c3 Mon, 24 May 2021 14:00:00 -0700 Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani full Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani We're joined by professor Mark Colyvan to talk about the philosophy of mathematics, logic, and thought experiments. 2:07:37 no We often talk of explanation in the context of empirical sciences, but what about explanation in logic and mathematics? Is there such a thing? If so, what does it look like and what are the consequences? In this episode we sit down with professor of philosophy Mark Colyvan and explore How mathematical explanation differs from explanation in the natural sciences Counterfactual reasoning in mathematics Intra versus extra mathematical explanation Alternate logics Mathematical thought experiments The use of probability in the courtroom References: - The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences (https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf) by Eugene Wigner. - Proofs and Refutations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations#:~:text=Proofs%20and%20Refutations%3A%20The%20Logic,characteristic%20defined%20for%20the%20polyhedron.) by Imre Lakatos. Mark Colyvan (http://www.colyvan.com/) is a professor of philosophy at the University of Sydney, and a visiting professor (and, previously, Humboldt fellow) at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. He has a wide array of research interests, including the philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, decision theory, environmental philosophy, and ecology. He has authored three books: The Indispensability of Mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ecological Orbits: How Planets Move and Populations Grow (Oxford University Press, 2004, co-authored with Lev Ginzburg), and An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2012). Special Guest: Mark Colyvan. counterfactual, explanation, philosophy of mathematics, logic, thought experiments We often talk of explanation in the context of empirical sciences, but what about explanation in logic and mathematics? Is there such a thing? If so, what does it look like and what are the consequences? In this episode we sit down with professor of philosophy Mark Colyvan and explore

  • How mathematical explanation differs from explanation in the natural sciences
  • Counterfactual reasoning in mathematics
  • Intra versus extra mathematical explanation
  • Alternate logics
  • Mathematical thought experiments
  • The use of probability in the courtroom

References:

Mark Colyvan is a professor of philosophy at the University of Sydney, and a visiting professor (and, previously, Humboldt fellow) at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. He has a wide array of research interests, including the philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, decision theory, environmental philosophy, and ecology. He has authored three books: The Indispensability of Mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ecological Orbits: How Planets Move and Populations Grow (Oxford University Press, 2004, co-authored with Lev Ginzburg), and An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Special Guest: Mark Colyvan.

Support Increments

]]> We often talk of explanation in the context of empirical sciences, but what about explanation in logic and mathematics? Is there such a thing? If so, what does it look like and what are the consequences? In this episode we sit down with professor of philosophy Mark Colyvan and explore

  • How mathematical explanation differs from explanation in the natural sciences
  • Counterfactual reasoning in mathematics
  • Intra versus extra mathematical explanation
  • Alternate logics
  • Mathematical thought experiments
  • The use of probability in the courtroom

References:

Mark Colyvan is a professor of philosophy at the University of Sydney, and a visiting professor (and, previously, Humboldt fellow) at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. He has a wide array of research interests, including the philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, decision theory, environmental philosophy, and ecology. He has authored three books: The Indispensability of Mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ecological Orbits: How Planets Move and Populations Grow (Oxford University Press, 2004, co-authored with Lev Ginzburg), and An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Special Guest: Mark Colyvan.

Support Increments

]]> #24 - Popper's Three Worlds https://www.incrementspodcast.com/24 Buzzsprout-8500607 Tue, 11 May 2021 10:00:00 -0700 Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani full Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani 1:13:16 no <p>This episode begins with a big announcement! Ben has officially become a cat person, and is now Taking Cats Seriously. Vaden follows up with some news of his own, before diving into the main subject for today's episode - <a href="https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/p/popper80.pdf">Popper's Three Worlds</a>. <br>In this episode we discuss:</p><ul> <li>The <a href="https://fallibleideas.com/taking-children-seriously">TCS</a> parenting movement </li> <li>Chesto's <a href="https://twitter.com/mynameisChesto/status/1381798896960086016">tweet</a> to Deutsch</li> <li>How Popper's Three Worlds differs from Deutsch's Things/Qualia/Abstractions classification</li> <li>Would prime numbers exist if humans didn't exist?</li> <li>What constitutes reality?</li> <li>The existence of non-physical entities and the reality of abstractions </li> </ul><p> <br>Having a quick glance at the following wikipedia pages will help ground the conversation:</p><ul> <li> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system">Formal systems</a> </li> <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language">Formal languages</a></li> <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic">Modular Arithmetic</a></li> <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rules_of_inference#:~:text=Rules%20of%20inference%20are%20syntactical,conclusion%2C%20if%20it%20is%20sound.">Rules of inference</a></li> <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic#:~:text=Non%2Dclassical%20logics%20(and%20sometimes,extensions%2C%20deviations%2C%20and%20variations.">Alternative Logics</a></li> </ul><p><br>Errata:</p><ul><li>Somewhere Vaden says English is a formal language. Nope definitely not - English is <em>natural</em> language, which is distinct from a <em>formal</em> language.  </li></ul><p><br>Send us your best guess for whether or not we're real at <em>incrementspodcast@gmail.com.</em>  <em><br><br></em><br></p> abstractions, reality, logic, explanation, popper This episode begins with a big announcement! Ben has officially become a cat person, and is now Taking Cats Seriously. Vaden follows up with some news of his own, before diving into the main subject for today's episode - Popper's Three Worlds.
In this episode we discuss:

  • The TCS parenting movement 
  • Chesto's tweet to Deutsch
  • How Popper's Three Worlds differs from Deutsch's Things/Qualia/Abstractions classification
  • Would prime numbers exist if humans didn't exist?
  • What constitutes reality?
  • The existence of non-physical entities and the reality of abstractions 

 
Having a quick glance at the following wikipedia pages will help ground the conversation:


Errata:

  • Somewhere Vaden says English is a formal language. Nope definitely not - English is natural language, which is distinct from a formal language.  


Send us your best guess for whether or not we're real at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. 


Support Increments

]]> This episode begins with a big announcement! Ben has officially become a cat person, and is now Taking Cats Seriously. Vaden follows up with some news of his own, before diving into the main subject for today's episode - Popper's Three Worlds.
In this episode we discuss:

  • The TCS parenting movement 
  • Chesto's tweet to Deutsch
  • How Popper's Three Worlds differs from Deutsch's Things/Qualia/Abstractions classification
  • Would prime numbers exist if humans didn't exist?
  • What constitutes reality?
  • The existence of non-physical entities and the reality of abstractions 

 
Having a quick glance at the following wikipedia pages will help ground the conversation:


Errata:

  • Somewhere Vaden says English is a formal language. Nope definitely not - English is natural language, which is distinct from a formal language.  


Send us your best guess for whether or not we're real at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. 


Support Increments

]]>