- 2 years ago
Do you have an example of non-determinism being an emergent property out of deterministic subcomponents?
I'm curious @Stefan Molyneux why do people seem to avoid simplicity or any reductions in complexity?
I get tons of requests to add complexity to software at work without any regard for value provided to customers.
I find it fun, interesting, and not overly difficult to simultaneously remove complexity, often deleting large amounts of code, even while adding features and making the program more robust.
I saw this recently too with people mocking Musk's raptor 3 engine, which is a massive simplifications of the previous raptor 2 and 1 designs. I see this not only as practical, but also a thing of beauty that something so simple can be so functional, and likely, more reliable because of it. Yet, people seem to hate it, and I don't quite understand.
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
I'm curious @Stefan Molyneux why do people seem to avoid simplicity or any reductions in complexity?
I get tons of requests to add complexity to software at work without any regard for value provided to customers.
I find it fun, interesting, and not overly difficult to simultaneously remove complexity, often deleting large amounts of code, even while adding features and making the program more robust.
I saw this recently too with people mocking Musk's raptor 3 engine, which is a massive simplifications of the previous raptor 2 and 1 designs. I see this not only as practical, but also a thing of beauty that something so simple can be so functional, and likely, more reliable because of it. Yet, people seem to hate it, and I don't quite understand.
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00All right. Good morning, everybody. Hope you're doing well.
00:03Stefan Molyneux from freedomain.com. Let's throw in a slash donate as well.
00:09freedomain.com slash donate.
00:11And these are questions posted from subscribers and donors.
00:17And sorry, it took me a little while to get to them,
00:19but I have the attention span of a squirrel.
00:22So we're on it. All right.
00:24So somebody asks, do you have an example of non-determinism
00:29being an emergent property out of deterministic subcomponents?
00:35So do you have an example of non-determinism
00:38being an emergent property out of deterministic subcomponents?
00:41So, of course, what that means is,
00:45can I show step by step how mere atoms and cells gain free will?
00:52No individual atom has free will.
00:56No individual cell has free will.
00:59My finger doesn't have free will.
01:01My ear doesn't have free will, and so on.
01:04So can I show step by step how there's an emergent property
01:11possessed by none of the individual components that exists?
01:17Well, I mean, so the first thing that I would do
01:20if I was in this situation, the first thing that I would do
01:23is I would ask myself the following.
01:26Can any of your individual atoms think of, formulate, type out,
01:34and post the question?
01:36So again, I said this sort of many years ago
01:39that one of the major things that I brought to philosophy
01:41is to think about the form of the argument
01:45before engaging with the content.
01:47So think about the form of the argument
01:49before engaging with the content.
01:51What is implicit in the form of the argument?
01:54So if somebody says to me, UPB is false,
01:57rather than arguing whether UPB is true or false,
02:00I would say, well, implicit in you telling me that UPB is false
02:04is that there's an objective standard of truth and falsehood,
02:06and that truth is infinitely preferable to falsehood,
02:09which is UPB.
02:11So rather than looking at the content, look at the form.
02:16So I would say to this person,
02:19and with all due respect and affection and all of that,
02:22I would say, OK, which one of your atoms typed this question?
02:26Say, well, individual atoms, the individual atoms that compose me
02:30can't think of or type these questions.
02:33Ah, OK, so that's good to know.
02:36OK, well, which one of your cells thought of, formulated,
02:40asked, typed, and posted this question and wanted an answer?
02:45Which of your atoms, or cells, or appendages, or so on,
02:51which one of them thought of, wanted an answer,
02:55preferred truth to falsehood, formulated the question,
02:57typed it out, and posted it,
02:59in the hopes and preference of getting an answer?
03:03Now, of course, anybody who's honest would say,
03:05well, my spleen didn't do it, my finger didn't do it,
03:10if the finger didn't send you a message saying,
03:13hey man, I really want to figure out this determinism thing.
03:16And so, in the very act of having and asking a question,
03:23in the very act of having and asking a question,
03:26you are demonstrating emergent properties
03:29that is nowhere contained within any individual slice
03:35of cells or atoms or anything like that,
03:39or any organ or appendage.
03:42Now, again, we can sort of look at the neurons in the gut,
03:45and the gut instincts, and the gut feelings, and all of that,
03:48but that's also shared with animals and so on.
03:51We're talking about sort of conceptual questions.
03:54So, for me, slow your roll is essential,
03:58because so many questions are actually answered
04:02in the formulation and presentation of the question.
04:07So, do you have an example, ask the listener,
04:12of non-determinism being an emergent property
04:15out of deterministic subcomponents?
04:17Yeah, that's you. Look in the mirror.
04:19Look in the mirror. Think about what you're doing.
04:21I don't know why this is hard for people.
04:24It seems to be very hard for people.
04:26Maybe it just involves a certain kind of humility,
04:29or maybe, I'm not saying this is true of this person in particular,
04:33because they're a donor and I love them,
04:35but maybe it's something to do with dance monkey dance,
04:38like I'm going to make you answer a question.
04:41Because, do you have an example of non-determinism
04:44being an emergent property out of deterministic subcomponents?
04:46Well, your life, your question, your typing, your curiosity,
04:49your wanting to know, or maybe you're wanting me to
04:52jump through hoops for you, I don't know,
04:54but look in the mirror.
04:57You know, if somebody says to me,
04:58Steph, do you have absolute proof that a human being exists
05:01independent of you?
05:02It's like, well, you're asking me.
05:04So you must believe that I exist independent of you.
05:08If I want an answer to a piece of information
05:12I don't think I have, I don't ask myself.
05:16I don't know what the smallest town in Borneo is.
05:21I don't know that.
05:22Wait, is Borneo even still a country?
05:25Madagascar.
05:26I don't know what the smallest town in Madagascar is,
05:28so I don't introspect, because that's a piece of information I don't have.
05:33So, the first thing to do when you have a philosophical question
05:37is say to yourself,
05:39what is proven by me asking the question?
05:43Or making the correction?
05:44Or making the statement?
05:45What is proven?
05:48And if we look at all of the philosophical
05:52questions and implications that are laid to rest
05:56in the simple act of asking a question,
06:00then I swear on my spine,
06:04like 98% of philosophical questions
06:07are solved by slowing your roll
06:09and looking at what is implicit in asking the question.
06:12So when we're looking at emergent properties,
06:16there's so much here, right?
06:19Non-determinism being an emergent property after deterministic sub-components.
06:23Well, all life is non-determinism
06:28relative to non-life.
06:32Boy, that's a lot of negatives, right?
06:34All life is free will compared to non-life.
06:38So, if you plant a tree in your backyard,
06:45then the tree is going to be where the tree is.
06:48The tree doesn't have a choice to pick up its skirts and move around.
06:51I mean, it could be ripped out, I suppose, by some extreme weather condition,
06:54but the tree is the tree, right?
06:57The tree is where it is.
06:58Now, that's a living thing, of course, and the tree will grow and extend,
07:01and you don't know exactly where the branches are going to be,
07:03but you know there'll be branches.
07:04You don't know exactly how many leaves it's going to have,
07:06but it's going to have leaves.
07:08You don't know exactly how far down its roots are going to extend,
07:10but they're going to be roots underneath the tree.
07:13So, a tree relative to, say, a bird
07:17looks pretty determined, pretty deterministic, right?
07:20Now, what about a tree relative to a rock?
07:24So, let's say, and we'll just remove as many variables as we can, right?
07:27I mean, you can always come up with edge cases,
07:29but let's say that you bury a bag of gold coins.
07:35You bury a bag of gold coins 10 feet deep in your backyard,
07:40and let's say you're in a totally stable place, no earthquakes.
07:43So, we just say, right?
07:44And people have dug up this kind of pirate treasure stuff,
07:47or from the Roman age, people have dug up stuff, right?
07:50So, let's say that you bury a bag of gold 10 feet deep in your backyard.
07:56Now, will that gold choose to move?
07:59No, the gold is absolutely passive.
08:02It does nothing except be acted on by external forces.
08:08It's inert.
08:10So, all life is free will relative to non-life.
08:17So, if there's a bird in your backyard,
08:20let's say it's going to fly south to the winter.
08:22I mean, you don't know exactly when.
08:23You don't know if it's going to make it,
08:24but, you know, it's going to generally do that kind of stuff.
08:27So, the bird is going to move around in a way that the pot of gold
08:3010 feet under the earth in your backyard is not going to move around.
08:37So, if you bury a burnt log from your fireplace 10 feet under the ground,
08:45then, well, of course, you're stealing carbon from the plants,
08:48but you are taking carbon and you're burying it.
08:52The burnt log is not alive. It's dead, right?
08:54And it's inert.
08:56It's carbon-based in a sense, but it's inert,
08:58as opposed to a carbon-based life form,
09:00like a squirrel or something like that,
09:02which is going to be moving around.
09:05So, atoms react.
09:09Life is proactive, right?
09:11Life has to seek out food.
09:13It has to seek out reproduction.
09:14It has to avoid predation.
09:15Life is proactive.
09:17Matter is purely reactive.
09:19Life is composed of reactive matter,
09:22but life is proactive.
09:24Or, to put it another way, of course,
09:26in my usual formulation,
09:28all life that is not proactive does not survive.
09:32Atoms don't reproduce.
09:36Atoms are called conservation of energy, right?
09:39Energy can...
09:40Sorry, matter can only be...
09:42It can never be created or destroyed,
09:44only transferred into energy and back, right?
09:46So, atoms, right?
09:47So, atoms don't reproduce.
09:52DNA and cells reproduce.
09:55So, in terms of like...
09:57Give me an example of an emergent property
10:01not shared by any individual component, right?
10:06Well, your computer, which you use to type this,
10:10is composed of atoms.
10:11No atoms have the ability to be a computer,
10:15but you put enough atoms together
10:17in the correct configuration
10:18and supply them with electricity,
10:20and then they have the capacity to be a computer.
10:23So, everything that you're doing,
10:26typing, asking a question,
10:28using a computer, post,
10:31so that I can read it,
10:32no individual atom can do any of that.
10:35So, everything that you do as a living organism,
10:37every question you ask,
10:38everything you type,
10:39every breath you take,
10:40is all an emergent property.
10:42Does any individual atom need to breathe?
10:46Well, of course not.
10:47Do cells require oxygen to function?
10:50Yes, they do.
10:51So, everything you do is an emergent property,
10:54and I'll give you one further, right?
10:56And once you understand this emergent property thing,
10:58you don't even ask the question.
11:00Now, that's not to say
11:01that there are no valid questions to be asked
11:03regarding emergent properties.
11:05I get that.
11:06But, in this case,
11:08given that everything you're doing
11:10is based upon emergent properties,
11:11so you have to ask yourself,
11:13and even a cell can't ask itself this, right?
11:16You have to ask yourself,
11:17can any individual atom
11:19ask this question, type this out?
11:21No.
11:22But, I'm composed of individual atoms,
11:23I accept that.
11:24Can any single neuron do this?
11:26No.
11:27But, there's a certain aggregation of neurons
11:29and neural activity and connections and so on
11:31that allow you to ask this question,
11:33and so on, right?
11:34But, I'll go one further.
11:36I would ask this person,
11:37if they were in a call-in show,
11:39I would say,
11:40which letter contains your argument?
11:43Or, your question, right?
11:44Which letter?
11:45Is it the letter D?
11:46Like, if you just typed D?
11:48Would I get your question?
11:50Right, what about A?
11:51What about P?
11:52What about S?
11:53What about T?
11:54Right, if you just posted one letter
11:57and didn't even include a question mark,
11:58let's say no grammar.
11:59So, if you just posted one letter,
12:02would I get your question?
12:04What if you took all of these words
12:08and replaced them with one letter
12:09or commas or semicolons or
12:11assantegus or circumflex
12:13or anything like that?
12:14Well, none of that.
12:15So, even the question is an emergent property
12:19because no individual letter or space
12:22contains this question.
12:24But, in aggregate, a question emerges.
12:28You should follow.
12:29No individual letter, right?
12:31This is composed of the 26 letters, right?
12:33It's a space, right?
12:34It's just got one.
12:35It's got a hyphen and a question mark, right?
12:37So, individual letters and spaces.
12:39And, of course, even if he left out the spaces,
12:41I could puzzle out the question.
12:43So, no individual letter contains this question.
12:49However, you put the letters together
12:51and you get the emergent property of a question.
12:55So, basically, if somebody's saying,
12:58give me an example of emergent properties,
13:00I would say,
13:01your question is an example of an emergent property
13:04because no individual letter contains the question.
13:08But, arranged in the right way,
13:10what emerges is a question.
13:12Your life, your consciousness, your being,
13:15none of that,
13:16your desire for an answer to a question,
13:18none of that is contained within any individual cell
13:21or any individual atom in your body.
13:25No carbon atom has consciousness
13:28or cares about the answer to the question
13:30of emergent properties.
13:32So, an emergent property called self-directed motion, right?
13:39If you've ever been,
13:41I mean, we all have for the most part,
13:44you've been on a beach, right?
13:45And what do kids do on a beach?
13:47They want to collect cool shells.
13:49Now, once in a while,
13:51you will grab for a cool shell
13:53and it turns out to be a crab that scuttles away.
13:57So, the shells are inert.
13:59They don't move.
14:01However, a crab,
14:03which may look like a shell when partially submerged,
14:06is going to get up and move.
14:08So, shells don't self-direct their motion,
14:12crabs do.
14:13Now, we can say crabs,
14:14well, it's instinctual,
14:15they're not thinking it through,
14:16and I get all of that,
14:17but nonetheless,
14:18there's sort of a foundational difference.
14:20No individual atom within a crab can move.
14:23No individual atom within a dead shell can move.
14:28However, crabs move, shells don't.
14:32So, the question of emergent properties
14:36is answered through introspection
14:39and honesty with the self.
14:42Is my question answered
14:46in the content, form, and transmission of my question?
14:50Now, I get that this is determinism versus free will,
14:55and this is different from life versus non-life,
14:58but the question of emergent properties is essential.
15:04If we've answered the question of emergent properties,
15:08then the question changes.
15:11So, if somebody were to ask me proof,
15:15like they were to type to me,
15:17using a computer, a keyboard, a monitor,
15:19and the internet,
15:20they were to type to me proof that computers exist,
15:23I would say,
15:24look down at what you're typing on.
15:26The answer to the question is embedded
15:29in how the question is created and transmitted.
15:32Now, once people say,
15:34emergent properties are totally valid,
15:38and they are.
15:39You can't be alive,
15:40you can't formulate questions,
15:41you can't use a computer, right?
15:43Any time you use the capacity of something not embedded
15:46in its individual atoms or cells,
15:48you are accepting emergent properties, right?
15:52Any time you deploy anything
15:55whose properties are not contained
15:58in its deterministic components,
16:02then you are accepting emergent properties.
16:04So, if you say,
16:06look, I fully accept the validity of emergent properties,
16:10because to deny them would be to deny that I'm alive
16:12and have the capacity to ask a question on a computer.
16:15So, I fully accept emergent properties,
16:19so, talk to me about free will.
16:24That's fine.
16:25But if somebody is saying,
16:27do you have an example of non-determinism
16:29being an emergent property out of deterministic subcomponents,
16:32the form of the question is,
16:34show me a characteristic of an aggregation of atoms
16:38that differs from the characteristics of each individual component.
16:43Show me the characteristic of an entity
16:47composed of individual things
16:50which has properties not contained within each individual thing.
16:54Which is like asking, show me a tree,
16:56given that each individual atom within a tree is not a tree.
17:00Or, show me a house
17:03where each individual atom within the house is not a house.
17:07Which is true.
17:08If somebody were to say,
17:09I'm going to sell you a house
17:10and then try to deliver to you a single atom
17:13or a one inch cube of brick.
17:16Each brick is composed of brick-ness, brick matter.
17:20And somebody would come and say,
17:21here's your house, it's like,
17:22oh, just one brick.
17:24Well, houses are generally composed of bricks,
17:26there's exceptions of course,
17:27but houses are generally composed of bricks.
17:29But one brick is not a house.
17:31I mean, if you were to say to your wife,
17:33I bought us a new house,
17:34and you come home and you show her a brick,
17:37she would say, that's not a house.
17:39So, the general form of the question is,
17:42show me a component,
17:44sorry, show me a characteristic of an entity
17:48which is not shared by its individual components.
17:50Well, that's everything.
17:52If somebody says,
17:54you can buy this car for $5,000 online
17:57and you send them the $5,000
17:59and then they drop past your house with the steering wheel
18:01and say, no, by car, I mean, it's just the steering wheel.
18:04You'd say, well, that's not the car,
18:05the car is the whole thing.
18:06I mean, the steering wheel is important,
18:08you can't drive without it,
18:09but the steering wheel is not the car.
18:11It's just a component of the car, it's not the car.
18:13So, if you'd be upset by somebody taking $5,000
18:16for a quote car,
18:17and then just giving you a steering wheel,
18:20you completely and fully understand
18:22the concept of emergent properties.
18:25So, if somebody says,
18:27I fully accept emergent properties
18:30as an absolutely, completely and totally valid phenomenon,
18:33because I couldn't be alive or ask you a question
18:34if I didn't already accept that,
18:36but I'm having trouble with free will,
18:39I'm having trouble with free will,
18:41that's a different question from,
18:44give me an example of emergent properties from components.
18:47Right, so if somebody says,
18:49listen, I accept life and consciousness
18:51and me asking this question,
18:52the computer, the internet, the house,
18:53everything around me is an emergent property,
18:56for the most part,
18:57but I'm having trouble with the free,
18:59I accept emergent properties,
19:00but I have a problem with free will,
19:02then that's a different question.
19:05Now, regarding the proof of free will,
19:07I've got a whole three-part series on that,
19:09called Free Will Part 1, 2 and 3,
19:12which I did many, many years ago,
19:14you can find that at fdrpodcast.com,
19:16but free will is important,
19:18and it's a great question and argument.
19:21So, it's funny because,
19:24and I'm not saying this is necessarily the case
19:26with this person,
19:27but determinists as a whole,
19:29generally are doing it as a power play,
19:32and this is one of the reasons
19:33why debating with determinists is so volatile,
19:36because they're basically saying,
19:38prove to me that free will exists,
19:40and most people kind of flounder around,
19:42and I understand that I did too for some time,
19:44most people flounder around and can't do it,
19:46and then the determinist ends up feeling superior,
19:50and it is a little devilish,
19:53and it's a little controlling,
19:54and again, I'm not saying this is the motive
19:56of this individual,
19:57but I've had some significant,
20:00narrow, deep battle scars
20:02in combat with determinists,
20:04and so, one of the reasons why determinism
20:06is such a volatile subject,
20:07it's as often put forward as a
20:10you don't really know what you're talking about
20:11humiliation thing.
20:13I mean, my general answer is,
20:15free will is our ability to compare
20:17proposed actions to ideal standards,
20:20and, of course,
20:22the determinist can't contradict that,
20:24because he's asked me to prove free will,
20:26which means that his proposed action,
20:28that I prove free will,
20:30has to be judged by an objective standard
20:34called validated and honest,
20:37so this is why when somebody says
20:39prove to me free will,
20:40I'll say, well, you just did,
20:41because you're saying that human beings
20:42have the ability to compare
20:44proposed actions to ideal standards,
20:46because you're asking me to prove something,
20:47which means you want me to act in a way
20:49that conforms to a universal standard
20:50called proof,
20:51so you've just accepted free will,
20:54and when somebody comes at you
20:58from a dominance
21:00dance for me monkey standpoint,
21:02and you push back
21:04saying that if they had really thought
21:06if they'd really thought at all
21:07about their question,
21:08they wouldn't be asking it,
21:10then they go from a dominance state
21:13to a humiliated state,
21:15so if somebody says to me,
21:17I don't believe in emergent properties,
21:19I'd say, well,
21:20do you have this thing called life?
21:22Do any of your individual atoms alive?
21:25The cells are, right?
21:26Any individual atom of yours,
21:28is it alive?
21:29No.
21:30Are you composed of atoms?
21:31Yes.
21:32Do you have life?
21:33Yes.
21:34Well, that's your emergent property.
21:35All you had to do was think about it
21:36for five seconds.
21:37Then they go from dominant
21:38to humiliated,
21:39and that's rough emotionally.
21:41I'm not saying again,
21:42I'm not saying it's true with this guy,
21:43but just in general.
21:44All right.
21:45Somebody else wrote,
21:46I'm curious.
21:47That's Devan Molyneux.
21:48Why do people seem to avoid
21:50simplicity or any reductions in complexity?
21:53I get tons of requests
21:54to add complexity to software at work
21:56without any regard for value
21:57provided to customers.
21:58I find it a fun,
22:00interesting,
22:01and not overly difficult
22:02to simultaneously remove complexity,
22:04often deleting large amounts of code,
22:06even while adding features
22:07and making the program more robust.
22:09Well,
22:10all the future maintenance programmers
22:12should put up a shrine to you,
22:13just by the by.
22:14All right.
22:15He goes on to say,
22:16I saw this recently too,
22:17with people mocking Musk's
22:18Raptor 3 engine,
22:19and the simple simplification
22:20of the previous Raptor
22:212-in-1 designs.
22:22I see this as not only practical,
22:24but as a thing of beauty,
22:25that something so simple
22:26can be functional
22:27and likely more reliable
22:28because of it,
22:29yet people seem to hate it,
22:30yet people seem to hate it,
22:31and I don't understand.
22:33Well,
22:34of course,
22:35the purpose of brilliance
22:36is to simplify.
22:37The purpose of brilliance
22:38is to simplify.
22:40When I first checked out the internet,
22:43it was like infinite DOS.
22:45You typed to navigate,
22:47and there was no
22:48graphical user interface,
22:50there was no point and click,
22:53and I remember the first time
22:54a friend of mine showed it to me,
22:55the Simon Fraser University,
22:57I was out there on business
22:58and met up with an old friend of mine,
23:00and he showed me the internet,
23:01and I was like,
23:02I felt goosebumps,
23:03like absolute goosebumps,
23:04like this is going to change
23:05the whole world,
23:06absolutely, completely, totally,
23:07it's going to change the whole world.
23:08So,
23:09yeah,
23:10the purpose of brilliance
23:11is to simplify,
23:12and that's part of our
23:14benevolence towards
23:16the less brilliant, right?
23:17And I say this with all humility, right?
23:19I mean,
23:20there are computer geniuses
23:21who make touch tablets work,
23:23and I really appreciate that,
23:24I can't do it,
23:25but I appreciate their kindness
23:26to my lack of competence
23:27in this area,
23:28so,
23:29yay,
23:30thanks for them, right?
23:31But, yeah,
23:32the purpose of brilliance
23:33is to simplify,
23:34and to simplify
23:35is an act of benevolence.
23:36If
23:37people were,
23:38you know,
23:39like the real
23:40propeller heads were comfortable
23:41with the infinite DOS
23:42of the early internet,
23:43where you had to
23:44type commands to do everything,
23:45well,
23:46the internet would have remained
23:47hidden and unavailable
23:48to the vast majority of people.
23:49Once you come up with
23:51a website's
23:52GUI point-and-click interface,
23:53then
23:54that's a whole different
23:55situation, right?
23:56Now it's available
23:57and consumable
23:58by
23:59the average person,
24:01or even below average person
24:02in terms of intelligence,
24:03because
24:04brilliant people
24:05have made things simple.
24:06Simplifying things
24:07is an act
24:08of deep
24:09benevolence.
24:11So,
24:12if there's a medication
24:13with
24:1415 ingredients,
24:15and you put it all together
24:16in one pill,
24:17you've simplified that
24:18rather than saying to people,
24:19well, you've got to get
24:20these 15 ingredients,
24:21mix it up,
24:22and so on, right?
24:23Might get it wrong.
24:24So,
24:25simplifying things
24:26is an act of
24:27benevolence
24:28and generosity
24:29and kindness
24:30and helpfulness
24:31to the planet as a whole.
24:32You benefit from it,
24:33I benefit from it,
24:34and hopefully
24:35we add
24:36to that
24:37which is simplified
24:38in the world as a whole.
24:39We add to that
24:40and do our own
24:41acts of benevolence
24:42to
24:43people
24:44in the world.
24:45But,
24:46why do people
24:47dislike it?
24:48Well,
24:49there's this belief
24:50that
24:51true intelligence
24:52lies in complexity,
24:54whereas,
24:55to me,
24:56true intelligence
24:57lies in
24:58simplification.
24:59So,
25:00for instance,
25:01in programming
25:02there is things called
25:03APIs,
25:04application
25:05programming
25:06interfaces,
25:07or something like that,
25:08APIs,
25:09and Windows
25:10is scattered with them.
25:11So,
25:12when I wrote
25:13my software,
25:14I did it for
25:15640x480,
25:16which was the standard
25:17VGA resolution,
25:18and then there was
25:19SVGA,
25:20which was 800x600.
25:21Now,
25:22originally I had to
25:23release two versions
25:24of the program,
25:25one sized for
25:26640x480,
25:27one sized for
25:28800x600,
25:29and then,
25:30and this was pretty
25:31tough to do
25:32back in the day
25:33because not a lot
25:34of documentation,
25:35but I managed to
25:36figure out,
25:37OK,
25:38well,
25:39I can query
25:40Windows to find out
25:41how they fit
25:42the screen
25:43better,
25:44or properly.
25:45So,
25:46Microsoft had,
25:47and this was a,
25:48what was it,
25:49Lotus 1,2,3,
25:50or something like that,
25:51there was,
25:52this was a,
25:53I sort of vaguely
25:54remember this,
25:55but it was some
25:56sort of
25:57brouhaha about
25:58one spreadsheet
25:59had access to
26:00much faster
26:01APIs than the others,
26:02so that's how
26:03it did so well,
26:04and so on.
26:05So,
26:06APIs simplify things
26:07by,
26:08you don't have to
26:09go into the guts
26:10and ask a little
26:11piece of code,
26:12hey,
26:13what resolution
26:14am I running in?
26:15OK,
26:16now it tells you,
26:17right,
26:18so that simplifies
26:19things as a whole.
26:20So,
26:21yeah,
26:22simplification is
26:23very important,
26:24and,
26:25you know,
26:26touch screens
26:27and so on
26:28are great
26:29because you can
26:30sit with a
26:31tablet under
26:32your lap,
26:33hopefully with
26:34some kind of
26:35radiation shield
26:36perhaps,
26:37but sit with a
26:38tablet under
26:39your lap
26:40and simpler.
26:41Mouse is simpler
26:42than typing,
26:43GUI is simpler
26:44than
26:45text,
26:46and
26:47that's what you
26:48want to do.
26:49So,
26:50to simplify
26:51is
26:52the great task.
26:53Now,
26:54to people
26:55who have
26:56trouble with
26:57abstractions,
26:58they think
26:59that the more
27:00complicated something
27:01is,
27:02the smarter people
27:03are.
27:04And,
27:05listen,
27:06please understand,
27:07the end result
27:08is
27:09simplicity.
27:10The complexity
27:11that is required
27:12to deliver
27:13simplicity
27:14is huge,
27:15right?
27:16So,
27:17the
27:18code and
27:19processing required
27:20to deliver
27:21a touch screen
27:22experience
27:23is millions
27:24of times
27:25more complex
27:26than throwing
27:27ASCII text up
27:28in a DOS window
27:29at 80 by 25,
27:30right?
27:31So,
27:32just understand
27:33that.
27:34That's really,
27:35really important.
27:36So,
27:37complexity
27:38results in
27:39simplicity.
27:40The amount of
27:41philosophy that I
27:42had to study
27:43to come up
27:44with UPB
27:45was 20 years.
27:46I had to study
27:47philosophy for
27:4820 years
27:49and grind my
27:50brain almost
27:51into dust
27:52to come up
27:53with UPB.
27:54So,
27:55yeah,
27:56you need a lot
27:57of complexity
27:58to produce
27:59simplicity.
28:00But,
28:01simplicity
28:02transfers
28:03intelligence
28:04to the
28:05less able,
28:06right?
28:07It takes a lot
28:08of training
28:09and a lot
28:10of experience,
28:11right?
28:12Because I know
28:13I've done these
28:14truths about it
28:15for, like,
28:1620 years,
28:17right?
28:18So,
28:19to be a good
28:20researcher,
28:21it takes a lot
28:22of training
28:23and a lot
28:24of experience,
28:25a fair amount
28:26of education,
28:27and so on,
28:28right?
28:29Now,
28:30you can go to
28:31Grok and
28:32you can ask
28:33for deep search
28:34and you can
28:35go to
28:36those without
28:37the training
28:38history and
28:39so on,
28:40right?
28:41Education and
28:42experience and
28:43all of that,
28:44right?
28:45Well,
28:46it's really
28:47important.
28:48When I was
28:49doing my
28:50graduate school
28:51thesis,
28:52I had to
28:53read an
28:54ungodly
28:55amount of
28:56texts from
28:57four major
28:58philosophers
28:59and others
29:00and do
29:01searches for
29:02particular terms
29:03using the
29:04word
29:05search.
29:06Oh,
29:07I'm looking
29:08for the
29:09state or
29:10I'm looking
29:11for laws
29:12or I'm
29:13looking for,
29:14you know,
29:15does Immanuel
29:16Kant support
29:17the concept
29:18of human
29:19rights?
29:20You have to
29:21go to
29:22search.
29:23And then
29:24it was
29:25sad.
29:26After I
29:27finished my
29:28thesis and
29:29handed it
29:30in,
29:31like,
29:32a couple
29:33of hours,
29:34but,
29:35you know,
29:36it is what it
29:37is and there
29:38was other
29:39value I got
29:40from it.
29:41So that
29:42simplifies that
29:43as a whole.
29:44So,
29:45it is the
29:46most benevolent
29:47thing that
29:48smart people
29:49can do to
29:50the planet
29:51as a whole
29:52is to
29:53simplify
29:54things as
29:55a whole
29:56to people,
29:57but people
29:58who want
29:59to appear
30:00smart want
30:01things to be
30:02simple.
30:03Because they
30:04claim things
30:05as,
30:06oh,
30:07the causes of
30:08the Industrial
30:09Revolution are
30:10incredibly complex
30:11and,
30:12you know,
30:13so many factors
30:14to get away
30:15in your mind
30:16and so on,
30:17like,
30:18that's
30:19complex.
30:20And who
30:21can criticize
30:22them?
30:23Who even
30:24knows what
30:25these factors
30:26are in
30:27order to
30:28oppose that
30:29viewpoint?
30:30You'd have
30:31to make
30:32a case for
30:33that very
30:34strongly.
30:35I mean,
30:36were there
30:37thousands of
30:38other factors?
30:39Well,
30:40sure,
30:41there were
30:42thousands of
30:43factors with
30:44everything,
30:45right?
30:46But what
30:47are the
30:48sort of
30:49central,
30:50salient
30:51factors that
30:52are of
30:53use and
30:54of value
30:55to people
30:56as a
30:57whole?
30:58Well,
30:59it is the
31:00central factor
31:01of
31:02capitalism
31:03after
31:04capital.
31:05And capital
31:06is what
31:07you invest
31:08to increase
31:09worker productivity
31:10and the
31:11reason you do
31:12that is
31:13because
31:14workers are
31:15expensive
31:16and serfs
31:17and slaves
31:18are not
31:19expensive.
31:20So,
31:21you don't
31:22buy a bunch
31:23of slaves
31:24and then
31:25invest in
31:26farm machinery
31:27that reduces
31:28the value
31:29of the
31:30work you
31:31invest it
31:32in.
31:33So,
31:34for people
31:35who wish
31:36to appear
31:37intelligent,
31:38they refuse
31:39to simplify
31:40so that they
31:41can be
31:42worshipped.
31:43They turn
31:44intelligence
31:45into a
31:46kind of
31:47mystery
31:48religion
31:49where things
31:50are just
31:51so incredibly
31:52complicated
31:53and you
31:54can't possibly
31:55puzzle them
31:56out and
31:57so on and
31:58so forth.
31:59So,
32:00that's
32:01the
32:02most
32:03foundational
32:04one.
32:05So,
32:06that,
32:07if you
32:08say,
32:09what was
32:10the cause
32:11of World
32:12War I?
32:13Well,
32:14the cause
32:15of World
32:16War I,
32:17as is
32:18the cause
32:19of all
32:20wars,
32:21is statism.
32:22States
32:23get to
32:24declare war,
32:25states get
32:26to force
32:27people to
32:28fight for
32:29them and
32:30states can
32:31fund it
32:32through
32:33counterfeiting,
32:34money printing,
32:35borrowing,
32:36right?
32:37So,
32:38that's the,
32:39you say,
32:40ah,
32:41well,
32:42but that's
32:43not the
32:44cause
32:45of World
32:46War I.
32:47It's like,
32:48well,
32:49yeah,
32:50there were
32:51more local
32:52factors
32:53regarding
32:54World
32:55War I,
32:56and so
32:57the,
32:58it's incredibly
32:59complicated versus
33:00here are the key
33:01factors.
33:02If it's incredibly
33:03complicated,
33:04then history
33:05has no utility,
33:06right?
33:07If it was like
33:08an aligning of
33:09the planets,
33:1010,000 different
33:11complicated factors
33:12had to come
33:13together to
33:14produce the
33:15Industrial
33:16Revolution,
33:17which is
33:18sort of a
33:19Marxist view
33:20in many ways
33:21because
33:22Marxism
33:23has to
33:24complicate
33:25things
33:26in a
33:27very
33:28mechanistic
33:29or deterministic
33:30view of
33:31history
33:32falls by
33:33the wayside,
33:34and you
33:35get back
33:36to the
33:37great man
33:38theory,
33:39which is
33:40individuals
33:41making
33:42courageous
33:43choices
33:44shape
33:45history
33:46for the
33:47most part,
33:48or evil
33:49choices,
33:50of course,
33:51as well.
33:52So,
33:53the value
33:54that you
33:55pay the
33:56workers the
33:57most got
33:58the workers,
33:59but the way
34:00that you
34:01pay the
34:02workers the
34:03most is to
34:04make them as
34:05efficient as
34:06possible,
34:07right?
34:08This is the
34:09Henry Ford
34:10Model T
34:11thing.
34:12Rather than
34:13having one
34:14car in the
34:15middle and
34:16a bunch of
34:17people swarming
34:18to all add
34:19bits to
34:20that car,
34:21he put the
34:22cars on a
34:23platform,
34:24and
34:25he
34:26put
34:27the
34:28cars on
34:29a
34:30platform,
34:31and
34:32he
34:33put
34:34the
34:35cars on
34:36a
34:37platform,
34:38and
34:39he
34:40put
34:41the
34:42cars on
34:43a
34:44platform,
34:45and
34:46he
34:47put
34:48the
34:49cars on
34:50a
34:51platform,
34:52and
34:53he
34:54put
34:55the
34:56cars on
34:57a
34:58platform,
34:59and
35:00he
35:01put
35:02the
35:03cars on
35:04a
35:05platform,
35:06and
35:07he
35:08put
35:09the
35:10cars on
35:11a
35:12platform,
35:13and
35:14he
35:15put
35:16the
35:17cars on
35:18a
35:19platform,
35:20and
35:21he
35:22put
35:23the
35:24cars on
35:25a
35:26platform,
35:27and
35:28he
35:29put
35:30the
35:31cars on
35:32a
35:33platform,
35:34and
35:35he
35:36put
35:37the
35:38cars on
35:39a
35:40platform,
35:41and
35:42he
35:43put
35:44the
35:45cars on
35:46a
35:47platform,
35:48and
35:49he
35:51put
35:52the
35:53cars on
35:54a
35:55platform,
35:56and
35:57he
35:58put
35:59the
36:00cars on
36:01a
36:02platform,
36:03and
36:04he
36:05put
36:06the
36:07cars on
36:08a
36:09platform,
36:10and
36:11he
36:12put
36:13the
36:14cars on
36:15a
36:16platform,
36:17and
36:18he
36:20put
36:21the
36:22cars on
36:23a
36:24platform,
36:25and
36:26he
36:27put
36:28the
36:29cars on
36:30a
36:31platform,
36:32and
36:33he
36:34put
36:35the
36:36cars on
36:37a
36:38platform,
36:39and
36:40he
36:41put
36:42the
36:43cars on
36:44a
36:45platform,
36:46and
36:47he
36:48put
36:49the
36:50cars on
36:51a
36:52platform,
36:53and
36:54he
36:55put
36:56the
36:57cars on
36:58a
36:59platform,
37:00and
37:01he
37:02put
37:03the
37:04cars on
37:05a
37:06platform,
37:07and
37:08he
37:09put
37:10the
37:11cars on
37:12a
37:13platform,
37:14and
37:15he
37:16put