I'm digging this!

To which Richard replied with the same link and this message,

Sorry, wrong button! Yes, this is very interesting and doable. And this present climate is a great opportunity to do it. If these ideas were carried through it would be unnecessary to rail against the institutions because they would be proved obsolete and ineffective and would die of their own accord.

After a week or so I finally came back to this idea about a "solarpunk future," having read a chapter in The Beginning of Infinity that covered what Deutsch summarized in this lecture titled "Chemical scum that dreams of distant quasars,") and replied,

Late reply is usual, but definitely what I was thinking! Institutions sminstituitions is what I say.

Also RE: that book I was going on about, still really into this David Deutsch philosophy: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-infinite-optimism-of-physicist-david-deutsch/ cc: @Fidel Montoya

Time passed. There was talk of Yen Princes, Fear in Jazz, and CBDCs. 
November 29th, 9:72PM:

Youtube Video

Podcast released a few hours ago covering basically everything I was trying to say without getting hung up on the words “infinity” and “explanation,” though he uses those concepts frequently in the talk. Worth a listen!

Before this post there has been a game day where Daniel Dennett's deepities, was brought up (if I remember correctly), and there was a name that we were at a loss for,

This guy Deepak Chopra was the guy whose name I was at a loss for. I understand your enthusiasm for philosophy and truth. I just hope you don't turn into Deepak...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU6TkfCGlX8

This put me on the defensive,

Deepak Chopra is a author and alternative-medicine advocate (aka. is a grifter and a charlatan).

David Deutsch is a Professor of physics at the Centre for Quantum Computation, the Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford University and an Honorary Fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford. (copied from his website).

Fidel and I had our first written exchange about infinity and explanations.

Personally, I don't have a whole lot of interest in philosophy because it's utility seems subjective and all too often it's advocates attempt to hijack scientific discoveries, insert woo in the gaps of scientific knowledge or outright tresspass on the domain of science without consent of the consensus of scientists in a given field.

Myself,

He’s a physicist, but I definitely hear where you’re coming from regarding philosophy.

Fidel,

I guess, to me, I was kind of feeling like the discussion of "Infinite number of explanations" was going down Woo BLVD.

TLOL. To be clear on my part, the time to give consideration to anything that is being put forth as "an explanation" of/for anything or any given question, is when the preponderance of evidence has given us no choice but to give it that consideration. Thus, I simply do not see how more than a handful can be recognized as explanations, much less an "infinite" number of them.

Time passed again, I posted about Electrical blueprints for Life. And subsequently linked to the books that I just can't seem to help but proselytize. The Fabric of Reality, and the Beginning of Infinity. Also a book about a novel way of studying the physics of quantum information that is less focused on particular particles and their trajectories: Constructor Theory.

Time passed, board games were played, digitally and analogically. We had a conversation about GPT-3, AI, and AGI mentioning Deutsch's ideas again, set to this music Richard shared.

Yup, I've seen what GPT-3 already capable of doing, but you still need to be able to audit code if you want to check if it's usable (eg. it created a React form submission button--but you still need to know what a buttons looks like, if it's targeting the write form, http request types and parameters, and what javascript actions are getting triggered).

But yeah, there's a lot of talk about the mistakes in the phrase "99 percent perspiration" (or something like that) in the Beginning of Infinity. Here's a bit:

If we make an AI capable of being creative (making discoveries), then it's the same as a person. Deutsch says it's possible, but it can only happen one of two ways (see: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/two-guesses-about-creativity either no automation can be creative and we need a new mode of computation (the goal of constructor theory), OR there is a kind of automation under the prevailing conception that produces emergent phenomena that constitute creativity (consciousness is an emergent phenomena).

Somehow, we have arrived back at the start of this month, October 2021. After our most recent board game session, in which there was another heated discussion about science and people's place in the universe, I posted yet ANOTHER link to a Deutsch TED talk titled, After billions of years of monotony, the universe is waking up. At that begun our more lengthy discussions.