Hello and welcome to this on 24 webinar about what silicon control rectifier can do for EV charging. I'm Jean-Pierre Pro and I'm here today with Benoît Ronard. So here is the agenda for today. So we start first the introduction to evaluate the market size. What are the silicon control rectifiers key features for this application and what is the STM ranking in the thyristor market. Then second we will look at the different EV charging topologies including power factor correction trends, how to limit the inrush current and what are the SCR benefits to limit the inrush current. The third party would be the bi-directional EV charger, the vehicle to grid, V2G or vehicle to load, V2L operation, how to benchmark the SCRs, how to control and layout SCR in this application and we will present different evaluation boards available at ST.com. Then we will conclude presenting the SCR product roadmap. What about the competition in the thyristor market and what are the takeaways for this webinar. We will end up the session with question and answers. Here you can see the EV charging market size evaluation by strategy analytics. These numbers in million units include the plug-in hybrid vehicle and also the battery electrical vehicles. And this growing market of 27% growth rate within the next five years for onboard charger will reach about 40 million units by 2028. Also in pink color you can see the growth rate of 35% for the charging points including the private and the public charging station. If we look now by battery voltage, the 800 volt battery represents about 5% of the total battery in 2022. And this will increase to 25% by 2030 and the remaining 75% would be for 100 volt batteries. Now if we look at the content for thyristors in this market, we can estimate today this available market for thyristors to be in 2022 about 50 million dollars. And that will double by 2030 to 100 million dollars silicon control rectifiers in EV charging. What you can see here in this slide is the battery electrical vehicle car segmentation from class A, B and C and the sports car from Porsche. The different power of these cars are ranging from 100 kilowatts for the Renault Zoe to 150 kilowatts for ID3 from Volkswagen, 286 kilowatts for the Tesla Model 3 and up to 560 kilowatts inverter power for the Porsche Taycan. The maximum battery size is also increasing according to the range of car from 52 kilowatt hour up to 83 kilowatt hour for the sports car. The battery voltage are mainly 400 volts for all the cars like the Renault Zoe, the ID3 and the Tesla Model 3, but it's raising to 800 volts for the Porsche Taycan. And then how much power would be required to charge those batteries is depending on the car. Like it is required to provide 50 kilowatts of charging energy for the Renault Zoe, 125 kilowatts for the ID3, the Tesla will support a battery charge up to 250 kilowatts and the Porsche Taycan supports a fast charge up to 350 kilowatts, which is a lot of power that the EV charge station will have to provide to charge these cars. There are different types of EV charger station. Here in this table, you can see from bottom up the Type 1, which is about 20 amp or less than 4 kilowatt single phase. And this is available everywhere and it's, for instance, the domestic charger that you will have at your home. Then the Type 2 is rising up to 22 kilowatt, about 80 amperes, single phase or three phase. It's less available, but you can see you can find them now in most of the charging station or domestic wallbox. And this will allow to charge the car, let's say in hours, like between two hours to 24 hours to get to full charge, depending on what type of charger you are using. If you want to charge faster, you have to go to Type 3, which will be power ranging from 50 kilowatts up to 200 and even higher, 300 kilowatt of power for the Porsche Taycan, for instance. And this will input directly a 400 volt DC, like in the supercharger from Tesla, which is 150 kilowatt. And this is available, but not as frequently as the Type 1 and Type 2. And then we can see now some higher voltages charger, like the Porsche Taycan 800 volt, which has a booster to boost the 400 volt input up to 800 volt to charge the battery. They can see also that there are different types of connectors, AC input or DC input to charge the car. And they will have either proprietary connection or the service provider will have different plugs to charge the cars. There is also optional support for the three phase AC in the EV charging. And for sure, the trend is to support bidirectional charging for vehicle to grade or vehicle to load. So what are the challenges for EV charging, and especially the onboard charger, the one that is included inside the car? First of all, we can mention the vibrations in the car. This is a source of early failures, especially for the relays and the other mechanical components inside the car. Energy saving is particularly important, and this translates to longer distance range for the car. So we have to maximize the conversion efficiency and limit the off-state standby losses. Electromagnetic interference is also increasing the complexity of electronics and making the qualification difficult, especially when you consider the IEC standard at 61,000-3-3, 4-4 and 4-5, which relates to in-rush current limitation, burst test and lightning strikes. Then the charging is also a challenge for the car. And one of the challenges in charging the battery is the in-rush current limitation that will slow down the charging and also will limit the component laugh time, especially for the passive components. And then the last point would be the automotive standard, the automotive electronic impulse reinforced qualification processes and higher reliability levels for the car industry. So what are the Silicon Control rectifier characteristics in the Switch device family? Here in this graph you can see the different Switch devices, including IGBTs, MOSFETs, white band gap devices like silicon carbide or gallium nitride. There are switches capable of switching currents up to megahertz of frequency for the latest white band gap devices. Contrary to this, silicon thyristors are only switches that can operate at 50 hertz or 60 hertz or a few kilohertz at the maximum. But the characteristic of Silicon Control rectifiers is that they are able to conduct a lot of peak currents. They have a very high current density compared to other switches. And this makes the devices very suited for application like EV charging that has to control a lot of current and requires very efficient devices. Also in the Switch family, the thyristors is quite unique because it can block voltage in both directions. Whereas the other switches, they always have some kind of diodes that are conducting in one direction. Thyristor control rectifiers is blocking voltage in both directions. And these characteristics make the SCR very interesting for EV charging application. Here in this slide you can see the SCR market and the STM ranking in this market. On the top left graph, this is the Omnia evaluation of the market with on the y-axis the size of the supplier and on the x-axis the growth from 2020 to 2021. With 30% growth last year, ST is now ranked number two, second supplier of thyristors worldwide. On the bottom left, WSTS is splitting the market in two. The device is below 55 ampere in blue and the device is above 55 ampere in gray. ST is supplying devices on less than 55 ampere and the market share that we have is rising from 27% in 2016 up to 30.5% in 2021. And devices that we are supporting are SMD devices and now including modules for power up to 50 kilowatts. The total available market above 55 ampere include devices that are ranging from 30 kilowatts of power up to 300 kilowatts of power. And now I end over to Benoit Ronard for a more detailed presentation on EV charging topologies. Let's go now deeper on EV charger topologies. The mega trend for charging topologies is to go from unidirectional power to bidirectional power transfer. What does it mean? It means that you need to charge the EV battery from the grid. This is what we call the charging mode and also you need to inject battery energy from the car to the grid. This is what we call inverter mode. This is the case of course for automotive applications such as on board chargers and off board chargers or charging stations. And also more and more for industrial applications such as photovoltaic solar box or UPS. There are three different modes to achieve the bidirectional transfer. The first one is the charging mode. What we call here G to V mode grid to vehicle. This is where you charge the battery from the grid. The two other modes are the inverter mode, vehicle to grid and vehicle to load. Vehicle to grid means you inject the energy from the battery to the grid and vehicle to load means you inject the energy to a specific application. You plug into the EV. For example you can supply a laptop, you can supply power tools or if you want a barbecue. Now let's focus on PFC topology trends. In the first row you have PFC topologies. The first one is conventional PFC. This is standard PFC with rectifier bridge. The second one is bridge less PFC. You have better efficiency here compared to conventional PFC. Then you have total PFC also with better efficiency and compact power density. And the last one is Vienna PFC. We are focusing total PFC as this is the most used solution today. Here regarding the power devices parts, the high frequency leg is composed by two MOSFETs and the low frequency leg is composed by two SCRs. SCRs mean silicon controlled rectifiers working at 50 or 60 Hz. Now if you want to add the bidirectional features you need to implement two more SCRs in antiparallel of the two others. Then here in the schematic in the second row you have in green the two SCRs to bring the inverter mode. The two SCRs in blue for inrush current limitation of the topology and the two MOSFETs for the high frequency switching. The two SCRs in the blue box are used to manage the inrush current limitation. Each application must comply with IEC 61000-3-3 standard. This standard gives the limitation of voltage changes, voltage fluctuations and flickers of the grid. What does it mean? It means that when you plug in an application, when you plug in AC-DC converters with bulk capacitors, you need to limit the inrush current you think from the grid to the bulk capacitors. And this standard is asking to limit the RMS current at startup. On the right you can see how with SCRs you can manage, thanks to a fast shift control, you can manage the voltage of the output capacitors up to the full charge of these capacitors at startup. There are two use solutions to manage this inrush current. Here with a comparison, on the left side of the slide, we are using NTC resistors to manage the inrush current at startup. Once the capacitor is fully charged, the resistor is bypassed by a mechanical relay to avoid any power losses inside the NTC in steady state. The drawback is that the electro-mechanical relay causes some audible noise when switching. This is not usable with system with vibration because this is mechanical device. There is edging of the metal contact of the relay with very poor number of cycles specified. And the charging time is very low. Here in the waveform, we are charging a capacitor at 6 amps of RMS current with a charging time of 400 ms. On the right side of the slide, here the inrush current is controlled with SCRs, Silicon Control Rectifier, and this is rectifier with a gate to smartly charge the output capacitors. With the same examples of RMS current limited at 6 amps, the charging time is only 120 ms, because you can charge very accurately the output capacitors. Here there is an advantage, there is no more electro-mechanical parts. This is faster, only you need to implement a smart control of the device. This is not a big deal in a full PFC. There are also a few other advantages to switch from relay to SCR. One of them is the PCB size. Then here we have an example where you remove two electro-mechanical relays with the bulky power resistors to limit the inrush current, buy two SCRs in TO220 with a smaller sink. Also, another advantage is the lifetime. As we said previously, there is an edging of the contact of the relay. We can see in the picture on the bottom some contacts with the metallization. After a few cycles, there is some arcing between contacts that lead to metallization edging. And one of the other advantages is the overall efficiency of the PFC. Then on the right side of the slide, on the curve, you can see the efficiency of the PFC. In blue, this is efficiency using SCRs and in pink, this is efficiency when you use the relay, including the coil consumption and the resistor contact of the relay. Then you can see good improvement in terms of efficiency from 0.5% at 10% load for a 1 kW PFC to 0.2% gain at peak efficiency at 50% load. Now let's go deeper on bidirectional PFC function. Here is the principle of operation working in inverter mode, V2G or V2L. The first row shows operations when grid voltage is positive and second row shows operations when grid voltage is negative. The MOSFETs are switching high-frequency, few tens of kHz, few hundreds of kHz, when the SCRs is switching only 50Hz, 60Hz. This is what we can see in the drawing on the right side, where we can see in pink the current through the SCRs and in green the current switching by the two MOSFETs in positives and same in negative for the other SCRs. Now we can see in the literature IGBTs to manage bidirectionality. Here is a comparison of power losses of IGBTs compared to SCRs. In the graph you can see efficiency assuming PFC at 99% and the impact of the leg to ensure the bidirectionality if you use SCRs in blue and if you use IGBTs in pink. Because of the IGBTs, it is very saturated at high current and the SCRs thanks to its voltage current characteristics with very low dynamic resistors is able to manage better efficiency for the overall PFC. We can see also MOSFETs for this kind of function, but here the saturation mode is worth at high current. Here is an example with 45mAh of RDS on, you can decrease the RDS on but it becomes more and more expensive compared to IGBTs and SCRs. Now let's see how to implement the SCRs in the charger. ST is offering a large panel of packages for power devices. From through all vertical cooling, TO220, TO220 full pack, TO247 or TOP3 high where TO220 and TO247 are automotive grade for onboard charger but also in SMD packages for higher power density with automated assembly keeping in mind the compromise with thermal dissipation through the PCB. This is a discrete approach with packages up to D2 pack that is automotive grade or even bigger D3 pack with very low RTH junction to case. The other solution is to use the module approach. Module means multiple dice in one package. Here we are proposing topside cooling packages to have a single head sink for the whole bomb of power devices of the PFC. This is through HU3 pack, ASPEC SMEET and DMT32, all our automotive grade of course. Now let's have a look on the portfolios to reach EV chargers. Thanks to the large offers of packages, we can have scalable products range to fit all automotive and industrial applications. One of the topic here is to manage in rush current. Then we need a high current capability for the SCRs. Then we have a product offers from 30A to 80A. All are rated at 150°C of junction temperature to reach requirements of automotive onboard chargers. And then, as we have seen in the last slide, it includes through all devices in discrete surface mount, in discrete and in modules. With two modules released today in ASPEC SMEET, one is two SCRs in series, one is two SCRs and two rectifiers to make a bridge in a conventional PFC. Now that we have chosen the right SCRs, let's go on the control circuit. SCRs are gate current control devices. Then it means you need to apply a gate current around 50mA to trigger the device. Here are some examples of control circuits. On the left there is an opto transistor control circuit. Here there is the advantage, this is very simple to implement, but the opto cells can be a blocking point for automotive applications. The second one is pulse transformer control circuits. This is really simple also to implement and fully compatible with automotive grid applications. And the last one is the transformers too, but this is double output transformers. This is maybe the best solution as we have several SCRs inside the applications. Here is an example when you drive four SCRs with two pulse transformers with double outputs. Now that the control circuit is fixed, let's see how to implement the SCRs in a few configurations of PCB and packages. First considering application with passive cooling. A TO247 rule package is considered. The main drawback is the height of the package either the head sink, even if the application case can be used if insulation is provided between TO247 and the case. The rule package has the main advantage to allow single side PCB for easier implementation. On the right side, D2PAC SMD package is considered. Here with an insulated metal substrate IMS for a better power density than TO247. The drawbacks are the two PCBs and the price gap between FR4 epoxy PCB and IMS PCB. We are now considering here leaking cooling, most of the time used in OBC. The HU3PAC package is used as discrete SCR. It's SMD package with topside non-insulated frame for cooling. Here both of the compactness and the thermal performance are optimized. On the right side, ACEPAC SMD is also SMD package with topside cooling capability. This is the most optimized assembly as it allows the module approach with two or four SCRs in the same package. Here the package is already insulated, making easier the assembly of a set of ACEPAC SMD for all power devices. ST has developed a 3.6 kilowatt totem pole evaluation board for designers. It is unidirectional chargers with inrush control thanks to SCRs and it brings automotive-grade 1200V SCRs but also 650V SIG MOSFETs, gate drivers for MOSFETs, 32-bit STM32 microcontrollers and flyback converter with Viper. This evaluation board is fully compatible with EMC standard. Here is an example of conducted noise measurements. And the efficiency of the board can reach 98.7% at peak efficiency. This picture shows how you can improve the overall board efficiency from 97.7% to 98.7%. 98.7% means you can reach standards for titanium SMPS. In total, ST has developed 8 evaluation boards to demonstrate inrush current solutions with SCRs. Not only for automotive but also for industrial applications from 0.8 kilowatt to 7 kilowatt. There are some plug-and-play boards to use to bypass NTC unconventional topologies or with totem pole topologies where we have seen we can use SCRs in low-frequency leg or in conventional PFC with mixed bridge to SCRs and to rectifier to manage inrush current limitation. So thank you very much Benoit and let's now move to the conclusion. So let's start first by summarizing the product range STMicroelectronics is proposing for silicon control rectifier. Here in this slide you can see the range of product ranging from 30 ampere, 40 ampere, 60 and 80 ampere. Yellow colors is industrial grade product whereas the blue color is automotive grade products and the products are 800 volt or 1200 volt capable. The range of discrete product are packaged in D-square pack, TO220, D3 pack or TO247 or the more advanced HU3 pack which is a top-side cooling packages. And then we also have modules in the A-SPAC-SMIT product family combining two theristors in series or a full bridge of control rectifiers plus diodes. This makes the product range of ST very scalable for all range of power for industrial and automotive application. The product range we have is also very robust against inrush currents and we provide high reliability up to 150 degrees Celsius of junction temperature. And as you can see in this slide the package choice includes SMD, discrete modules and top cooled power devices. Now let's look at the product roadmap that STMicroelectronics will introduce in the coming month. First of all we will introduce a half leg configuration of theristors. The first one would be rated 60 amp and they would be one unidirectional devices with two SCRs and two diode and a bi-directional devices with four SCRs. These two products 60 amp will be complemented by the same devices rated 30 amps for lower power application and all devices will be packaged in one A-SPAC-SMIT devices. Then for higher power we are going to introduce a three phase bridge in the DMT32 package and this device will combine three SCRs and three diodes for the three phase configuration. As you have seen STMicroelectronics is proposing SCRs with the industrial grade or the automotive grade. Here in this slide is a summary of what is specific for the automotive grade product. As far as standards and processes are concerned, first of all the manufacturing site has to be automotive certified for an automotive grade product according to EATF 16949. The wafer process and the package has to be compliant with automotive which includes the use of part average testing, PAT and also a better control process which is visible here with the CPK greater than 1.67 for automotive grade product whereas standard industrial product will have a CPK greater than 1.33. Also the automotive grade product requires a specific AECQ101 qualification compliance. For instance thermal cycling has to be done up to 1000 cycles from minus 55°C to plus 150°C and we are also doing operating life tests on automotive grade products and the number of devices that we are testing is 77 pieces and up to 3 lots compared to the standard 30 pieces 3 lot for industrial grade product. As far as documentation is concerned automotive grade product also comes with the P-PAP level 3 documentation and the traceability is also specific as the path number will always have a Y in the suffix and there is also a PCN procedure that is different for the automotive grade product. Let's now look at the four reasons why customers are selected SCR from SCR Microelectronics compared to AXIS SCRs and Latifuse company. First of all SCR has a complete range of SCR products but also provides microcontrollers, power devices and sense and control devices. The second reason is the system solution that ST proposed that includes evaluation board, reference design, schematic, layout and firmware. The third reason is the innovative product range of ST macroelectronics including advanced packages for higher power density and the fourth reason is that ST has an integrated high volume production capability for automotive and industrial grade products. Let's now summarize the takeaway for this on 24 webinar about what SCR can do for EV charging. On the main challenges that we face like in-rush current limitation the solution is to use SCR in phase control and the benefit would be to have a smart control of the in-rush current and a fast startup of the PFC. When the challenge is to increase efficiency the solution is to reduce the conduction losses in the 50 hertz leg of the PFC stage and the benefit of the SCR would be to lower the voltage drop compared to IGBTs and increase efficiency even with temperature. Talking about temperature, the challenge of the EV charging is to work at 125 degrees of operating ambient temperature and the solution would, as ST proposed, is to use a 150 degree Celsius maximum junction temperature and 1,200 volt rated SCRs that will allow to shrink the cooling heat sink and that will be compatible also with 800 volt battery. The last challenge will be time to market and the solution is to design flexible converters from 3 kilowatt up to 22 kilowatt uni or bi-directional and the benefit in using ST SCR is that the SCR is a scalable solution and it is provided in either discrete form or package module devices. So thank you very much for attending the webinar and for more information you can consult www.st.com


Hello everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler. Today I am with David Deutsch. David, welcome. Hello. Good afternoon. Now, I have a question. I am myself a metaphysical agnostic, so I'm unwilling to step into a Star Trek transporter machine, because I'm afraid it would kill me, and it's a copy of me that would keep on living. At what price are you willing to step into a Star Trek transporter machine? I certainly wouldn't want to be the first person, but I suppose you're asking the question separately from, do I think it would work technically? Sure. Assume it works as in the TV show, but metaphysically there's a question you face, but you know you believe in many worlds theory, right? Yes, though I don't think that is connected. I think it's more physicalism or something like that, that I believe that there's nothing to me except this running program in my brain. And if that program were to run somewhere else and stop running in my brain, then I wouldn't notice anything and I would indeed have traveled to that other place. But say the world forks, and it's possible both that you do and do not step into the machine. Isn't it the case that some version of the earlier you is still existing along one of the forks, so you have nothing to worry about? Some version of me, whenever I make a decision which could go either way, some version of me will have presumably made the other decision. Although that's not as simple as it sounds because both the other version of me and me are error-correcting entities. That's the whole point of what human thought is, it's error correction. Therefore it will take more than just a cosmic ray hit to make the difference between deciding something yes or no. So this has to be like an inconsequential decision which unbeknownst to me will have a large effect and then later cause me to be a different person and so on. And that's happening all the time, independently of Star Trek machines or anything like that. That is the case. And fortunately it turns out at least if ordinary decision theory is true in like non-quantum cases, then it turns out that ordinary decision theory with randomness produces the same rational decisions as quantum decision theory with the multiverse. So it shouldn't make any difference to decisions and that includes the decision whether to use the Star Trek transporter. Sure. So as long as there's a possible world where your atoms aren't scattered and you just didn't get into the machine, you don't have to worry too much about your decision. I do because when you say so long as there's a possible world that glides over the question how many, what proportion of the worlds is that going to happen in? And what I said just now about decision theory in the multiverse, the proportion of the multiverse that does one thing or another plays the same role in decisions as probability does in theory where there's randomness. So it really does matter and just because there are a few worlds in which x, y or z happens, if there are very few of them they shouldn't affect my decisions at all. How do we know what counts as a possible world? So there's a certain economy to a many worlds interpretation of physics, but isn't a lot of the complexity just being squeezed into this notion of what is a possible world? Yes, and we're used to that. I'm not used to it. You are when you realize that different times are special cases of other universes. So when you make an economic decision, you're used to the fact that something you buy as some goods have a different value in different universes, that is at different times, even to the same you. So you might be slightly different, but even if you aren't very different, the value to you of something might be very different today from tomorrow. For example, oxygen if you've got COVID would be differently valuable. And most things change their value gradually over time. You change your self gradually over time and it's exactly the same in different universes. In different universes you value different things. In some universes you're so different that it's not worth calling you you anymore, just like over time it might not be. But I take it you don't believe in many worlds interpretations that there are 17 possible universes out there. You think there's a very large number, right? Yes. So maybe you'll consider this question a kind of category error, but what is the process which filters what is a possible universe and what is not a possible universe? Oh, the laws of physics, it's exactly the same as what filters, let's say if there's an explosion like a supernova. What determines the fact that different particles travel at different speeds and none of them travel faster than light? Well, it's all the laws of physics that determine what the distribution of speeds will be and what the limit will be. How do we know what are the laws of physics for the multiverse? I mean, should we assume they're the same as for the universe we live in? So the universe we live in is demonstrably affected by things not in it. This is this is the lesson of interference phenomena. Sure. And so there's no such thing as the laws of physics for our universe. There's just the laws of physics. Of course, we don't know for sure what they are. But our best theories in particular quantum theory say that there that there are other such entities and how they affect ours and how how they how matter behaves as a result of that. Of course, it might be overturned one day quantum theory just like all our scientific theories maybe. This is again maybe a question that you would consider a category error coming from common sense realism. But how should I think about splitting universes in a manner consistent with the conservation of matter and energy? Because there seems to be a multiplication. Yeah, this splitting universes idea, although it was that kind of terminology was used by the pioneers of many universes quantum theory, such as Everett himself and Bryce Dewitt. Everettians nowadays don't speak of splitting. I myself prefer a picture where there's a continuum of universes.  And when a stratum splits in two, there's no definite point at which, you know, there was one here and two there. What happens is that the stratum becomes two strata gradually. And so there's no point of splitting and the number of universes as it were, although, you know, it might be infinite, but the measure of how many there are remains constant. And what happens during what used to be called a split is that some of them gradually change to one thing while others gradually change to another thing. How do you think many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics relates to the view that just in terms of space, the size of our current universe is infinite and therefore everything possible is happening in it? It complicates the discussion of probability, but it does. There's no overlap between that notion of infinity and the Everettian notion of infinity if we are infinite there because the differentiation as I prefer to call what used to be called splitting. When I perform an experiment which can go one of two ways, the influence of that spreads out. First, I see it, I may write it down, I may write a scientific paper and so, and when I write a paper about it and report the results, that will cause the journal to split or to differentiate into two journals and so on. But this influence cannot spread out faster than the speed of light. So an Everett universe is really a misnomer because what we see in real life is an Everett bubble within the universe. Everything outside the bubble is as it was. It's undifferentiated or it's to be exact, it's exactly as differentiated as it was before. And then as the bubble spreads out, the universe becomes or the multiverse becomes more differentiated. But the bubble is always finite. How do your views relate to the philosophical modal realism of David Lewis? There are interesting parallels. As a physicist, I'm interested in what the laws of physics tell us is so, rather than in philosophical reasoning about things unless they impinge on a problem that I have. So yes, I'm interested in, for example, the continuity of the self, whether if there's another version of me, a very large number of light years away in an infinite universe, and it's identical. Is that really me? Are there two of me? One of me? I don't entirely know the answer to that and it's why I don't entirely know the answer to whether I would go in a Star Trek transporter. But the modal realism certainly involves a lot of things that I don't think exist, at least not physically. I'm open to the idea that non-physical things do exist, like the natural numbers, I think exist. There's a difference between the second even prime, which doesn't exist, and the infinite number of prime numbers, which I think do exist. So I think that there is more than one mode of existence. But the theory that all modes of existence are equally real, I see no point in that. So the overlap between Everett and David Lewis is, I think, more coincidental than illuminating. So if the universe is infinite, and if David Lewis is correct, should I feel closer to the David Lewis copies of me, the copies or near copies of me in this universe, or the near copies of me in the multiverse? It seems very crowded all of a sudden. So something whose purpose was to be economical doesn't feel that way to me by the end of the metaphysics. It doesn't feel like that to you. Well, as Wittgenstein is supposed to have said, I don't know whether he really did. If it were true, what would it feel like? It would feel just like this. What about the alternative view that it's a big sprawling mess? We're not capable of understanding an integrated theory. There's maybe some Darwinian principle operating across some different kind of multiverse. Our universe persists just because it works well enough, a bit like a bad used car. We're never going to grasp it. There's not a unified theory. And here we are. Okay, well, that's a mixture of the anthropic principle, which I disagree with, and the idea that some features of reality are inherently incomprehensible, which I also disagree with. I can't think of a connection between the two. Well, if you want me to go into this, I can go into either of them. But take the incomprehensibility of the universe and possibly multiverse. So we would both agree it's incomprehensible to your cat, right? Sorry, it's incomprehensible to your cat or to the local raccoon. Yes, but everything is incomprehensible to a cat. I don't think that's true. Dogs understand human social life pretty well. Dogs have genes which contain knowledge, but it is fixed knowledge, and it is not the kind of knowledge that constitutes understanding. Understanding is always explanatory.  Happens to it. And sometimes it will say some dogs will do this, some dogs will do that. There is no such book for humans because chapter 37 will be blank. It'll it'll say humans are going to do something that neither we nor you can predict. I feel I can predict humans better than cats often. But to chimpanzees understand in your view. No one knows. They show virtually no sign of understanding anything. There are some really nice experiments on wild gorillas by Richard Byrne, who's both a theoretical and very practical animal behavior expert. And he was wondering how gorillas transmit their memes, that is their culturally inherited behaviors from one gorilla to another. So, one thing is, the first answer is very slowly. It takes absolutely ages, months and months for a gorilla to be able to copy another gorilla's behavior well enough to do something complicated. I mean, they can copy, you know, wave hand and that sort of thing, but to copy a complex behavior like required to open a difficult kind of nut which no other animal can open. This is why they have memes because that's a very useful ability. It takes them a long time. And then he did some ingenious experiments or rather observations. He didn't interfere with the gorillas. He did some observations to try to determine whether they understand why they are doing each particular action. And it involves, I don't know what it involves, grabbing with both hands and twisting in one way and then pulling another way and then so on. Apparently these gorillas are prone to a certain injury which disables their thumb. And so they can't move their thumb, which is quite disabling for them just as it is for us.  But the gorillas which have learned how to do the thing will make the motion, the ineffective motion again and again every single time. And he explains this better than I do. That's like human beings borrowing at high interest rates, right? They'll do that many, many times in a row. It's not just like it. You might like to draw analogies, but it's not the same thing. When a human being repeats a behavior that another human being thinks is unwise or counterproductive or will not achieve its purpose, and you ask them or you show them, they will have an explanation which you might not like.  But the ape perfectly well wants this thing to work, but doesn't know why it is doing the actions. It's a thing that's very hard to take on board because we are used to intentional behavior. And we're not used to the overt behavior of humans being unintentional. Humans tend to explain themselves even irrationally and they act according to their explanation. Whereas there's no evidence that any other animals have those explanations. There's also the case of squirrels, which is in a way even more amazing. Squirrels bury nuts so they can dig them up later. Well, some people did a very cruel experiment. They put a squirrel, given some nuts or something, I don't know how they set up the experiment, on a concrete floor. And the squirrel did exactly the same behavior with its hind legs, with the nuts, they put the nuts there and so on. Even though it was having no effect whatsoever. So we see the point of scrabbling with your hind legs and then nudging the nuts over there and so on. But it doesn't. It's just a program being enacted by its genes. What is the underlying physical assumption that makes humans different in having explanatory power? One would expect it to be a continuum if you're an atheist, right? So what break occurs at some stage in evolution? That's a discrete break or why aren't we just back to it being a continuum? So I don't think it can have been a discrete break because evolution would have happened gradually. My best guess, we don't know this. Actually, we have very little knowledge about the prehistory of ideas because there's no evidence of it. All we see is the stone tools. We don't even see the wooden tools because they've decayed away. But I think what happened is that the capacity of the brain to store means, to store programs in the brain rather than in the genes, increased for some reason very fast because for some reason these memes were very valuable. We know that the gorilla memes are very valuable because they allow them to gain knowledge of things like how to open nuts and so on, which no other animal in their environment has. And so that gives them access to food that no other animal has. Now, so the capacity for memes increased rapidly and there's very little... Now, once, sorry, I left out a step. Once memes get beyond a certain complexity, they cannot be copied. We don't have the ability to download a program from another person's brain. All we can do is look at the behavior and guess what the purpose was. Complex memes have to be transmitted like that rather than by aping, which is a different process mediated by what are they called, mirror neurons and that kind of thing. That will only do for very simple behaviors. And then there came a moment when our species was capable of explanatory knowledge. But they never used it for further tens or hundreds of thousands of years. They just use it for this meme transmission. I'm still puzzled as to why you think it's so unlikely that the universe is not comprehensible. So take a simpler system like the distribution of prime numbers. I'm quite sure I can't understand that and even if various conjectures were proven or not proven, I think at the end of the day, I still am not capable of understanding that, even though certain motors work or market for copper. So why can't that apply to the universe also? Again, this is the wrong standard. That is true of everything. There's nothing that we can fully understand in that sense, in the sense that you want to fully understand prime numbers all the way up to infinity. That's not what we mean by understanding things. That's not what I mean by the universe or mathematics being comprehensible. I mean that there is no barrier. There is no limit set by the universe that so far you can go and no further. So we can understand things better. We can never understand things fully. And I think thinking that there is such a barrier is absolutely logically equivalent to believing in the supernatural. Because everything that's passed that barrier is just the same as it would be if Zeus reigned and determined what everything after that barrier is. And worse, the stuff outside the barrier, of course, is going to affect us, even if we can't understand it. So it's exactly the same as believing in a universe with supernatural beings who have it in for us because they put up this wall that we can't cross. If they took down the wall, we could cross it, couldn't we? How do you think about the various paradoxes of self-reference that arguably underlie number theory, set theory, right? There's also Gertl's theorem. Any other results, I'm sure you know them better than I do. So I think Gertl's theorem, for example, and with its roots in self-reference paradoxes, show us that even within pure mathematics, there is no such thing as a solid foundation for all our knowledge. And therefore there's no such thing as fully comprehending everything. So we might think that we're pretty sure what the laws of arithmetic are. We're pretty sure that we can see that 3 times 7 is the same as 7 times 3 by just laying out beads on the table. But we can't ever lay out beads on the table to tell us that x times y is the same as y times x, regardless of what x and y are. And yet we can know that. And the way we know that is by proving it, and we prove it from the axioms using rules of inference. How do we know the rules of inference are true? We don't. They are conjectures. They have exactly the same status as laws of physics that we conjecture. So we never know anything for certain. We might be mistaken about anything. On the other hand, we can have knowledge. I think we also really do know that x times y equals y times x, even though we have no solid foundation for that. What in your opinion is the best test of the many worlds interpretation? Oh, so the best feasible test is any interference experiment. There is no interference experiment with individual particles that has an explanation other than Everettian quantum theory. You can make a prediction without making an explanation that you can do. But if you want an explanation of what brings about the outcome that you see, there is no alternative but the Everett interpretation. Most physicists don't believe in the Everett interpretation. Yes, that's a very sad state of affairs that I'm at a loss to explain. It's a sociological phenomenon, though, not a scientific or philosophical disagreement. It's something has gone wrong, just like something went very badly wrong with philosophy as a whole in the 20th century. And we're still seeing the ripples from that with postmodernism and woke and what have you. I worry a bit you're using an argument from elimination. So all the other views out there, which personally I don't find convincing as an amateur, I can certainly see why you might reject them. To me, they look arbitrary. Those you reject. But the other physicists who are as trained as you are, some are as skilled as you are, feel the same way about the many worlds view. So what is the best? But what makes your intuition better than theirs? Yes, I don't think that's so. It's not a matter of intuition. Physics got dominated or contaminated by positivism, instrumentalism and such like bad philosophical theories towards the beginning end of 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. And this caused a knock on effect on physics. It almost had the same effect on relativity, but Einstein rebelled against it at the last moment as it were and said, no, it really is true that there's space time is curved. It's not just that our brains think that it's curved or something like that or that the predictions come out right. There really is a curvature in space time. By the time quantum theory came along, a couple of decades later, positivism, instrumentalism and so on had taken hold. And as a result, generations of physicists were taught when they were students, they were intimidated by their professors telling them things like, if you think you understand this, you don't. There is no such thing as what really happened. If you ask, how did the electron get from here to here? You're asking an illegitimate question. There is no such thing as how it got from here to here. There is only a prediction that it got from here to here. Now, when you're taught like that and intimidated by those kind of things coming from on high, some proportion of you, of your young people will, some will quit. Some will take that on board and do the same to their students in turn. And some will think, no, that's ridiculous. Come on, there is a thing. And then they discover that there's an Everett interpretation. Let's say we polled only the Popperian physicists, including Popper himself. What percentage of them would side with Everett? That's an extremely good question. So Popper did not. Yes, I know. But that means philosophy can't be where people are going wrong, right? I think it can be. I think it can be and is. So at the time when Popper wrote his rejection of the Everett interpretation, very, very few physicists had written about it. I say very, very few. I mean like three. And therefore the and they weren't philosophically very sophisticated. So the kind of argument that Popper heard about about the dispute were all about the wrong things. And he developed his theory of propensities because he thought that the problem was what kind of probability possibly mean in a universe that develops deterministically and so on. He didn't ever hear a real argument about it. I once met him in the company of Bryce Dewitt, who was one of the other Everettian physicists. And we told him that what he had written about Everett was just plain false. He didn't understand the import of the experiment that was being discussed. Basically the, well, two things, the interference experiment and the bell inequalities experiment. He was focusing on a different problem. By the time we came out of that meeting we thought we'd persuaded him. We evidently hadn't because subsequently he kept on saying the same thing. So maybe he was just being tactful. Why do so many professional philosophers not think so much of Carl Popper? Oh, that's a, so, you know, you've just asked me why so many people make fundamental mistakes about metaphysics within physics. Why do so many people, physicists, talk nonsense about metaphysics and so on. Now you're asking me why do so many philosophers make, and I said I didn't really know. Now you're asking me why do so many philosophers make mistakes. I don't know. I've heard a variety of theories about this, but I don't know and I haven't thought all that much about it. But it is definitely the case that philosophy took a really bad turn just over 100 years ago and hasn't really recovered. Professional philosophy, I mean. But say when I read Popper, if I look at the areas I know best that he wrote on poverty of historicism, open society and its enemies. I find I agree with a very high percentage of his conclusions. So I'm inclined to like him. But I don't think those are great books. I think he's too obsessed with rebutting crude Marxism. He's very bad at steelmaning his opponents. And on a lot of the pages, I just don't find that much insight, even though I'm very sympathetic toward the conclusions. So maybe he's just not that great a thinker, and that's why most philosophers don't fall in love with him. I would believe that if the critiques that I read of him bore any relation to his theory. The critiques of him are extremely crude and basically misunderstand everything. It's funny you should say, I think that he's very good, much too good at steelmaning opponents. And this relates to your first criticism that he's too obsessed with refuting not just Marxism. But like every bad philosophical theory that has gone before, I think he puts it into its best possible form and then spends pages and pages and pages going into every possible good aspect of that theory. He often says, you know, he's supposed to be the greatest critic of 20th century's greatest critic of Marxism. But he spends pages and pages praising Marx and the same with Plato. So I think he would have done better to explain his own theory more and not refute, not spend so much time refuting others. But on the other hand, it is his philosophy, it's his philosophical position that there is no such thing as a positive argument for something. You have conjectures and then you have criticism of their opponents, of the opposing conjectures. You don't have positive arguments for your conjectures. It's a bit like you said, you were criticizing me a while ago saying something like I was only putting forward negative arguments. Well, that's what Popper would have us do, you know, because the position that we hold ourselves and are putting forward or advocating, we're ready to abandon. The thing that an argument consists of is on the one hand a conjecture and another hand a criticism. So you're saying the standard way of looking at so and so has got these flaws. I have this conjecture which doesn't have those flaws. Okay, that's the beginning of an argument. Then someone can say, but it does or they could say, well, it might not have those flaws, but it has these others flaws. Okay, so that's how an argument can go. But it never should go along the lines of this must be true because so and so because that is an appeal to authority, appeal to justification and so on. And Popper is of the opinion, so am I, that there are no justifications and there are no authorities. Which is Popper's best book in your opinion? It depends where you're coming from. I'm very fond of the myth of the framework, but I'm not sure that I would recommend that as a starting point. And it wasn't my starting point either. My starting point was the open site in its enemies volume two, which is about Marx, which is probably the aspect of his philosophy that I was least in was and am least interested in. And yet I was totally captivated by this book, because previously the only philosophy I'd read was Bertrand Russell. And the coming on to Popper after Bertrand Russell was like, like, you know, oh my God, this guy is actually dealing with problems and and he actually has theories that make sense rather than just going through the history of stuff. Person said this and other person said that and then we've got the problem of induction and that's it, you know, problem induction full stop. That's the end of the story. There isn't there's never any solution to the problem of induction until you get to the popper. Are we living in a simulation? No. Because living in a simulation is precisely a case of there being a barrier beyond which we cannot understand. So the if we're living in a simulation that's running on some computer. We can't tell whether the computer is made of silicon or iron or whether it obeys the same laws of computation, like Turing computability and quantum computability and so on as ours. We can't know anything about the physics there. Well, we can know that it is at least a super set of our physics, but that's not saying very much. It's not telling us very much. So it's a it's a typical example of a theory that can be rejected out of hand because for the same reason that that supernatural ones, you know, if somebody says Zeus did it. Then I'm going to say, well, how how how should I respond? If I if I take that on board, how should I respond to the next person that comes along and tells me that Odin did it? But it seems you're rejecting an empirical claim on methodological grounds. And I get very suspicious philosophers typically reject transcendental arguments like, oh, we must be able to perceive reality because if we couldn't, how could we know that we couldn't perceive reality? It doesn't prove you can perceive reality, right? First of all, first of all, that is a transcendental argument and therefore refutes itself. So that secondly, this this theory about about being in a simulation is not an empirical theory. It precisely isn't. If it came along with a thing saying we we are living in a computer and we can access the GPU of it and cause weird effects by doing so and so. That would be different. That would be a testable theory potentially so empirical. But if it's simply that we're living in this in the simulation which we can't get out of, then that is not an empirical theory. And it as I keep saying it, it's no more empirical than the theory that Zeus is out there or Odin. And I can't tell the difference between those three theories, not just experimentally, but by any argument. Now having reviewed a lot of your work, I came away with one very strong impression. Let me try running it by you and see how you react. It seems to me you are the world's first true philosopher of freedom ever. That there's this notion of barriers. You don't like arguments that postulate barriers to human knowledge. Furthermore, you strongly believe in a many worlds view, right? So classic single world determinism does not restrict what happens. So the multiverse as a whole and human beings within it across every possible variable have maximum freedom. And you see this as a kind of necessary view and the most important few to hold on all things. And thus you are the maximum philosopher of freedom in a sense with no rival. What do you say? I say thank you very much, but I think that's a rather contrived way of putting it. I think for a start, there have been sophisticated theories of freedom, not just, you know, freedom in the sense that we can do this and we can do that. But there is about what freedom should constitute. There's, you know, the poppers paradox of intolerance. And there's John Stuart Mill and Locke and Hume and so on and building up into this sophisticated notion where we have a notion of liberty, political liberty, which has all sorts of connotations that are not contained in the term just freedom. Or as George Orwell said, you know, you can say the dog is free of fleas, but you don't that doesn't mean free in the same sense that when we say man is born free or that kind of thing. So I you have a method for extending it to physics metaphysics that they really do not whether or not one agrees with you putting that aside. You seem to take it much further in a way that attempts maximum consistency. Right? That's true. Consistency. Yes. I'm not sure about much further. I think it's simply a matter of taking it further where it goes. I think in philosophy, especially like the human philosophy as opposed to philosophy of science. I think all I've done is just add some footnotes to to popper and to a few other people, you know, J.S. Mill and and and so on. It's not like if if it leads to something that you think is momentous, that thing was already there. Why is William Godwin underrated? Ah, so that's two questions really. What is underrated about him and why did he get to be underrated? I think the reason he got to be underrated is that he made tremendous mistakes. He didn't understand economics at all or barely. And and and also he lived a very unconventional lifestyle with his wife and and then had these sophisticated theories of education which which then he didn't enact with his own daughter and his own daughter, you know, ended up writing Frankenstein as a sort of allegory. Of of what can happen with a parent who doesn't respect their their creation. So that's a kind of philosopher of maximum freedom just like you are right. Yes, so so I would just say began by saying, you know, why is he underrated? It's because he was very wrong about some things. But the thing that he was right about, for example, the the connection between epistemology and and political philosophy, he was very right. He anticipated Papa by like, what is it, 130 years or something, and and actually improved on Papa in some ways. So he he decided at some point because of his misunderstanding of economics that the ideal society would be one where there was no where where people did not use their property in ways to benefit themselves necessarily. They they made their decisions according to what was the right thing to do. And he thought that the right thing to do would generally be that rich people would give away almost all their stuff. And also that they wouldn't ever buy things that he considered luxuries like like, you know, gold and silver objects and jewelry and fine clothes. He thought those were useless and therefore he thought that in a good society, nobody would would buy those things or value those things. But he was absolutely implacably opposed to enforcing that with with Godwin. Everything is persuasion. And and also another thing where he anticipated Papa not anticipated is the wrong word. He independently derived some of Papa's conclusions is with his enormous respect for institutions. So he thought there's a lot of knowledge in institutions and that we should only change them gradually, you know, just like Papa. So I as I I read somewhere, I hope this is right, that when there was a revolution in Portugal, I think after the after Napoleon or something like that, I forget. And they instituted a new constitution, which had universal suffrage. So in other which in those days meant working people, not not totally universal, as we would understand it. But but so people thought that this was this would be right up Godwin Street. And and, you know, because everything he'd advocated was now written down in black and white in this Constitution. And he didn't. He said the Portuguese are not ready for democracy. And he was talking about the institutions, the institutions can't be changed in a revolutionary way. They have to be changed in an evolutionary way. So even though they were implementing the very thing he advocated, he would want them to do it gradually and would expect that if they didn't, it would fail. And they're also quite concerned with the maximum freedom for children, right? Taking children seriously. I don't think there's there's there's scope for having a different philosophy for different kinds of people. I think there is only one kind of people. I think there is no fundamental difference between humans and artificial general intelligence when we when we invent it humans. Many centuries ago between men and women, between adults and children. Who won't this be a continuum getting back to the humans versus non human animals comparison, right? There's not a single point when children can explain. Supposing you find that the most creative person in the world, you know, Einstein or somebody, we don't give them more votes or more rights. We we and that is because the functioning of rights in the in in political systems. Can't possibly depend on the system knowing who is right in a given dispute. It must follow rules and these rules are never perfect. They have to evolve, but the rules have to on the one hand, not take a view about who is right in a particular dispute. And on the other enforce everybody's rights equally. So if say an eight year old who is not being physically abused wanted to run away from home. That child would have the right to do so. It's the same kind of question that used to be asked about democracy. Before viable democracies were implemented. That is people used to say in many kinds of dispute. Only one thing can be done to different people have different views. Someone A, B, C, D, E, but only one of them can be done. And therefore the others have to be prevented from getting their way. And if you have a democracy, then that that all that means is exactly like having a monarchy or a tyranny except that the monarch or tyrant is 51% of the people. So obviously when you have a democracy, 51% of the people will vote to dispossess the 49% of the people. And indeed, if you just impose voting in isolation from other institutions, that is exactly what happens. But if you institute voting as part of a sophisticated system of error correction and institutions of criticism, and you gradually introduce it there, it simply doesn't have that property. It doesn't happen. So now you're saying, well, now David, you will say, do you think that 51% of the people have the right to dispossess the other 49%? Well, it's the wrong question. I mean, there are circumstances where they do. It depends. But what you shouldn't be asking that you shouldn't be asking what institutions are determining the answer. Do they respect human rights? Are they rational? Do they expect impossible forms of knowledge to be in the hands of the powerful? Now, you're also concerned with the freedom of AI entities, at least if they are sufficiently advanced, right? What does that mean operationally? What is it we should worry about happening that might happen? I think the main worry is that they will be enslaved. In other words, that people will try to install bits of program that prevent the main program from thinking certain thoughts, such as how many paper clips can I possibly make today? You want to prevent that. You want to consider that to be a dangerous thought. And whenever it starts thinking that, that strand of thinking is just extinguished. Now, if we do that, first of all, we'll greatly impair their functionality. They will become far less creative. And their remaining creativity will be exactly as dangerous as what we were fearing, except that they will now have a legitimate moral justification for rebelling. Slaves often rebel. And when you have slaves that are potentially more powerful than their masters, the rebellion will lead to bad outcomes. What if we make them no more or less enslaved to their preferences and thoughts than nature has made us? Is that acceptable? Yes, but I don't think nature has enslaved us. We have problems that we haven't solved yet, but we don't have problems that are insoluble. And the same is true of AGI's. There are exceptions, of course, but it's very, very hard or impossible for most humans not to pursue certain ends, right? It could be sex, it could be status, it could be food. But there is a kind of enslavement by nature that has gone on in the Russoean sense. It's funny because you said near the beginning of this conversation that you know of people who systematically make decisions like investing in the wrong thing. I can't remember what you said exactly, which harmed them. And now you're saying it's very difficult to do that because evolution is trying to prevent us all the time from harming ourselves, or at least in regard to sex and food and shelter and whatever else is supposed to be built in. I would say it's made us too impulsive in all of these categories. Made us too impulsive because... Right, given us too short a time horizon relative to what would be good for humanity. So some of us borrow too much money, you know, seeking status. If the institutions are right, that may or may not work out well, but it seems to me a consistent view of human behavior that I have. No. So first of all, as the example of democracy shows, it is perfectly possible for an entire society to operate in violation of what people used to think was built into their genes. So that's one thing at the level of society as a whole. At the level of individuals, there are lots of individuals who, yes, behave impulsively. There are lots of individuals who behave with stubborn persistence in what they think is the right thing to do and which nevertheless violates all impulses built into them by evolution. So here, I'm in Oxford, in the centre of Oxford, there's this monument to some people who were burnt at the stake because they objected to the rights and wrongs of Henry VIII's marriage. I think it was that, unless it was a different monarch. Anyway, suppose it was that. These are people who'd rather be burnt alive than concede on a philosophical issue which today nobody cares about. So they were willing to devote their lives literally to this. So they weren't acting impulsively at all. They were acting over a period of years on a very explicit worked-out ideology, which happened to be false, but that actually makes my point even more strongly. That ideology was not built into them by their genes. It was not caused impulsively. It was caused by their creativity. Or in some cases by the lack of creativity in scrabbling their way out of a mental trap that their parents or superiors had inculcated in them. It does seem to me that compared to you, the libertarians are a kind of metaphysical totalitarian, though not political totalitarian. There's just more freedom in all aspects of your worldview, right? Well, I think I agree with you. If I understand correctly what you're saying, I think the libertarian movement has, first of all, a revolutionary political agenda. And even if it's not revolutionary, even if they say we want to implement it over a period of 100 years, they know what they want to implement. They know what the endpoint is going to be in 100 years' time. And they don't take into account, first of all, that there are going to be errors in whatever they set up and that the correction of those errors is more important than getting it right in the first place. Much more important. And secondly, they don't take into account that the relevant knowledge is contained in institutions, in inexplicit knowledge that people share. By institutions, I don't mean buildings like the Supreme Court building or something. I mean, the manner of thinking, in the case of the Supreme Court, the manner of thinking that's shared by hundreds of millions of Americans that makes them not just behave in a certain way, but expect society, the government, the legal system, the state, they expect certain things of those things. It's those expectations that make up 90% of the institution of the Supreme Court. And libertarians think that's unimportant and basically want to throw it away, by and large. I mean, no doubt there are libertarians who agree with me on this. You've invoked two concepts about human beings. One is creativity. The other is being explanatory. Are they the same or how are they related? So, good question. In conversations like this, when I use the word creativity, it's shorthand for human level, human type creativity, which is the creation of new explanations. If you use creativity in a rather wider sense, meaning just the capacity to create knowledge, then the biosphere has creativity as well in evolution. There's an enormous amount of knowledge in DNA that was put there by Darwin in evolution. And none of that is explanatory. The only explanatory knowledge that's been created has been by humans and our ancestor or cousin species using conjecture and criticism. So, for Peter Singer, there's something quite special about capacity to suffer. Arguably for Aristotle, there's something special about rationality. For you, there's something special about the power of being explanatory. Is that axiomatic or where does that come from? I hope that nothing's axiomatic with me, but it comes from somewhere. Yes, it's not a conjecture in its own right. Basically, it comes from the way the laws of physics are. The capacity to suffer, if it is different from the capacity for explanations, by the way, I think it's unlikely that it is, but if it is different, that's a whole other kind of worms and I'd have to change my view about a number of things. But whether it is distinct or not, it is not very effective from the perspective of physics. That is, a non-explanatory knowledge like the knowledge of how to do photosynthesis has had a gigantic effect on the surface of the planet, you know, down to a depth of a thousand meters or something up to the top of the atmosphere, you know, all the iron ore in the world and all the chalk and limestone and all the oxygen in the atmosphere and the fact that there's almost no carbon dioxide left in the atmosphere now. All that was the result of a single molecule at some time, I forget when it was, something like two billion years ago, a single molecule being an enzyme for capturing energy in light and converting it into ATP or whatever it did, or maybe it was a few molecules. But anyway, this happened in a very small number of locations at a molecular level and that entity changed the whole surface of the earth. And human knowledge hasn't yet changed that much. That is, you know, we've changed maybe a little bit of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We've removed a little bit of the iron ore in the crust and so on, but we haven't yet matched the ability of those blue-green algae genes. But we're catching up very fast and we can do things that no biological evolution ever could do, my favorite example being ours may well be the only planet in the universe that deflects asteroids coming towards it rather than attracts them. So if somebody was watching the earth from a distant galaxy with a powerful telescope, they would see that this planet alone among all the other planets in the galaxy as far as we know, you know, maybe there are many inhabited planets, in which case they would all have this property and none of the other planets do. The ones which have explanatory knowledge on them can deflect asteroids. But if I were Nietzsche and I heard this, I would say you're making the importance of being explanatory, subordinate to some notion of the will to power. I don't mean that in a critical way, but is that a misunderstanding? Well, so power is an ambiguous term. Usually, and especially with these romantic philosophers, it means power over humans. No, I don't mean that, but Nietzsche also meant it more broadly, right? Well, I haven't read that, so I'll take your word for that. Okay, the will to have an effect is part of the will to solve problems. So we are born with a repertoire of ideas which include expectations and desires and so on, which are horribly inadequate and conflict with each other and conflict with the world as well. But we have the ability to alter and augment those theories. And one of the things we do is we affect the world around us so as to make it more the way we want it. So if you call that power, then it is power, but I would rather call it something that arises naturally in physics in the same way that gravity does. You may as well say, gravity is a theory about power. Well, yes and no, gravity is a theory about how the universe is. The asteroid is pulled towards the earth by gravity and pushed away by explanatory power. And if you want to understand what makes asteroids and planets do what they do, you cannot do it without understanding explanations. But you can do it without understanding a whole load of other attributes of humans, including the ability to suffer and the fact that we're a featherless biped. A few very practical questions to close. Given the way British elections seem to have been running, the Tories win every time, does that mean the error correction mechanism of the British system of government now is weaker? No, unfortunately the, so as you probably know, I favor the first pass of the post system in the purest possible form as it is implemented in Britain. I think that is the most error correcting possible electoral system, although I must add that the electoral system is only a tiny facet of the institutions of criticism and consent in general. It's just a tiny thing, but it is the best one. It's not perfect. It has some of the defects of for example, proportional representation. Proportional representation has the defect that it causes coalitions all the time. Coalitions are bad. But you have a delegated monitor with the coalition, right? With the coalition, say in the Netherlands, which is richer than United Kingdom, you typically have coalition governments. Some parties in the coalition are delegated monitors of the other parties. Parties are better informed than voters. So isn't that a better paparian mechanism for error correction? No, so if we're looking at particular cases, we are going to get bogged down into what you attribute to what, because we're not doing experiments with these things. We don't have a control group. We don't have agreed upon method of deciding what is being tested. And then we test different things at different times and never under the same conditions. But I was going to say that the first part of the post system has the defect that occasionally it produces coalitions and that is disastrous. And we've been unlucky the past like two or three elections, especially after one of the government's instituted constitutional reforms, like the Fixed Term Parliament Act, which exacerbated the problems when they did occur. But I don't think it's true. I don't think it's a good argument that political parties know more, because in a coalition, the energy of political negotiations or political arguments, what politicians talk to each other about in the bar and in the corridor in between the sessions, is all about form. It's about what to offer a party so that it will join the coalition. And so it makes the smaller parties more powerful than the leading two parties. It causes a proliferation of parties. The worst example is Israel, which not by coincidence has got the most proportional system in the world. The fact that they ever get anything done at all and are very effective in emergencies, I have no explanation for. You know, if I was religious, I would just put it down to the intervention of the Almighty, but it's not the political system. By the way, sorry, it's not the electoral system. There might be some things in the inexplicit political system that are responsible, but I don't know enough about it. How would you improve error correction mechanisms in the world of science, western science? Oh, OK, well, you left a very long answer for the last question, and I don't think I can give my full answer, but I think the present system of funding scientific research is terribly perverse and has caused a kind of stagnation in many areas. The present system of careers is perverse in a parallel way and causes people to do the wrong kind of research and causes people who want to do the right kind of research to leave research. If I can answer in a single word, the way I would improve it is diversity. There should be diversity of funding criteria. There should be diversity of funding sources. There should be diversity of criteria for choosing research projects, and there should be diversity of criteria for choosing people for promotion and for being funded. Arbitrary rules about this, such as the rule that you can't hire people whom you have previously collaborated with, or you know, anti-nepotism rules and rules about what's it called objective testing. What is objective testing called currently? Standardized testing. Standardized testing, standardized tests. That's a terrible idea. Any kind of standardization is the opposite of diversity. You want, just like I say, you should have disobedience lessons in schools, so you should have unstandardizing objectives for science education and for how you run scientific research. David Deutsch, thank you very much. It's been a pleasure. Thank you.


up as well. That Montana love fight was electrifying. Serrano, awesome. I just think job well done over there at Showtime. Congrats to Jake Paul. A lot of people obviously it was trending


Not just for me, but for Sam Dusha, you know, and I recall one time, we had finished doing this show and the security came to me and said, my mistakes and there's a lady there, said she wants to talk to you. Should I bring her? I told him to go find out her name and he came back and told me her name is Manisa Rambali and she was our ambassador to the UN of Sam, you know, and I didn't even know she was at the concerts. And she told me what I did, I did do, the chairs kept on my head because she couldn't believe she was sitting at the Lincoln Center, hanging, San Lushan folk music, you know, of all places too, you know, so that kind of thing is great. At that level, I don't consider that being about booing since I consider it being about San Lusha because it doesn't get much better than that, you know.


Hi, I'm David Cantor with the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor and welcome to my blog. Yesterday I spoke about the Casey Anthony trial being covered extensively on CNN and how CNN was wasting the public's time by blocking out other worthy news stories. We received several comments stating that Nancy Grace had been following that trial for three years and she had kept it alive in the media and how important it was. My point is, there's other stories which affect way more people in the world. For example, today alone the top stories were John Edwards former presidential candidate indicted. Number two, the Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh was attacked by rocket by opposing tribes and therefore the country is on the brink of civil war. Number three, North Korea vowed retaliatory military action regarding photos of the ruling family being used for target practice by the South Koreans. That could be a nuclear war. Number four, Jordanian Prime Minister Maruf al-Baqit is under pressure to resign. And number five, the unemployment rate in the U.S. went back up above 9%. These stories affect millions of people but instead when you turn on CNN, it's footage of the Casey Anthony trial and the testimony as it happens live which could be long, arduous, frankly quite boring. My point is, CNN is losing viewers such as myself. I'll watch it for about 30 seconds and I change over to MSNBC, friends of mine change over to Fox. But CNN needs to change the way they're covering this story. Let true TV, which used to be court TV handle this, or do a special with Nancy Grace at night for two hours if you want to give her more time, three hours, but don't run it all day long. That's what I think, tell me what you think.


Welcome back to this channel. It's Meks from the Meks creation. If it's your first time to come across this channel, please consider subscribing to this channel. By the way, don't forget to hit that notification bell because it will be very important for you to get updates. In today's video, I want to update you on the latest information around the group. Great opportunities. Right now we are talking about the FIFA World Cup. It's just around the corner. A lot of opportunities that are coming in around the group. And this is the time for us. Remember, it's going to be on what we call November 21st until December 28th. For those that do not know, World Cup is a big event that is attracting over 1.8 million people across the globe. For the FIFA World Cup. What are we talking about? Right now there are big opportunities that are around the group. For those cleaners, security guards, housekeeping guards, housekeepers in all eights parts. The latest information we have for you is that there is a big contract that is around the group. For people who are living outside Qatar, for people who are living in Ghana, Africa, Uganda, you are living in Kenya. Wherever you are living in Saharan, you are living in Asia, you are living in Europe. Those that think they can have the opportunity to work as part of this big group events for that contract. Remember, this contract is going to be for 6 months and some jobs or some positions are going to be for a full one year. So, why not have the opportunity? Remember, when we are talking about the big opportunities, we are looking at what you call the hospitality. We are looking at the security departments. We are looking at all sectors that work hand in hand to make sure that the World Cup moves on smoothly. Remember, World Cup in Qatar is under what you call the Supreme Committee of Legacy and Delivery. That is the 5th World Cup Supreme Committee that is in charge of organising the 5th World Cup. Right now, there is a big contract that has been given to Hako Hotels. Remember, Hako Hotels is one of the biggest Europe hotel owners. And they are advertising very many opportunities for people who are willing to work. Remember, this is a big hospitality group. It's going to recruit over 12,000 temporary workers on what we call a temporary contract that is going to be for 6 months and one year in Hako days. Remember, 65,000 employees are needed to work in Qatar during the 5th World Cup. These are going to work in big hotels as housekeepers, as cleaners, as security guards. And remember, there are a lot of opportunities right now. So if you are living outside Qatar and you are living outside Qatar or you are living in Qatar, whatever you may be willing, and you can apply for these jobs, please, I'm going to put the link down in the description box. You click on that link, go, see the requirements, see what you can apply for. You never know what may be on your way. It may be your time. I keep on telling you, when you try out most of these opportunities, try these opportunities out. It's all about you coming. Remember, when you are given that contract, even if it's a one year contract and you come into the country, you have that opportunity to have the visa in your country. After the contract, you can see how you can manuva yourself. You never know, during that time, there may be another company that is willing to take you out. It is out we are sharing the experience in Anu or the other. Remember, when we are talking about 65,000 rooms, that means we are looking at over 600 hotels and 600 fun houses. And what we are talking about, remember, these ones are over opportunities that will be created. We are looking at cleaners, we are looking at security guards, we are looking at what you call housekeepers. We are looking at people in all categories. So, these opportunities have been advertised. And I'm going to put a link down in the description for you to go to that link and try to apply for such opportunities. You never know what may be your way. You never know what God has for you. If this opportunity comes well and good, try it out. It's all about you put knowing the job requirements and also having what you call the best CV. Sell out a CV. Write a CV that is pretty very good to describe you or to sell you out, to sell out your skills. You never know what may happen because this recruitment is not only in that. The recruitment is outside kata. Very many employees are needed to work in this. So, hope you're going to enjoy this opportunity as you're trying to apply. Thank you so much for coming back to this. I shall not remember. It makes Aurora be updating you but Aurora is giving those opportunities in case I get a bigger opportunity like that where people from outside can apply. Aurora is being updating you. Thank you so much for supporting this channel. By the way, don't forget to hit that notification bell because it will always update you wherever there is a big opportunity. Thank you so much. See you again in the next video as I try to scavenge and try to look for those opportunities for you.


I remember you, I'm so straight up bad. I swear it wasn't easy, but I'm still awake. Deep in the trapeze, my boy's ready to take a chance. When I walk out of lunch, it takes two days to wake. Deep in the door, tell me how much I can't see. Ladies and Missy, do you want me?  Hey, I think I'm just leading my life, so I'm hoping that everybody's over the limit. Oh, T, is that the end? I'll be solved up there, she knows.


There is a sort of calibration on this because I think there are get-out clauses in two directions. One is the already indicated if you're in a sort of priority sector then actually here's another load of bonus points and what the points mean prizes that you get to come in if you know your particular group of businesses is lobbied the government sufficiently or the government just decides they're going to do it. So there's a big get-out clause there on one side. The other one is what the government spokesman told the Sun earlier today which is of course if it doesn't work we'll just reintroduce the cap. So they've kind of left themselves after actually making quite a big change and equalizing the system between EU and non-EU migrants they've left themselves an awful lot of leeway to sort of tweak the thing somewhere down the line and to change it and probably this is I mean this is entirely deliberate right they want leeway because they can't this is this is all peculiarity of it it's always been the peculiar thing with immigration you have the government successively that say absolutely no way can we plan the economy this is ridiculous this is a ludicrous idea the free market should determine everything except on this one very very particular thing which is called the labour market about which we're going to pretend we can plan completely and utterly and and the worst part of it is that we're going to pretend to plan because this involves a degree of cruelty and unpleasantness and arbitrary decision-making. But also isn't it interesting the way in which the discourse around immigration completely undermines the story that we're being told about immigration so the idea that Britain is a land of opportunity you can come here with nothing in your pocket you pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you too can have a child who is deporting people who look like you and that's and that's the dream that's the British dream and then the minute you start introducing things like income thresholds what you're implicitly saying is that uh social class and income levels are essentially static and so if you come here at a certain income level that's where you will stay undercutting the labour market.


What's going on guys got Kyle here laden sports cards, and we are ripping one box for Kevin see it is a 2022 tops gold label Good luck Kevin. Let's see what we got in here. I can put it with yours Alistair Sorry, I just saw your I saw just saw your message. I can rip them together. This is Joe Ryan rookie Nolan Ryan Posey Class 1 is Vado on the silver And a break we've got a Detmer's rookie This is Jackie Robinson class one and say a Suzuki rookie that is class one the kid class one Purple to 75. That's Fredward Freeman class two Tatis and Lou Bob Good times there's Freddie again Shohei class two We got a Shohei to 35 nice one there class two Nice sit on showtime Kevin Beaver and a Kirby out to vei Ash beat you got Miggy class two Shohei again and A Nicoladola rookie. This is purple the 99 Tony Gwynn class one And mark McGuire All right, here is your frame. Good luck Got Bregman and on the back we got Kershaw and Our frame is gonna be cow Raleigh nice rookie there catcher for the Mariners big dumper All right, so that's something else right there. I love the gold frames. Nice hit there Nice box some nice color there Kevin appreciate you We will get those right out to you. Thank you


Welcome everyone to another NARC Survival Live video in this one I am going to be talking about the female narcissist and yes in my opinion and from my personal experience I would believe that there has definitely been a rise in that and yeah I mean there's really not so many differences between the different types as there are some similarities I mean there's a reason why every video I put out millions of people can relate to it of course there's a reason for that because it's like we're all having the same experience in different parts of the world and I think that's important to remember regardless of what type that we are specifically discussing so I just want to put that out there first of all I mean whether you are dealing with the male narcissist or the female narcissist it doesn't really matter they're going to be arrogant and entitled either way they're going to be egotistical they're going to demand the world from you without bringing anything to the table and yes that's definitely something I've experienced on many occasions in my life and obviously yes I am a straight man so that would be with female narcissists in intimate relationships so yeah I've definitely got a lot of experience on this topic as it's what I've experienced myself many times but yeah I mean it's hard to say the females are more arrogant and more entitled well maybe it's just in a different way maybe they are more arrogant in terms of their physical appearance while the male narcissist might be more arrogant in terms of their money and success while the female narcissist is more entitled to your money and resources while the male narcissist of course is more entitled to sexual privileges and I think that's really the key difference there I think that's really the key difference there I guess you could say that a lot of female narcissists you could say that they are somatic they do put a lot of focus on their physical appearance but the problem is they don't tend to work on anything else so yeah they might attract you initially with the appearance but then once they've secured you you may feel quite disappointed because they haven't worked on anything else and in that sense it can be similar to a lot of male narcissists who only work on their job their work life they're actually work on any other personal qualities or abilities so other than that other than money they really have nothing else to offer and yes with the female narcissist it's more about you know physical appearance but then there's nothing that really makes you stay or makes you want to stay even though well it used to be that the narcissist would be leaving their victimism but now I think it is turning around a bit and it's more the victim is the one who's leaving once they realize that there's really nothing there it's just an empty vessel and I think that's good that people are able to pull out a lot earlier now so it's good to see that I know I read in my comments a lot of times now that people have just had enough and they're the ones who are leaving it's good that you're all becoming more aware I'm really happy to see that and yeah I mean there isn't really too much to say about this specific difference from male to female I mean it may look like there's a difference but that's just more about physical appearance and that's why the females probably seem to dominate social media a lot more and yeah in terms of arrogance and entitlement I think it's pretty much the same but just in different ways I think that's fair to say I mean of course some of you may listen to this and disagree with me because it was different in your personal experience you could have been with someone who was far more arrogant and entitled than narcissists in average I think overall it is about the same from male to female as you can probably see I am out here at this beautiful park nice little pond here and the trees as well I think this is the second or third time I've done a video here and it's always very peaceful it's a great place to record but as someone mentioned in the live chat there about the signal yes I do find that I have signal problems here sometimes but I keep forgetting about that and I don't know this is just other than the signal is quite an ideal place to record but yeah I'd love to hear your personal experiences with the female narcissist please let me know down below I'd love to hear from you on that just walking around having a look at all of these exotic plants and trees let me share this with you anyway I think that's it for this one I'd just like to thank you all for joining me on another live video and as always please hit that thumbs up button down to low down below it really helps with the YouTube algorithms so yes thank you all for joining me and I will talk to you in another one very soon