Mindscape 254 | William Egginton on Kant, Heisenberg, and Borges

Patreon: / seanmcarroll
Blog post with audio player, show notes, and transcript: www.preposterousuniverse.com/...
It can be tempting, when first introduced to a deep concept of physics like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, to draw grand philosophical conclusions about the impossibility of knowing anything precisely. That is generally a temptation to be resisted, just because it's so easy to do it wrong. But there is absolutely a place for a careful humanistic synthesis of these kinds of scientific ideas with other ideas, for example from philosophy or literature. That's the kind of task William Egginton takes on in his new book The Rigor of Angels, which compares the work of philosopher Immanuel Kant, physicist Werner Heisenberg, and author Jorge Luis Borges, three thinkers who grappled with limitations on our aspirations to know reality directly.
William Egginton received his Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from Stanford University. He is currently the Decker Professor in the Humanities and Director of the Alexander Grass Humanities Institute at Johns Hopkins. He is the author of numerous books on literature, literary theory, and philosophy. In addition to The Rigor of Angels, he has an upcoming book on the work of Chilean film director Alejandro Jodorowsky.
Mindscape Podcast playlist: • Mindscape Podcast
Sean Carroll channel: / seancarroll
#podcast #ideas #science #philosophy #culture

[@daveangle]

Humbly I suggest this is a terrific episode. I learned things that I expect to carry with me from now on. Thank you

[@garydecad6233]

Perhaps the comment at the conclusion of this podcast is one we can all aspire to in our everyday lives. Thank you both!

[@sirilandgren]

Wow, this was something else. Borges is one of my all-time favorite artists.

[@cboniefbr]

Have a great week everyone!

[@MrPDTaylor]

First

[@shackledore]

Amazing talk. Peak podcasting right here!

[@muhiptezcan6649]

As a long time Mindscape listener, this is absolutely one of the best, among others like Dennett, Rovelli, Friston and so on (and the solo episodes, of course). I started listening to the book and I cannot believe how amazing it is.

[@roberthvistendahl8635]

Hi Sean, I have learned a lot about physics listening to you, and maybe mostly I've learned how to be articulate and deduce in the best way. Can you please be with me and my family over the next week as we have a tough time, if it's not too much effort

[@sirilandgren]

Here's a wish for all the best for you and your family form a fellow Carrollite.

[@endrawes0]

Excellent episode!

[@Ersin_Dogan]

What perfect pronunciation of "anschaulich" 🎉😂❤

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i got some of that in my eye i think.

[@jjjccc728]

I went into this episode ready to bail at the slightest sign of boredom. I stuck it through right to the end and very pleased with the content and the execution of this conversation

[@davegrundgeiger9063]

lol same. Turned out to be very good.

[@ModestNeophyte]

Lovely to start the day with your podcast!

[@marcosfreijeiro8763]

Love to hear more it was to short, as always an excellent topic and I would hea

[@evcoproductions]

Wish this one was longer

[@HarryNicNicholas]

my knowledge of philosophy is restricted to monty python songs. that's one big elevator.

[@bytefu]

There's actually a site called The Library of Babel, based on Borges' story, "containing" all the books from it.

[@sirilandgren]

I love how you put the word "containing" in quotation marks.

[@charliesteiner2334]

This "difference between the observer and the world" rankles me every time it's brought up. Is there to be no third-person account of observation? And if there is, what magic barrier is supposed to stop you from understanding yourself and the world as being made of the same stuff, following the same rules?

[@ivansirtautas2513]

The Library of Babel is a mindblowing math/physics/philosophy essay/story. Cheers from Argentina!

[@nneisler]

Came for the Borges, stayed for the Kant.

[@stephencolbertcheese7354]

Kant believe im 1st again!

[@cwcarson]

You honestly just did that?

[@stephencolbertcheese7354]

@@cwcarson dishonestly then?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

you think you're so crate.

[@paxdriver]

Is that a step Bach, Senecal sarcasm or a new Plato?

[@henrycunha8379]

But there is no reason why a perfect recall has to take as much time as the actual event. The mind doesn't operate at 32 frames/second. Moreover, a perfect recall can be purposely selective without discarding from the memory bank what was not selected.

[@elizondorj]

Jorge Luis Borges was mentioned at the very beginning. You should have taken a clue there. Quoting "Funes the memorious": 'He could reconstruct all his dreams, all his half-dreams. Two or three times he had reconstructed a whole day; he never hesitated, but each reconstruction had required a whole day' Read for yourself (PDF file) vigeland.caltech.edu/ist4/lectures/funes%20borges.pdf

[@at0mly]

The brain doesn't operate at a higher clock rate than the universe.

[@henrycunha8379]

@@at0mlyThere is no universal clock rate. A recall is not a reenactment of the event in question, and a "perfect" (whatever that means) recall can be selective for the part that matters, without extinguishing other memory still held in the original bank.

[@helicalactual]

memory from brains is not recalled, its generated. I have dementia so I can't really go back and look up the source. please do the research, but yes.

[@EzraAChen]

So bad what is this rambling no logic