The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch

[Think Free]

Given the overlap in ideology between Stefan Molyneux and David Deutsch, I am surprised that a search here has produced no reference to David Deutsch or his related movements (Taking Children Seriously, The Beginning of Infinity). Of particular interest to me is the fact that Molyneux and Deutsch seem to reach similar conclusions via sometimes very different and possible even contradictory arguments. I believe that there could be a lot of constructive dialog between the two communities. If Stefan hasn't read The Beginning of Infinity, I highly recommend that he do so, as well as anyone else here on these forums.

[Mike Fleming]

I bought the beginning of infinity a while ago but for whatever reason didn't end up reading it.  What is the basic premise?  Can you summarise it in a paragraph or so?

[Think Free]

I bought the beginning of infinity a while ago but for whatever reason didn't end up reading it.  What is the basic premise?  Can you summarise it in a paragraph or so?

 

The basic premise is very easy to summarize, but the book itself is very wide-ranging in application of the premise, makes a lot of good other points, and provides a lot of very interesting information. Therefore, it might be worth reading even if nothing in my basic summary seems interesting or new.

 

The basic idea of the book is that most, if not all, knowledge is created by the same basic mechanism of conjecture and criticism. So, for example, biological evolution creates knowledge through the "conjecture" of new random mutations and the "criticism" of natural selection. He makes some good arguments that this is the way humans develop knowledge, contrary to a lot of the normal explanations for how humans develop knowledge. Therefore, he argues, the beginning of sustained technological and scientific growth was the "English" enlightenment which enshrined a value for and appreciation of criticism. (Before, criticism of your ideas or traditional ideas was generally (though there were temporary historical exceptions) considered a kind of attack against you, but afterwards it has more and more become considered a way of doing you a favor.)

 

Based on the above he talks about what he calls the "first moral principle" (or something, it's been two years since I last read it, and my Kindle app isn't opening right now), which he states as something like "Thou shalt not destroy the ability to criticize," from which he derives the non-aggression principle, and (I think) the rest of morality.

 

I think that covers the basic idea of the book, although there's a lot of other peripheral interesting arguments. (Some of them seem more like personal axes to grind, but are nevertheless interesting.) I don't think his arguments and ideas are without flaws, but I nevertheless derived a number concepts from his work that I have been able to effectively use a lot in my own thought since then.

[HasMat]

does he provide a moral basis for order or progress? I'm sure the Amish would like to have a word with him.