BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//The Pari Center - ECPv6.15.20//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://paricenter.com
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for The Pari Center
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Rome
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20240331T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20241027T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20250330T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20251026T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20260329T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20261025T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Rome:20251002T160000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Rome:20251006T170000
DTSTAMP:20260411T171216
CREATED:20250930T164408Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251005T084246Z
UID:10000440-1759420800-1759770000@paricenter.com
SUMMARY:Mind\, Matter and Meaning: A Jubileum
DESCRIPTION:Mind\, Matter and Meaning: A Jubileum \n\n\n\nOctober 2-6\, 2025Pari\, Italy \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEvent Schedule\n\n\n\nThursday\, October 2 \n\n\n\n16:00-16:30 Welcome/Introductions \n\n\n\n16:30-19:00 Symposium 1 \n\n\n\n\n16:30 Oliver Sharpe: “Portfolism – Reasoning well given the logical limits of rationality”\n\n\n\n17:30 Berkan Eskikaya: “Before it’s gone: Fragility as a Precondition for Consciousness\, Meaning\, and Value”\n\n\n\n18:30 General discussion: Reason and Living well\n\n\n\n\nFriday\, October 3 \n\n\n\n09:30-13:00  Symposium 2 \n\n\n\n\n09:30 Paavo Pylkkänen: “Bohm’s pilot wave theory and its philosophical implications”\n\n\n\n10:30 General discussion: Science and philosophy\n\n\n\n11:00 coffee\n\n\n\n11:30 Uziel Awret: “Consciousness and the AdS/CFT Duality”\n\n\n\n12:30 General discussion: Physics and consciousness\n\n\n\n\n15:00-18:00     Symposium 3 \n\n\n\n\n15:00 Vinod Goel: “Biological Constraints on the Rational Mind”\n\n\n\n16:00 coffee\n\n\n\n16:30 Ron Chrisley: “Creativity as Non-Conceptual Conceptual Change”\n\n\n\n17:30 General discussion: Beyond the Rational/Conceptual Mind\n\n\n\n\nSaturday\, October 4 \n\n\n\n09:30-13:00     Symposium 4 \n\n\n\n\n09:30 John Polito: “How to perceive BS with AI (It’s not what you’re thinking\, it’s what your hearing)”\n\n\n\n10:30 Avery Wang: TBA\n\n\n\n11:30 coffee\n\n\n\n12:00 Barney Pell: TBA\n\n\n\n\nSunday\, October 5 \n\n\n\n09:30-13:00     Symposium 5 \n\n\n\n\n09:30 Yair Pinto: “Conscious comprehension enables non-algorithmic capabilities.”\n\n\n\n10:30 Mark Kennedy: TBA\n\n\n\n11:30 coffee\n\n\n\n12:00 Ron Chrisley: “Adventures in Self-Reference 1: Epistemic Blindspots”\n\n\n\n\n15:00-18:00     Symposium 6 \n\n\n\n\n15:00 Ewan Paton: “Must Judges Be Human?”\n\n\n\n16:00 coffee\n\n\n\n16:30 Brian Keeley: “The weird epistemology of conspiracy theories.”\n\n\n\n17:30 General discussion: Reckoning & Judgement\n\n\n\n\nMonday\, October 6 \n\n\n\n09:30-13:00     Symposium 7 \n\n\n\n\n09:30 Ron Chrisley: “Adventures in Self-Reference 2: The Situatedness of Computation and Inference”\n\n\n\n10:30 TBA (possibly Vinod Goel?)\n\n\n\n11:30 coffee\n\n\n\n12:00 General discussion: Moving Forward\n\n\n\n12:30 Closing\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nParticipants\n\n\n\nUziel Awret \n\n\n\nPresentation: \n\n\n\n“Consciousness and the AdS/CFT Duality” \n\n\n\nIn my talk I will try and convince you that were the neural correlates of consciousness shown to be massively entangled then consciousness might be an exotic phase of matter that is constituted similarly to space. Physicists like Juan Maldacena believe that in the not so far future we will be able to use quantum computers to generate AdS spaces with a couple of thousands of properly entangled qubits. These spaces\, which are a solution of Einstein’s gravitational equation\, are more classical in nature and possess many philosophically relevant properties. \n\n\n\nI will begin the talk with methodological issues relevant to any theory of consciousness that appeals to novel physical mechanisms and proceed to motivate my argument. Next I will say a few words on massively entangled systems that harbor interspersed local measuring devices and the new Frontier of quantum complexity. While the physical scenario that I will be entertaining may have little to do with reality (after all it assumes large scale entanglement in the warm brain and embraces a radical interpretation of the holographic duality) it is worth considering because of the many philosophical advantages that it provides\, if time permits\, I will list more than twenty such philosophical advantages. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRon Chrisley \n\n\n\nPresentations: \n\n\n\nI will give some or all of the following talks: \n\n\n\n\n“Creativity as Non-Conceptual Conceptual Change”\n\nMuch of our mental life is non-conceptual (roughly\, composed of meanings not capturable in words). This poses a challenge for our sciences and technologies of the mind\, but also promises several opportunities. The challenge is how to talk and theorize about these otherwise ineffable non-conceptual contents. The opportunities derive from the role that non-conceptuality plays in our mental lives: grounding perception\, action on the one hand\, and providing the medium for radical learning and creativity on the other. How can the proper recognition and understanding of the role of the non-conceptual inform the design of better AI systems?\n\n\n\n(This talk of mine from almost 20 years ago introduces some of the key ideas: https://e-asterisk.blogspot.com/2007/08/interactive-empiricism-philosopher-in_06.html )\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n“Adventures in Self-Reference 1: Epistemic Blindspots”\n\n“It’s raining\, but George doesn’t know it” is an example of an epistemic blindspot for George: it can be true\, it can be known (e.g. by Ron)\, but it is logically impossible for George to know it. Each knower has an unbounded number epistemic blindspots. I show:\n\n(Following Sorensen) how conditional epistemic blindspots can be used to resolve paradoxes (e.g.\, the paradox of the surprise examination);\n\n\n\nHow epistemic blindspots can be used to defeat a famous argument against physicalism\, Jackson’s Knowledge Argument;\n\n\n\nThat physical knowledge can be logically private and ineffable knowledge;\n\n\n\nThat the mere possibility of epistemic blindspots implies that for any knowledge-based system (natural or artificial) to track the truth it must not only check for logical consistency (as is well known)\, but must also check for what I call epistemic consistency.\n\n\n\n\n\n(This talk of mine from almost 20 years ago introduces some of the key ideas: https://e-asterisk.blogspot.com/2006/07/epistemic-blindspot-sets-resolution-of.html)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n“Adventures in Self-Reference 2: The Situatedness of Computation and Inference”\n\nComputation and inference are both situated in the sense that they occur in a particular context; specifically\, there is a particular system carrying out the computation\, and a particular subject engaging in the inference at a particular time.  The upshot of this is that general accounts of what is and what is not computable\, or what inferences are or are not valid\, must\, contrary to orthodoxy\, pay attention to these contextual details. I demonstrate this by showing:\n\nOne cannot capture inferential validity purely syntactically: the argument “P; P->Q; Therefore Q” is not\, despite conventional wisdom\, always valid; to capture validity requires reference to situational aspects\, not just syntactic form.\n\n\n\nThe non-computability of the (non-)Halting Problem by a system is itself dependent on the identity (classification) of that system. One result of this is that the diagonal argument against AI fails.\n\n\n\n\n\n(This talk of mine from last year introduces some of the key ideas concerning the second point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSBpUOG7UH8)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBerkan Eskikaya \n\n\n\nPresentation: \n\n\n\n“Before it’s gone: Fragility as a Precondition for Consciousness\, Meaning\, and Value” \n\n\n\nThis talk is a speculative exploration of how fragility and vulnerability are not only essential features of living systems\, but also serve as a lens through which we can shape our understanding of consciousness\, meaning\, and value. Edge cases such as mind–body conditions and ephemeral art are used to probe and stress these ideas — for instance\, do they point to ways fragility can be turned into appreciation or resilience? The aim is to invite dialogue on how fragility\, as a unifying principle\, may connect across domains relevant to consciousness\, AI\, and creativity. \n\n\n\nVinod Goel \n\n\n\nPresentation: \n\n\n\n“Biological Constraints on the Rational Mind (Discussed in Context of “Us and Them” Phenomenon)” \n\n\n\nWe are widely considered to be the rational animal.  This entails that our volitional behavior is a function of our beliefs\, desires\, and a principle of coherence which guides our pursuit of the latter in the context of the former.  Where human behavior seems less than rational one can appeal to irrationality in the form of various “heuristic” responses. \n\n\n\nAt least two important assumptions underly the model of rationality: (1) Beliefs (and cognitive desires founded on false suppositions) are considered to be malleable/corrigible allowing for unlimited learning and enormous flexibility in behavior at any tme.  (2) The model is self-contained and insulated from lower-level biological systems (for e.g beliefs and desires presumably cannot mingle with low blood sugar level).  I want to suggest that both of these assumptions are flawed.  They ignore basic biological constraints.  In the case of the first assumption\, while neural development does allow for local belief revision at any time\,  revision of large-scale worldviews are rare/impossible after certain neural maturation windows have closed.  In the case of the second\, if we are to accept the theory of evolution and the past 100 years of neurobiology research we must acknowledge that our system of rationality is built on top of and modulated by evolutionarily older systems such as the autonomic system\, reinforcement learning systems\, and instincts.  There is no Libertarian CEO in charge.  The control structure is based on hedonic principles.  This leads to a notion of arational (rather than irrational) behavior.  Accepting these constraints leads to a model of mind tethered to and constrained by  various biological systems and processes and gives us a larger repertoire of tools for explaining teenage daughters\, MAGA\, Brixet\, Ukraine and Gaza.  I will discuss these ideas in the context of the “us and them” phenomenon. \n\n\n\nSuggested reading: \n\n\n\n\nBoth assumptions are discussed in the this manuscript entitled “Us And Them: Insights From Evolution\, Neurodevelopment\, And The Tethered Mind” which is currently in review.  (My apologies for the length of the ms but the reviewers keep asking for more details…. but over half of it is bibliography.)\n\n\n\nI have also made a one hour YouTube video for my students about the tethered mind that discusses the problem with the second assumption and my proposed solution.  Here is the link:https://youtu.be/zb2Z7P7CCKg\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBrian Keeley \n\n\n\nPresentation: \n\n\n\n“The weird epistemology of conspiracy theories.” \n\n\n\nIn the late ‘90s\, when it looked like nobody wanted to hire a philosopher who studied the neuroscience of electric fish\, I wrote a random paper on the philosophy of conspiracy theories (CTs)\, because almost no one else had. That got published in the Journal of Philosophy\, which got me a job. Then 9/11 happened and lots of people became interested in CTs to the point that there’s now a thriving cottage industry in the academic study of this social and epistemic phenomenon. Since this is not a crowd of conspiracy theory theorists\, I’ll introduce the topic and explain what topics are currently driving me and others who study the current landscape. Please come prepared to discuss and defend the conspiracy theory you most want to believe. \n\n\n\nSuggested reading: \n\n\n\nThe opening chapter of political scientist\,  Joe Uscinski’s Conspiracy Theories: A Primer\, 2nd edition\, 2023\, available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17CchevMUC4bBi_OR6zowfeJH5Efk3GwY/view?usp=share_link \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMark Kennedy \n\n\n\nTBA \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEwan Paton \n\n\n\nPresentation: \n\n\n\n“Must Judges Be Human?” \n\n\n\nSuggested reading: \n\n\n\n“Algorithms and adjudication” – William Lucy (2024) Jurisprudence\, 15:3\, p251-281 \n\n\n\nFull article: Algorithms and adjudication \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBarney Pell \n\n\n\nTBA \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nYair Pinto \n\n\n\nPresentation: \n\n\n\n“Conscious comprehension enables non-algorithmic capabilities.” \n\n\n\nIn this talk I present an argument against the computational theory of mind. In short\, the argument states that human comprehension plus volition enables capabilities that exceed the capabilities of finite algorithmic systems. I will shortly outline how the current argument is similar to the Lucas-Penrose argument. Moreover\, an empirical research line is deduced from this argument. The first tasks within this research line have recently been finalized. Performance on these tasks of humans\, and of various large language models (Grok\, Claude 4\, o3\, etc.)\, will be discussed. \n\n\n\nSuggested reading: TBA \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nJohn Polito \n\n\n\nPresentation: \n\n\n\n“How to perceive BS with AI. (It’s not what you’re thinking\, it’s what your hearing)” \n\n\n\nSuggested reading: \n\n\n\nHere are a couple quick blurbs that might get everyone closer to the topic than my presentation title (which will be explained!). \n\n\n\n\nhttps://leader.pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/leader.FTR1.12042007.6\n\n\n\nhttps://medium.com/@joydesdevises/auditory-perception-understanding-and-applying-its-principles-09c3b2be58b8\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPaavo Pylkkänen \n\n\n\nPresentation: \n\n\n\n“Bohm’s pilot wave theory and its philosophical implications” \n\n\n\nBohm’s pilot wave theory has been one long-term focus of my interaction with Ron\, and he has provided valuable criticisms of it over the years. Assuming that many of the other participants are not familiar with the theory\, I will first present it. I will then move on to discuss its philosophical implications\, hoping to engage in a debate with Ron and others. For philosophers the Bohm theory offers the possibility of a new kind of ‘physicalism’ where information is assumed to be fundamental\, leading to the notion that ‘meaning is a key factor of being’. If this is correct\, it will be valuable to give more attention to the role that meaning plays both in nature and in our lives individually and socially. I will explain what meaning meant for Bohm and look forward to a lively discussion. \n\n\n\nSuggested reading: \n\n\n\nBohm\, D. (1990) A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter\, Philosophical Psychology\, 3:2-3\, 271-286\, DOI: 10.1080/09515089008573004. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T7_BBDPLIQBOT-VPMU7Qlt7uhRV8KH5Z/view?usp=share_link \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOliver Sharpe \n\n\n\nPresentation: \n\n\n\n“Portfolism – Reasoning well given the logical limits of rationality” \n\n\n\nIn the 20th century our rational\, calculative tools showed us their own limits\, from Russel’s paradoxes of set theory; through Gödel’s incompleteness theorems; to the unresolved tensions between quantum mechanics and general relativity. With Wittgenstein\, Derrida and others the limits of language also became clear. For some these conclusions painted a hopeless state of affairs from which the very notion of reasoned progress became an impossibility. Others simply ignored or forgot these limits.  \n\n\n\nIn my talk I’ll explain the route through this tension that I’ve been exploring for the last decade\, a framework of ideas I call “portfolism”. It provides a way to understand what we count as good reasoning\, while also holding on to the benefits of our rational tools without ignoring the implications of their own limits. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAvery Wang \n\n\n\nTBA
URL:https://paricenter.com/event/mind-matter-and-meaning-a-jubileum/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://paricenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/MMM.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Rome:20251028T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Rome:20251118T200000
DTSTAMP:20260411T171217
CREATED:20250926T214246Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251027T161250Z
UID:10000439-1761674400-1763496000@paricenter.com
SUMMARY:An Armchair Guide to Quantum Mechanics
DESCRIPTION:An Armchair Guide to Quantum Mechanics \n\n\n\nPresented by Jonathan Allday \n\n\n\nA semi-serious approach to one of the most important fundamental theories in physics \n\n\n\n10 sessions from October 28 – November 18 \n\n\n\n7 one-hour lectures and 3 sessions of group conversation and Q&A  \n\n\n\n9am PST / 12pm EST / 5pm GMT / 6pm CET \n\n\n\nAll sessions are live and all participants will receive the RECORDING. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhat is quantum mechanics? \n\n\n\nMore than 100 years ago\, the founding fathers were faced with a series of experimental results that confounded their understanding regarding the nature of reality. Einstein never forgave Nature for doing this to him. Heisenberg had to run away to an island to figure it out. Pauli ended up going to Jung for analysis. \n\n\n\nGradually\, they came to a new understanding—Quantum Mechanics—but in the process\, they had to throw away virtually all of the old physical picture of particles colliding and interacting like tiny billiard balls. Instead\, we now have shifting probability waves existing in an implicate layer of reality and manifesting in explicate results. Our very language and concepts struggle to cope with expressing in words what is clear mathematically. Bohr had to invent a new form of double-think\, complementarity\, to try and ride the paradox: Nature expressing herself in both wave and particle forms\, within the same experiment. \n\n\n\nWhy is it important? \n\n\n\nQuantum mechanics\, and the theories built from its foundations\, is our fundamental theory of matter and forces. It underpins everything we understand about the nature of our universe. In the earliest moments of creation\, fractions of a second into the Big Bang\, quantum theory governed the structure and evolution of our young cosmos. Delicate measurements of the universal ‘heat map’ spread across the sky\, reveal aspects of this quantum driven period. \n\n\n\nAlong with the awe-inspiring beauty and depth of the physics involved\, quantum theory also has profound implications for our technology: from computer chips\, MRI scans\, communications and quantum computers. \n\n\n\nFundamentally\, quantum mechanics is the most radical recasting of the nature of reality that we have ever experienced. The world is far stranger\, and more supple\, than we are led to believe. \n\n\n\nWhy should people have a basic understanding of QM? \n\n\n\nIt seems clear that the rigidly materialistic paradigm is crumbling\, and we don’t yet know what is going to replace it. \n\n\n\nWe’re at a delicate time. On the one hand some of our political masters seek to undermine the expertise and results of the scientific community\, replacing Truth with Story. On the other\, enthusiastic and well-meaning groups working to assemble new paradigm thinking are promoting quantum ideas as a universal panacea for mind\, body\, spirit and anomalous experience. \n\n\n\nWider groups are trying to ride the turbulent waves and look for some understanding they can hold to. In order to steer between rigid scientism on one side and some of the flakier philosophies on the other\, it helps to know a little of what quantum theory is really saying about the world \n\n\n\nWho are our audience? \n\n\n\nHigh school students \n\n\n\nRetirees looking for new areas of interest or wanting to brush up on the latest thinking and developments \n\n\n\nPeople who enjoy reading popular science books and periodicals \n\n\n\nPeople who experienced poor teaching in their science classes at school and would like to start over in their physics education \n\n\n\nPeople who just enjoy learning \n\n\n\nHow do these presentations differ from other online QM series? \n\n\n\nIt’s a no-math introduction—sigh of relief! \n\n\n\nIn addition to the weekly talk with Q&A there will be a weekly ‘conversation bar’ where participants can discuss the ideas of the week with each other and the course presenter\, if available. \n\n\n\nThere will be no keeping away from philosophical issues—the nature of reality is in question here! \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nJONATHAN ALLDAY took his first degree in Natural Sciences at Cambridge\, then gained a PhD in particle physics in 1989 at Liverpool University. For a period\, he worked at the particle physics research centre\, CERN\, but not as a cleaner. \n\n\n\nFor 30 years Jonathan taught physics to high-school students in a range of schools across the UK. In addition\, he ran summer schools for the Open University\, helped devise new physics curricula and a new course in the history and philosophy of science for 16–18-year-olds. For a period\, he was co-editor of Physics Education magazine and has contributed more articles to Physics Review than anyone else in its 35-volume history. \n\n\n\nHe is an author of science textbooks\, has contributed to an encyclopaedia for young scientists\, and has written on aspects of the history and philosophy of science. \n\n\n\nSessions\n\n\n\nSession 1: Not even wrong… \n\n\n\nTuesday 28th October \n\n\n\nThe fall of classical physics and the rise of the quantum world. \n\n\n\nAmplitudes/wave functions\, and the probable outcomes of experiments. \n\n\n\nConversation and Q&A \n\n\n\nThursday 30th October \n\n\n\nSession 2: Come on everybody\, let’s do the twist… \n\n\n\nSaturday 1st November \n\n\n\nThe mysterious quantum property known as ‘spin’. Particles have it\, photons have it\, but do we really understand what it is? \n\n\n\nSession 3: Spooky action at a distance \n\n\n\nTuesday 4th November \n\n\n\nWhen the left hand implicately knows what the right hand is doing. Einstein’s problem with quantum theory. The work of John Bell and the radical undermining of reductionism. \n\n\n\nConversation and Q&A \n\n\n\nThursday 6th November \n\n\n\nSession 4: The Measurement Problem \n\n\n\nSaturday 8th November \n\n\n\nIs quantum theory a 32 regular or a 36 long? Or more seriously… \n\n\n\nWhy does anything happen in the quantum world? The astonishing fact is that quantum theory relies on a mysterious process that is not fully understood and is not present in the standard mathematics. \n\n\n\nSession 5: Interpretations \n\n\n\nTuesday 11th November \n\n\n\nMore than 100 years later\, we still can’t agree what it means. Some people feel that quantum theory can only be understood in the context of many partially overlapping worlds. Others think that there is an unbridgeable and unknowable divide between the classical and quantum worlds. Most just ‘shut up and calculate.’ We\, however\, are made of sterner stuff so we ask the question: ‘What does quantum theory tell us about the nature of reality?’ \n\n\n\nConversation and Q&A \n\n\n\nThursday 13th November \n\n\n\nSession 6: Bohm and Hiley \n\n\n\nSaturday 15th November \n\n\n\nIn which our heroes seek to replace the traditional approach to quantum theory with something more satisfying\, from an ontological perspective. \n\n\n\nSession 7: Quantum Snake Oil \n\n\n\nTuesday 18th November \n\n\n\nWould you buy a used quantum computer from this man? What are quantum computers? Why are they attracting so much funding and have they been over-promised?
URL:https://paricenter.com/event/an-armchair-guide-to-quantum-mechanics/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://paricenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/AG-poster-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR