People often suggest guests to appear on Mindscape — which I very much appreciate! Several of my best conversations were with people I had never heard of before they were effectively suggested by someone. Suggestions could be made here (in comments below), or on the subreddit, or on Twitter or anywhere else.
My policy is not to comment on individual suggestions, but it might be useful for me to lay out what I look for in potential Mindscape guests. Hopefully this will help people make suggestions, and lead to the discovery of some gems I would have otherwise overlooked.
- Obviously I’m looking for smart people with interesting ideas. Most episodes are idea-centered, rather than “let’s talk to this fascinating person,” although there are exceptions.
- I’m more interested in people doing original idea-creation, rather than commentators/journalists/pundits (or fellow podcasters!). Again, there are always exceptions — nobody can complain when I talk to Carl Zimmer about inheritance — but that’s the tendency.
- Hot-button topical/political issues are an interesting case. I’m not averse to them, but I want to focus on the eternal big-picture concerns at the bottom of them, rather than on momentary ephemera. Relatedly, I’m mostly interested in talking with intellectuals and analysts, not advocates or salespeople or working politicians.
- I’m happy to talk with big names everyone has heard of, but am equally interested in lesser-known folks who have something really interesting to say.
- Sometimes it should be clear that I’m already quite aware of the existence of a person, so suggesting them doesn’t add much value. Nobody needed to tell me to ask Roger Penrose or Dan Dennett on the show.
- I like to keep things diverse along many different axes, most especially area of intellectual inquiry. Obviously there is more physics than on most people’s podcasts, but there will rarely if ever be two physics episodes in a row, or even two in the same month. Likewise, if I do one episode on a less-frequent topic, I’m unlikely to do another one on the same topic right away. (“That episode on the semiotics of opera was fine, but you need to invite the real expert on the semiotics of opera…”) More generally, podcast episodes should be of standalone interest, not responses to previous podcast episodes.
- I am very happy to talk with people I disagree with, but only if I think there is something to be learned from their perspective. I want to engage with the best arguments against my positions, not just with any old arguments. Zero interest in debating or debunking on the podcast. If I invite someone on, I will challenge them where I think necessary, but my main goal is to let them put forward their case as clearly as possible.
- Corollary: someone is not worth engaging with merely because they make claims that would be extremely important if they were true. There has to be some reason to believe, in the minds of some number of reasonable people, that they could actually be true. My goal is not to clean up all the bad ideas on the internet.
- Obvious but often-overlooked consideration: the person should be good on podcasts! This is a tricky thing. Clearly they should be articulate and engaging in an audio-only format. But also there’s an art to giving answers that are long enough to be substantive, short enough to allow for give-and-take. Conversation is a skill. (Though Fyodor Urnov barely let me get a word in edgewise, and he was great and everyone loved him, so maybe I should take the hint.)
- This is a long list, but the most useful guest suggestions include not just a person’s name, but some indication that they satisfy the above criteria. A brief mention of the ideas they have and evidence that they’d be a good guest is extremely helpful.
- None of these rules is absolute! I’m always happy to deviate a little if I think there is a worthwhile special case.
Thanks again for listening, and for all the suggestions. I am continually amazed at the high quality of guests who have joined me, and at the wonderful support from the Mindscape audience.
I would love to hear you conversing with Bernardo Kastrup. He is a metaphysical idealist who seems to fit your criteria. I think he would offer a stronger defense of idealism than Philip Goff did of panpsychism.
Don Hoffman would also be great. Like an earlier commenter, I’m amazed you haven’t already had him on.
John Collier and Michael Stingl
They just published a book called “Evolutionary Moral Realism”.
Since you have touched on moral realism in the past on your podcast, this can be an interesting followup to moral realism, in this case based on evolution.
David Deutsch and Julian Barbour please!!!!
Sadly Hubert Dreyfus is not around anymore. He would have made a perfect guest. John Searle also from Berkeley would be nice. At any rate a philosopher with a more continental European knowledge of philosophy.
So, not really a recommendation of someone but a plea to find someone like Hubert Dreyfus.
It would cover the ‘photo negative’ side from your own philosophical views. And a great test, to let someone speak whom you (and most people listening presumably) really disagree with.
I think every physics student should watch this series like I did. Such a big help! Also, I want Dr. Carroll to know that my 8 year old son (who listens to his podcasts in my car) loves his voice. When ever I listen to anyone else he asks me to change it to “the guy with the nice voice” referring to Dr. Carroll.
Hi sean,
I have been watching your videos on youtube for multiple dimesion can exists in parallel.
So I have a Question with respect to that:
As i have been watching many videos of Matter and Antimatter both exists for an object at the same time , say for example Positive + and Negative – .
But at a moment of time/measured it either becomes Positive/Negative.
Same has been mentioned in the Superpostion theorem/ theory where particle are being sent from Color box and Shape box which divides the particle in 50-50 ratio.
So is it possible possible the particle can have more attributes like Positive, Negative, Multiple and divide
So when the particle is sent through the Color box the particle seperated in Positive and Negative but may be the Multiplying and dividing attributes still being there so when placing the Mirror/Beam reflector it again gives the 50/50 ratio {Using Dividing attribute} or 0/100 ratio { Using mutiplying attribute}
May be this multiplying/dividing of the particle is based on string theory where particle vibrates and creates more of its type compensating the mass.
Can this be a possibility?? I just came into my mine so thought to spread the word. Well you have more knowledge than me on this Quantum World. So you could sense better . This could also sounds like a weired thing to you so do pardon me for my less knowledge.
Hello Sean,
My suggestion would be Dr. Sid Smith. Here’s a link to a talk he gave last year that might pique your interest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8&t=2271s
I checked through the other comments to see if my guest ideas were already suggested. They were, but only once each.
I would like to second the nominations of Robert Sapolsky and David Reich.
One of the best books (and I think a very important one) I’ve read in the past few years was Sapolsky’s “Behave,” and I’ve seen enough of his lectures and interviews online to know he’d be interesting in the podcast format.
And David Reich has written about what I think is a revolutionary development, the extraction and study of ancient DNA.
Thanks!
George Davis
I think you need to have a conversation with an artist. Not just any artist though. A serious one who is very disciplined. (Yes artists can be academics too!). Please bring on someone who is either a professor or has a deep understanding of reality. The community of artists are looked down upon due to their careless nature, but a true artist is very disciplined. These people who I would consider to be a true artist live very serious lives and contradict the mainstream idea of an artist. Please don’t bring someone on who has preposterous ideas for entertainment sake.
If you listen to a (I apologize for the heavy emphasis on TRUE) artist, you’ll hear a first hand account of how gracefully and detailed they view our reality. They spend most of their whole lives dedicated to observing reality in a visual form. I’ve been around many professionals in the field and the conversations have always stuck with me.
I have fallen in love with physics thank to you Sean Carroll. If you couldn’t tell by my improper writing, I am an artist. I have really taken a new perspective on our reality after watching countless of hours of Leonard Susskind’s videos and yours . I am not claiming to understand everything in those videos. It has made me very curious. I have no idea where my life will lead to , but I am considering entering the field. I really don’t want you to take this the wrong way and think I’m saying to bring on someone like Alex Gray. Alex Grey is a great artist and very talented, but doesn’t have any understanding of physics. That is why I’m asking for you to bring on an academic.
Sean,
Former mediocre physics major writing here. I am a huge fan of the public-facing work that you do— the world needs more prominent physicists encouraging a discussion of the foundations of QM!! I personally found it validating to hear you and others on your podcast share your distaste and disgust for the collapse postulate.
I am sure I am not the first person to suggest this, but I think Peter Woit would make a great podcast guest. Though he has not always been very charitable to you on his blog, I do think a wide-ranging discussion with him would serve your listeners well.
Paul Cartledge is a world class expert on Ancient Greece who gives a world-class interview. A discussion with him on how democracy worked (and did not work) Ancient greece would be awesome.
Peter Norton (at UVA) is a transportation historian who also gives a good interview. I think a discussion with him about what transportation might look like in the future would be great.
Someone to talk about about constructivism. More specifically, how physics might look different if it relied on a completely constructivist mathematics.
I would like to hear experts from a wider scope of interpretations of physics. While classical mechanics has become irrelevant in fundamental analysis of newly made observations that are considered to be “pushing our limits of understanding”, it wasn’t all that long ago that classical mechanics was the predominant model of all of physics–*and with good reason.* I would like to hear more from experts in classical mechanics regarding analysis of newly made observations. After all, just because we couldn’t fully explain every observation immediately within a classical framework does not mean that they do not have such explanations within the framework waiting to be recognized. Alike to the speed of light being recognized to be non-instantaneous due to Saturn’s moons and classical mechanics. Just because we hit observations that were more difficult to decipher how they were mechanically functioning under classical mechanics does not preclude them. While I am an advocate and proponent of classical mechanics and strongly opinionated, surely there is someone within academia with established research into classical mechanic based interpretations of newly made observations. If such a person exists, I would like to see them as a guest. And if not, I would suggest that this is a major issue that we have *completely* on a societal academic level abandoned a rational model based on a philosophical approach in favor of what ultimately is three separate and distinct models, each best in their own domains. And in light of such, if no such person within academia with traditionally accepted credentials exists, I must bluntly say that I would greatly appreciate it if you allow me to be the voice for why classical mechanics is still a valid interpretation. I strongly feel that a public discourse alike to the Solvay Conference is necessary as soon as possible on this specific subject, but alas. Pardon the crankpot on the internet expecting actual discourse. 😀
How about William Shatner and Patrick Stewart- Captains of the USS Enterprise. Now that would be cool.
Josef M. Gaßner
https://youtu.be/mS1-V2EzIqo
Hes a good speaker.
https://urknall-weltall-leben.de/team.html
Eugene Koonin (evolutionary and computational biology, genome evolution, early evolution etc.). Wrote an interesting book – The Logic of Chance.