Apologies to the commenters on the previous iteration of this video - there was a slight issue that had to be fixed necessitating a deletion and a re-upload. Please comment again!
Hiya Joe, What would be your thoughts on why the human brain is much more intelligent than it needs to be for us to survive? It's just keeps me wondering what is nature trying to make us humans do? Any ideas where i can research this type of question? Thanks
This video is actually the most explanatory of the different articles etc. I've come across on constructor theory. At least you understand what David Deutsch is trying to do. He's trying to recast fundamental physics from the perspective of information and computationally theory, theories that fundamental physics has so far had a hard time dealing with.
One of the reasons this video makes sense is because it gives a history of how the ideas behind constructor theory came about. A good way to learn about a field of science, is through its history! Other articles haven't done this.
Great talk and a very interesting theory. I graduated in Physics in the 70's and looks like I may have to go back to school. Since when is thermodynamics not part of fundamental physics , aren't most laws immergent ? My mother was a Boswell but they left UK in the 1630's -
I had commented before that I was confused about why the initial state of a physical system corresponds to the program of some computer program - I thought the initial state corresponded to the input *to* the computer program and the laws of motion corresponded to *the program*. But the initial state actually does correspond to the program (because it has to be presented on a memory substrate to the computer to be manipulated by the CPU), and the laws of motion correspond to the basic instruction set I guess?
Wow, so I realized that every instruction set is a virtual reality environment - it is an environment that can execute recipes as recursive programs that bottom out in that environment's elementary tasks.
Thx so much, and mind blowing stuff from what has to be one of the most innovative and truly 'outside the box' kinda thinkers alive today! BTW, am I the only one that's starting to regard CZcams as some sorta modern-day Library at Alexandria, which also held all the 'knowledge' of its era (except for no cat videos...lol)?! ;-p
If you’re a physicist and you’re watching this video please share your opinion on my question. I am not the best at math I would probably say it’s my weakest subject. However I’ve always been since I can remember very analytical, and naturally I’ve always viewed things using “5 whys” Analysis. I’m never satisfied with the response. I always want to know more, the why, the how behind everything. I’m extremely attracted to critical thinking / first principles. For most of my life I didn’t know there was a definition to how I think. Should someone like myself even bother taking on a career in physics if I won’t be able to do the equations? I also know there many disciplines within physics. After reading what you read which discipline within physics would best suit me? I’m also into chemistry, in particular precision fermentation. I love science, but my lack of math has kept me away.
I keep wondering about this, but, would a universal computer need to have the ability to compute sets whose cardinality is infinite ? // if the 2nd axiom of thermodynamics is used to constrain the possible dynamical systems for constructors, and if the resultant set is still an infinite set (and thus the universe of possibilities is also infinite, being a superset), it would imply that the effect of such axioms (which produce infinite sets) is computable // it can also be composed with further axioms, such as to be further constrained or extended in the sense of what is possible or not
thanks now i can't re-watch this by being frustrated how annoying it is, i did feel like something was bugging me before but couldn't quite pin point it until now, his micro reponses seem forced and fake at times
What is Constructor theory? It's a theory that looks at what is possible/impossible to compute in a universal quantum computer and then states the physical laws of the universe emerge from these possible computations.
@@joeboswellphilosophy Yes I wondered how this content could be so concise and limited to only 20 minutes, so condensed. Good compromise. He's like a locomotive
You could say this: there are many universes in the multiverse, but only one Hilbert Space is required to describe them-- one Hilbert Space to bind them all, so to speak. Therefore all possible universes are such that Hilbert Space formalism "works" within those universes. No other can exist. Having said that, is the statement true?
The capacity of "simulating any other physical system" phrase is predicated on the access to INFINITE resources. Why is this? Because physical systems are computationally intractable by finite computational steps, i.e. with access to finite memory and time resources. This kind of mistake makes be a bit skeptical of Deutsch's class about Constructor theory. :-(
I think there is a finiteness that is relevant to what Deutsch is getting at, namely the length of the program. We know that even with infinite memory and running forever, there are non computable functions if the program has to be finite in length. Since his constructor theory involves distinguishing possible and impossible tasks to arbitrarily high degrees of accuracy, the more time and memory the better, but we know that even with infinite amounts of both there are intractable tasks as you say-as long as we have to use finite programs.
I thought this video had the wrong title. I was confused why there was a little old lady in the thumbnail. Oh, that's just David... Looks like my Grammy.
Deutsch says @ 12:06 that "possible and impossible have to be universal concepts" and that this means (he says @12:02) that "P & I" cannot occur just once but must be generalized and generalizable. This intrigues me, and forces me to ask...WHY is it that a possible thing must occur more than just once? (i.e. what causes...i.e. what forces...that to be a fact?). It's interesting to me, because that was a conclusion I came to in a theological thought experiment I conducted a couple of years ago. I concluded that "a thing can be unique" or "a thing can be replicated numerous times", it wasn't possible for a thing to be replicated ONLY ONCE. That seemed logical to me, but I couldn't clearly articulate exactly why. Deutsch's comments above draw attention to this phenomenon, so I am curious WHY he says that "a possible thing must occur more than just once".
Hello, David, there is at the moment a tremendous addition, a parallelisation, a detailing of what is traditionally attributed only to entropy. It is the complexity hypothesis set in motion by Leonard Susskind. So, is there anything to consider?
@@joeboswellphilosophy your output is sporadic and non-homogeneous, your background a mystery, your weblink didn’t work, thus I was asking what are your credentials as an interviewer; and I was curious how you managed to interview DD - who very few people outside physics know! I’m a PhD holder and teacher in physics, fyi.
Oh yes, my website has died! I'm a philosophy blogger, I suppose. I used to blog about philosophy of science at AdamsOpticks.wordpress.com, and my blog became a CZcams series after getting some funding from Bristol University's Centre for Science and Philosophy. Whilst making videos for Bristol I interviewed David Deutsch's protege Chiara Marletto, and Chiara liked that interview so much she commissioned this one as part of a funding initiative for the Wolfson Frontiers Quantum Hub.
Trying to frame what is possible and what isn't, in this universe, into a computational picture isn't especially "anthropic" in itself. But they haven't provided HOW these "constructors" are constructed. Experimentally? Theoretically? Using what theories? Will it follow the correspondence principle? No idea whatsoever
@@abhijithcpreej "But they haven't provided HOW these "constructors" are constructed. Experimentally? Theoretically? Using what theories? Will it follow the correspondence principle? No idea whatsoever" I have the same questions. It seems like eschewing experimentation would doom it.
Constructor theory has a bad ring to it, for my cultivated eye, to say the least. First, ”constructor” theory, the title, sounds unfortunate, simply a mishit, a failure. And if it is a fitting, succint ”description” of the theory the theory gets downgraded to a work of an engineer, not a bona fide theoretician, be the engineer a human mind or a machine, quantum or mechanical. This last note leads to the more fundamental critique of ’constructor theory’. When we reduce physical reality to computation and by the same token everything else (society and human subjects) we as a civilization have already taken the last step to a simulation society where digital rendering of what is physical, bodily, sensible, sensitive - REAL has replaced whar is real. Constructor theory - not for me. Thank you!
A moment ago is now conjure, and because this instant now is absolutely self-defining, the next state of events calculated from conjure in the absolute principle-format of current events is approximate, forever. So by the naturally occurring calculations of existence, from our "god-like" ability to foresee a theoretical future in this temporal Superposition-point Singularity state, all probabilities in potential possibilities are "Constructed" in constant creation, ..human perceptions in parallel with Actuality, of conditional degrees of quantifiedquality, ..in cause-effect expectations. "How you look at the situation in the general context of expectations depends on the Teaching and Learning responsibility that shifts attention to nature and nurture as it applies to each unique individual. By attempting to model thinking, the Turning Machine is a typical, unique representational state, of a unique combination of cause-effect processing, within the Infinite Eternity.., context in common. Therefore, human perceptions aside from the research, "everyone must make up their own unique mind(s)", by projecting the best sum-of-all-histories knowledge of circumstances at the moment, and do the best they can with what we've got in common. "Emergent", => by continuous creation of shape shifting balanced constants in one cause-effect Principle, constant (thermodynamic consequence of e-Pi-i singularity i-reflection connection), In-form-ation = here-now, .dt integration. Basing "Everything" on counterfactuals is the best systematic approach to alignment with the naturally occurring processes of Universal Quantum Operator, Computational Existence. This is why "Constructor Theory" is quite a valid proposition for arranging the appropriate application of specifically useful interpretations to a field of phenomena.
"What it can and cannot do" Is this a description of the parallel universes ideas in which all possibilities exist? I wonder if the universe is really five-dimensional with length, width, height, time and then the fifth dimension being a layering of all possibilities, i.e. a layering of space-times?
David Deutsch has some interesting ideas, but unfortunately he will forever be stuck in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and disagreement with Ilya Prigogine about irreversibility. I have written a paper about that: journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings61st/article/view/3217/986
@@Prof_LK It is a shame that you are obviously an American or from some country where people see everything as advertising rather than exchange of opinions.
@@Etomeneka It's a shame you confuse the term 'obviously' with a probabilistic interpretation. Are they obviously American? Or from some other country. If you mix that logic in your other papers-I think we can safely conclude that they're trash and not worth a read
@@thomasthelen7969 It wasn't me who used the word "advertise" or that someone should be ashamed of expressing an idea. Obviously you, with your narrow cultural background, can't tell the difference between an idea and an author (whoever s/he might be). We are worlds apart.
"...what can and can't happen." That's the theory? There seems to be no substantive explanation for this "theory". Give me something concrete, and for heaven's sake, show me the equations that models it.
On my interpretation which I used in my reply to a comment above, I think a start would be to refer you to Turing's 1936 paper on computable numbers. As I say above,
It should be called DESTRUCTIVE THEORY. If the 2nd law of thermodynamics is true and we are fairly sure that in the future at the end of time everything will eventually disappear . How can it be called CONSTRUCTION THEORY?
*Constructor theory is actually attempting to explain the origins of information* “In the beginning was the word” or, “in the beginning was information” . The question now becomes; what’s the source of information? Information is a process of selection that is, What can and what cannot be, is the same as, What’s allowed and what disallowed (setting up the rules/law) it is a process of selection, It’s also central to the process of design or engineering. Engineering is a top down process which is only generated in a mind. Fred Hoyle Commented on the constructor and said; “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." For all things were created (designed) Selected to be! *God the elephant in the room that is denied!*
In essence, doesn't the Constructor Theory embrace this Oliver Wendell Holmes statement: There are one-story intellects, two-story intellects, and three-story intellects. All fact collectors who have no aim beyond their facts are one-story men. [Dynamic Law Theorists] Two-story men compare, reason, generalize, using the labor of fact collectors as their own. [Quantum Law Theorists] Three-story men idealize, imagine, predict-their best illumination comes from above the skylight. [Constructor Theorists]
Yes in a senses. But I don’t think constructor theory has been developed enough to be able to test adequately for its validity. So it is a the moment not a science. Just a thought experiment that cannot be tested.
I certainly would like to see some new math, some equations illustrating his new theory. There is a lot of math in physics, so I expect something new there, and untill now he is only talking.
Is constructor theory something which allows a physicist to accept the possibility of an almighty creator in an invisible world without those said physicists admitting the Christians could be right all this time? lol
Well at least I learned a bit; confirming that I don't need to waste any more time on Deutsch. Perhaps someday his ideas (hard to call them theories) will yield some semi-practical result (just what 'humanity' doesn't need, a faster computer), but I'm content to wait till I see the 'news' on CNN...
you're amazing for posting these and for being able to move these conversations forward in this way! thank you!
Apologies to the commenters on the previous iteration of this video - there was a slight issue that had to be fixed necessitating a deletion and a re-upload. Please comment again!
Great interview.Thanks.
David has mine attention with his idea about Constructer theory and I hope he will write a new book soon.
Hiya Joe, What would be your thoughts on why the human brain is much more intelligent than it needs to be for us to survive? It's just keeps me wondering what is nature trying to make us humans do? Any ideas where i can research this type of question? Thanks
This video is actually the most explanatory of the different articles etc. I've come across on constructor theory. At least you understand what David Deutsch is trying to do. He's trying to recast fundamental physics from the perspective of information and computationally theory, theories that fundamental physics has so far had a hard time dealing with.
Pleased with that compliment! Took me ages to hit on that insight myself, so really wanted to bring it out here.
One of the reasons this video makes sense is because it gives a history of how the ideas behind constructor theory came about. A good way to learn about a field of science, is through its history! Other articles haven't done this.
Great talk and a very interesting theory. I graduated in Physics in the 70's and looks like I may have to go back to school. Since when is thermodynamics not part of fundamental physics , aren't most laws immergent ? My mother was a Boswell but they left UK in the 1630's -
Great interview.
Turns out I don't get David Deutsch. More investigations are needed.
Kylo Ren interviews David Deutsch.
May the force be with you both.
A sane and intellible way of discernment
David Deutsch inteviewed by David Duchovny 🤔
I had commented before that I was confused about why the initial state of a physical system corresponds to the program of some computer program - I thought the initial state corresponded to the input *to* the computer program and the laws of motion corresponded to *the program*. But the initial state actually does correspond to the program (because it has to be presented on a memory substrate to the computer to be manipulated by the CPU), and the laws of motion correspond to the basic instruction set I guess?
Oh yeah, deutsch says in this video that laws of motion correspond to elementary operations (basic instruction set). Nice!
Wow, so I realized that every instruction set is a virtual reality environment - it is an environment that can execute recipes as recursive programs that bottom out in that environment's elementary tasks.
I think David Deutsch is cleverer than me.
Good to see Fraa Jad getting some screen time. "Whatever is not impossible is mandatory."
Thx so much, and mind blowing stuff from what has to be one of the most innovative and truly 'outside the box' kinda thinkers alive today! BTW, am I the only one that's starting to regard CZcams as some sorta modern-day Library at Alexandria, which also held all the 'knowledge' of its era (except for no cat videos...lol)?! ;-p
ivan135 Ha
The problem with libraries is the librarian.
Sort of but with the necessity of super click baity titles. The science and math videos have definitely upped their game in the last 5 years or so.
Great video!! I think Constructor Theory will be a great container from which future laws of physics grow.
nobody does really think that, apart from the authors of the theory and apparently you
If you’re a physicist and you’re watching this video please share your opinion on my question. I am not the best at math I would probably say it’s my weakest subject. However I’ve always been since I can remember very analytical, and naturally I’ve always viewed things using “5 whys” Analysis. I’m never satisfied with the response. I always want to know more, the why, the how behind everything. I’m extremely attracted to critical thinking / first principles. For most of my life I didn’t know there was a definition to how I think. Should someone like myself even bother taking on a career in physics if I won’t be able to do the equations? I also know there many disciplines within physics. After reading what you read which discipline within physics would best suit me? I’m also into chemistry, in particular precision fermentation. I love science, but my lack of math has kept me away.
I keep wondering about this, but, would a universal computer need to have the ability to compute sets whose cardinality is infinite ?
// if the 2nd axiom of thermodynamics is used to constrain the possible dynamical systems for constructors, and if the resultant set is still an infinite set (and thus the universe of possibilities is also infinite, being a superset), it would imply that the effect of such axioms (which produce infinite sets) is computable
// it can also be composed with further axioms, such as to be further constrained or extended in the sense of what is possible or not
Indeed, perspective is king. Interesting introduction of the notion of "free will" :)
I would prefer if the interviewer didn’t make all these noises while the interviewee is speaking. Other than that I enjoyed this very much. Thanks.
Yes, I also found this to be annoying for some reason - not the general interview style, just the suggestive vocalisations
thanks now i can't re-watch this by being frustrated how annoying it is, i did feel like something was bugging me before but couldn't quite pin point it until now, his micro reponses seem forced and fake at times
A living genius
One needs a cosmos to properly model a cosmos.
Probably the Universe can simulate a sub-Universe
amazing
I have no idea what he is talking about.
What is Constructor theory? It's a theory that looks at what is possible/impossible to compute in a universal quantum computer and then states the physical laws of the universe emerge from these possible computations.
What if it can compute more? And how do u work backward? I don't see how this helps in guessing the laws.
How could you possibly know what a universal computer couldn't compute?
A bird can not be flapping its wings & still fly, it's called gliding.
Choice is predestined, predestination is chosen!
Hows constructor theory different from the sociological ideal-type theorizing?
it would be easier to watch and follow the speaker if you stopped cutting to yourself.
Etermena The cuts are mainly to smooth over pauses, hesitations, diversions, and the reordering of content for the sake of clarity.
@@joeboswellphilosophy Yes I wondered how this content could be so concise and limited to only 20 minutes, so condensed. Good compromise. He's like a locomotive
Excellent video, thanks for posting, much appreciated. New sub : )
You could say this: there are many universes in the multiverse, but only one Hilbert Space is required to describe them-- one Hilbert Space to bind them all, so to speak. Therefore all possible universes are such that Hilbert Space formalism "works" within those universes. No other can exist. Having said that, is the statement true?
I agree with his many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
My brain can't construct what the hell their talking about. :)
That's because you have not been constructive with your education :p
@@jevymeta4716 lol
Think of this as a conversation between a priest promoting his vision of God to his disciple and you will see history repeating itself.
Think of this as a conversation between a priest promoting his vision of God to his disciple and you will see history repeating itself.
The capacity of "simulating any other physical system" phrase is predicated on the access to INFINITE resources. Why is this? Because physical systems are computationally intractable by finite computational steps, i.e. with access to finite memory and time resources. This kind of mistake makes be a bit skeptical of Deutsch's class about Constructor theory. :-(
I think there is a finiteness that is relevant to what Deutsch is getting at, namely the length of the program. We know that even with infinite memory and running forever, there are non computable functions if the program has to be finite in length. Since his constructor theory involves distinguishing possible and impossible tasks to arbitrarily high degrees of accuracy, the more time and memory the better, but we know that even with infinite amounts of both there are intractable tasks as you say-as long as we have to use finite programs.
This asumes that the Universe is a Turing machine, which it might not be.
I thought this video had the wrong title. I was confused why there was a little old lady in the thumbnail. Oh, that's just David... Looks like my Grammy.
In many universes, David is your Grammy...
@@RobRidleyLive mind blown.
The simulation theory explains everything.
Deutsch says @ 12:06 that "possible and impossible have to be universal concepts" and that this means (he says @12:02) that "P & I" cannot occur just once but must be generalized and generalizable. This intrigues me, and forces me to ask...WHY is it that a possible thing must occur more than just once? (i.e. what causes...i.e. what forces...that to be a fact?).
It's interesting to me, because that was a conclusion I came to in a theological thought experiment I conducted a couple of years ago. I concluded that "a thing can be unique" or "a thing can be replicated numerous times", it wasn't possible for a thing to be replicated ONLY ONCE. That seemed logical to me, but I couldn't clearly articulate exactly why. Deutsch's comments above draw attention to this phenomenon, so I am curious WHY he says that "a possible thing must occur more than just once".
I feel like Murphy's law touches on this more properly.
Hello, David,
there is at the moment a tremendous addition,
a parallelisation, a detailing of what is traditionally
attributed only to entropy. It is the complexity
hypothesis set in motion by Leonard Susskind.
So, is there anything to consider?
I heard "Constructor" and I thought it was like class constructors in object-oriented programming.
I can understand your horror and relief.
On Solitary Fields
That Science cannot overtake
But Human Nature feels …
Still don't understand what constructor theory is.
The laws of physics applied to the elements in space have to be computable within that space by the interaction of the elements within it.
So what? Where do u go from there?
who is joe boswell and why is he interviewing deutsch?
Who is Lucas Karatzas and why is he asking? ;)
@@joeboswellphilosophy your output is sporadic and non-homogeneous, your background a mystery, your weblink didn’t work, thus I was asking what are your credentials as an interviewer; and I was curious how you managed to interview DD - who very few people outside physics know! I’m a PhD holder and teacher in physics, fyi.
Oh yes, my website has died! I'm a philosophy blogger, I suppose. I used to blog about philosophy of science at AdamsOpticks.wordpress.com, and my blog became a CZcams series after getting some funding from Bristol University's Centre for Science and Philosophy. Whilst making videos for Bristol I interviewed David Deutsch's protege Chiara Marletto, and Chiara liked that interview so much she commissioned this one as part of a funding initiative for the Wolfson Frontiers Quantum Hub.
isn't this essentially the same as the anthropic principle?
Trying to frame what is possible and what isn't, in this universe, into a computational picture isn't especially "anthropic" in itself.
But they haven't provided HOW these "constructors" are constructed. Experimentally? Theoretically? Using what theories? Will it follow the correspondence principle? No idea whatsoever
@@abhijithcpreej "But they haven't provided HOW these "constructors" are constructed. Experimentally? Theoretically? Using what theories? Will it follow the correspondence principle? No idea whatsoever"
I have the same questions. It seems like eschewing experimentation would doom it.
Boa Constructor!
Constructor theory has a bad ring to it, for my cultivated eye, to say the least. First, ”constructor” theory, the title, sounds unfortunate, simply a mishit, a failure. And if it is a fitting, succint ”description” of the theory the theory gets downgraded to a work of an engineer, not a bona fide theoretician, be the engineer a human mind or a machine, quantum or mechanical. This last note leads to the more fundamental critique of ’constructor theory’. When we reduce physical reality to computation and by the same token everything else (society and human subjects) we as a civilization have already taken the last step to a simulation society where digital rendering of what is physical, bodily, sensible, sensitive - REAL has replaced whar is real. Constructor theory - not for me. Thank you!
A moment ago is now conjure, and because this instant now is absolutely self-defining, the next state of events calculated from conjure in the absolute principle-format of current events is approximate, forever.
So by the naturally occurring calculations of existence, from our "god-like" ability to foresee a theoretical future in this temporal Superposition-point Singularity state, all probabilities in potential possibilities are "Constructed" in constant creation, ..human perceptions in parallel with Actuality, of conditional degrees of quantifiedquality, ..in cause-effect expectations.
"How you look at the situation in the general context of expectations depends on the Teaching and Learning responsibility that shifts attention to nature and nurture as it applies to each unique individual.
By attempting to model thinking, the Turning Machine is a typical, unique representational state, of a unique combination of cause-effect processing, within the Infinite Eternity.., context in common. Therefore, human perceptions aside from the research, "everyone must make up their own unique mind(s)", by projecting the best sum-of-all-histories knowledge of circumstances at the moment, and do the best they can with what we've got in common.
"Emergent", => by continuous creation of shape shifting balanced constants in one cause-effect Principle, constant (thermodynamic consequence of e-Pi-i singularity i-reflection connection), In-form-ation = here-now, .dt integration.
Basing "Everything" on counterfactuals is the best systematic approach to alignment with the naturally occurring processes of Universal Quantum Operator, Computational Existence.
This is why "Constructor Theory" is quite a valid proposition for arranging the appropriate application of specifically useful interpretations to a field of phenomena.
yes right - why not?
Hey Dr. Detroit of Quantum Woo, I drink YOUR milkshake.
man, I don't know what you just said
"What it can and cannot do" Is this a description of the parallel universes ideas in which all possibilities exist? I wonder if the universe is really five-dimensional with length, width, height, time and then the fifth dimension being a layering of all possibilities, i.e. a layering of space-times?
OKAY,,, MMMM, OKAY... OH... MMMMM.. OKAY... OKAY.... MMMM... OKAY...
David Deutsch has some interesting ideas, but unfortunately he will forever be stuck in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and disagreement with Ilya Prigogine about irreversibility. I have written a paper about that: journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings61st/article/view/3217/986
@@Prof_LK It is a shame that you are obviously an American or from some country where people see everything as advertising rather than exchange of opinions.
@@Etomeneka It's a shame you confuse the term 'obviously' with a probabilistic interpretation. Are they obviously American? Or from some other country. If you mix that logic in your other papers-I think we can safely conclude that they're trash and not worth a read
@@thomasthelen7969 It wasn't me who used the word "advertise" or that someone should be ashamed of expressing an idea. Obviously you, with your narrow cultural background, can't tell the difference between an idea and an author (whoever s/he might be). We are worlds apart.
I really want to get excited about this but I have no idea of anything he is saying... lol
logical positivism
"...what can and can't happen." That's the theory? There seems to be no substantive explanation for this "theory". Give me something concrete, and for heaven's sake, show me the equations that models it.
On my interpretation which I used in my reply to a comment above, I think a start would be to refer you to Turing's 1936 paper on computable numbers. As I say above,
It should be called DESTRUCTIVE THEORY. If the 2nd law of thermodynamics is true and we are fairly sure that in the future at the end of time everything will eventually disappear . How can it be called CONSTRUCTION THEORY?
He never said it wasn't.
Tankyo edukate me contructored thery
*Constructor theory is actually attempting to explain the origins of information*
“In the beginning was the word” or, “in the beginning was information” . The question now becomes; what’s the source of information?
Information is a process of selection that is, What can and what cannot be, is the same as, What’s allowed and what disallowed (setting up the rules/law) it is a process of selection, It’s also central to the process of design or engineering. Engineering is a top down process which is only generated in a mind.
Fred Hoyle Commented on the constructor and said; “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." For all things were created (designed) Selected to be! *God the elephant in the room that is denied!*
In essence, doesn't the Constructor Theory embrace this Oliver Wendell Holmes statement: There are one-story intellects, two-story intellects, and three-story intellects. All fact collectors who have no aim beyond their facts are one-story men. [Dynamic Law Theorists] Two-story men compare, reason, generalize, using the labor of fact collectors as their own. [Quantum Law Theorists] Three-story men idealize, imagine, predict-their best illumination comes from above the skylight. [Constructor Theorists]
Yes in a senses. But I don’t think constructor theory has been developed enough to be able to test adequately for its validity. So it is a the moment not a science. Just a thought experiment that cannot be tested.
I would love to see an example of this theory of everything is use to explain a simple newtonian interaction.
I certainly would like to see some new math, some equations illustrating his new theory.
There is a lot of math in physics, so I expect something new there, and untill now he is only talking.
This reminds me of the Cognitive Theoretic Model Of The Univers. So many meaningless words.
Is constructor theory something which allows a physicist to accept the possibility of an almighty creator in an invisible world without those said physicists admitting the Christians could be right all this time? lol
Don't worry you'll find out what does not work.
Well at least I learned a bit; confirming that I don't need to waste any more time on Deutsch. Perhaps someday his ideas (hard to call them theories) will yield some semi-practical result (just what 'humanity' doesn't need, a faster computer), but I'm content to wait till I see the 'news' on CNN...
He even looks smart.
That's not a thing.
" What on Earth is..."
Earth isn't that globe, it's flat and not in "outer space".
What a load of bollocks. This is going nowhere, you mark my words.
Seems like a cash grab
Harry Potter didn't age well.
...or Frodo.
Somebody should stop this SHIT.