David Deutsch on 'Constructor Theory'

[prd]

you're amazing for posting these and for being able to move these conversations forward in this way! thank you!

[joeboswellphilosophy]

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!

[bigtimernow]

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.

[alexkalish]

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 -

[arkalgudnarayanamurthyshas]

A sane and intellible way of discernment

[xemy]

Kylo Ren interviews David Deutsch.




May the force be with you both.

[alazrabed]

Turns out I don't get David Deutsch. More investigations are needed.

[evanoleary]

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?

[Dazzletoad]

David Deutsch inteviewed by David Duchovny 🤔

[AK-srcs]

Hows constructor theory different from the sociological ideal-type theorizing?

[KravMagoo]

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".

[G]

Indeed, perspective is king. Interesting introduction of the notion of "free will" :)

[armchairgravy]

Good to see Fraa Jad getting some screen time. "Whatever is not impossible is mandatory."

[sherlockholmeslives.]

I think David Deutsch is cleverer than me.

[christineliang]

Great video!! I think Constructor Theory will be a great container from which future laws of physics grow.

[Nogill]

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?

[ricosrealm]

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.

[Henryprofile.]

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.

[biocode]

I keep wondering about this, but, would a universal computer need to have the ability to compute sets whose cardinality is infinite ?
// <e.g.> 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

[mindofmayhem.]

My brain can't construct what the hell their talking about. :)