Chiara presents as a rock-solid proposer of an explanatory theory, without oversell or attempting to squeeze all explanations into this framework. Her intellectual honesty is fabulously refreshing to me. Her responses in the Q&A are coherent, consistent and well-argued.
Specify 10 things she said that are relevant, to anything. No, 5 things would be enough to support your claim of rock-solid proposals. She reminds me of Richard Nixon who could talk and talk and talk and in the end have said absolutely nothing. What is Constructor Theory and what are real world implications/applications of practicing such a theory? A machine which can create a copy of itself? Define "copy". We already have the tech to build self-replicating machines (depending on the def of "replication"). The recipe for cloning a human already exists in the DNA - we don't need a machine to do it. We problems which are much more relevant and much more solvable that wasting neurotic ideation on metaphysics. We don't need to know what, if anything, is on the other side of a Black Hole. Nor is an Equation Of State Of The Universe at all important. The first sentence in the video description above reads: "The theory of the universal quantum computer has brought us rapid technological developments, together with remarkable improvements in how we understand quantum theory."What tech developments and/or quantum theory improvements at all, much less remarkable ones, are we talking about? Name some. Name anything real that has resulted from universal quantum computer theory.
@@jrice135 I absolutely agree with you in regard to there being no tangible benefits from "universal quantum computer theory". I can however point out many massive tech leaps that have some from in the last five years that are already in use because of greater understanding of computation. The universal constructor is a well defined thought experiment in computer science where the notion of "copy" is well defined. I assume this is what Chiara was referring to. She should have made it clear though. It's a completely theoretical "machine" that we don't have anything like the tech to build. The idea is that the machine needs a "description" of ('blueprint' or program for) itself, a universal constructor mechanism that can read any description and construct the machine (sans description) encoded in that description, and a universal copy machine that can make copies of any description. Note that you can separate out the copy machine because all it needs to copy are the instructions, not the actual machine. So the definition of copy only relates to the universal constructor being able to copy the instructions (code) to build itself.
@@jrice135 DNA cloning a human and a "perfect copy" in this sense are totally different. DNA isn't a universal blueprint that is copied this way. It isn't even meant to behave this way because it recombines. This is why in the real world things evolve. You need to have things like error correction in the universal constructor as soon as you want to talk about the real world and not a thought experiment.
@@columbasaint465 can you clarify "(sans description)" I am french and even me I am not sure. Are you just stating the obvious that such a machine has never been described/detailed. Or does that mean that the universal constructor should be able to build the copy from a "3d picture" of the thing ? Can you elaborate, it may be essential ?
@@lcdvasrm Sorry for butchering your language. "Sans description" just means without the description. The 3D picture would have to be encoded with all the instructions to build the universal constructor so I would imagine it is possible. I think you might be having trouble still with understanding that the universal constructor is actually three separate parts. The "universal constructor" part of the whole universal constructor is not copying anything. It's only building the copy of itself and does not "know" anything about whether it is building a copy of itself or something new entirely. It is solely the "copy" part of the whole universal constructor that does any copying and it only copies the blueprint/code/description. It can be thought of as a separate machine if you want to. It's nothing more than a photocopier. The term "Universal Constructor" is both used to describe a whole machine with three separate mechanisms but when you treat all three mechanisms of the whole as separate machines; one is named the universal constructor, the other the universal copier and the third the blueprint/code/description.
super great video. thanks to everyone at Foresight for making it and of course Dr. Marletto for her fantastic work and presentation + generosity in the detailed answers given to the questions. I'll be going back to uni soon to finish my BS in math & physics and Constructor Theory will be at the top of my list for potential thesis topics... so yeah super excited! keep up the great work!
Would this be correct? Turing's definition of a universal machine doesn't disallow self replication. It's just that all replicants are also the machine and are included in the set of possible machine states, which can be countably infinite. Programs can also avoid HALT forever under some conditions. The idea that quantum computing will break out of Turing's constraints and become independent of programming is based on the creation of new states, or something that defies the definition of a state?
well-spoken and largely unambiguous ---- I am glad to have found this conversation . It is very heartwarming to hear you all express yourselves so clearly .
If I understand you correctly here, you propose to change the method of defining the results of formulae and basic physical principles and laws from the "volumes" of the effective regions in the universe -- as defined by a n-dimensional graph of the inputs and the expected outputs of those principles -- into the BOUNDARIES of these "rules" giving where they allow results in our universe and where they do not. This would form the SURFACE of these volumes as a pair of green (OK) and red (IMPOSSIBLE for that rule) dots close together. For some rules, like quantum mechanical laws, these boundaries would be blurry shading from green to red due to the changing probabilities. To define what is actually possible and impossible, you take all; of these boundary regions of the laws that apply to some result and plot them all on the same graph, where only the place -- "volume" -- where they ALL OVERLAP will be the place where any results of use are possible. As you look at these many overlapping zone edges for any given problem to be solved, you will be able to see how the structure of the universe is shaped more easily. Kind of like a version of the Holographic Universe for each set of rules that apply to a desired solution. When you have enough of these boundary images, a more deep understanding of how the universe works may be possible to extrapolate. Is this correct?
14:50 it’s not just “satisfactory unproblematic predictions” - it is also workable and useful predictions. Why the scientific method and science is better than any other dogmatic way of thinning and explaining our universe before is exactly because those other ways were not very useful ideologies.. post-justifications. We have to keep an eye that our new explanations don’t become not very useful ideologies and post-justifications / post-rationalisations and semantics
Second watch, still great. I just listened to Sean Carroll give a talk at the Sante Fe Institute this past week, it lines up with Chiara's understanding of quantum theory, the observer is irrelevant. It's all waves.
I find the construction theory here explained quite obscure. Apart the self-replicating machine which is just a technological issue, which can be clearly realized noways (it was maybe an issue at von neumann times where computers could just produce printed output). The explication as some bigger issues. For instance the thermodynamic examples (about the second law) illustrate exactly the opposite of what the girl is trying to claim. The laws of thermodynamics were found without the classical dynamical structure of physical theories (such as general relativity or electromagnetism) and they are working well, but just because Boltzmann at that time was ignorant about the real physical processes which cause these thermodynamic effects. When quantum mechanics was discovered we had a better picture of was going on and why the thermodynamic laws work in this way. Declaring that you you would like to describe things without an explication, just from an emergent point of view, basically because we have some difficulties doing in the usual way it seems to me quite short sighted. Gravity might be an emergent or effective phenomenology (and have been a huge literature in that sense), but I think that renouncing to understand in the hard way is not a step forward, just an admission of ignorance and of giving up in understanding how things really works, which is the main objective of physics. I hope they can in the future provide some prediction to test, verify or falsify their model, I'm frankly quite skeptical after listening this video. However remember that the scientific model provided us by Galileo, based on the dynamical analysis of nature, is the biggest engine of human progress (not only of physics).
Unfortunately, the first definition that Euclid and others used is prohibitive for expressing the visualization of a point. We need a better geometry to use for expressing our observations within the Scientific Method.
@@supermarcoa The use of space for mathematical operations is a problem for any theory. Gauss pointed this out in 1929 and it was 40 years old in his mind. See the last paragraph for his conclusion on where it would lead. I call his problem with Geometry "Gauss's Gordian Space Knot". He searched his life for its resolution. See his friends and former student Weber's attempt to resolve the issue. 14. Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 27 January 1829 …There is another topic, one which for me is almost 40 years old, that I have thought about from time to time in isolated free hours, I mean the first principles of geometry; I don’t know if I have ever spoken to you about this. Also in this I have further consolidated many things, and my conviction that we cannot completely establish geometry a prioir has become stronger. In the meantime it will likely be quite a while before I get around to preparing my very extensive investigations on this for publication; perhaps this will never happen in my lifetime since I fear the cry of the Boetians if I were to voice my views. It is strange, however, that except for the well known gaps in Euclid’s geometry which till now one has tried in vain to fill, and never will fill, there are other defects in the subject that to my knowledge no one has touched, and to resolve these is by no means easy (but possible). Such is the definition of a plane as a surface for which the line joining any two of its points lies wholly in it. This definition contains more than is necessary for the description of the surface, and tacitly involves a theorem which must be proved first …. Reconstructing the geometrical theory is necessary for any progress on this subject. Points and lines and their use of them are delusional endures. If you are interested I can disclose this to you. RichardAlsenz@gmail.com. Your approach may have possibilities. Good lucK in an area which Gauss was upon. "According to his frequently expressed view, Gauss considered the three dimensions of space as specific peculiarities of the human soul; people, which are unable to comprehend this, he designated in his humorous mood by the name Bœotians. We could imagine ourselves, he said, as beings which are conscious of but two dimensions; higher beings might look at us in a like manner, and continuing jokingly, he said that he had laid aside certain problems which, when in a higher state of being, he hoped to investigate geometrically.:?)
@@RichardAlsenz The inclusion of the spacetime is one of the biggest success of modern physics. It allows Einstein to explain effects such as the orbit of mercury (which newton theory cannot explain), deflection of light rays, gravitational redshift, and a tons of other thing including the big bang. Most notably the introduction of the geometry in physics, as a field, can predict the existence of incredible objects such as black holes, which nowadays can be observed. If you want to dismiss the notion of space in physics is better you can explain at least the observables that general relativity can do with a better accuracy. In the literature of the last 50 years it's plenty of proposals which try to overcome the General relativity spacetime, in particular to make it compatible with quantum mechanics, but no proposal have been able so far to explain better than general relativity our universe. Everybody knows that general relativity have to be modified or generalized to include a description of the microscopical effects, but nobody has come out with a legit theory so far, nor supergravity, nor string theory, nor loop quantum gravity, nor this intents the girl is speaking here. If they will have some observable effect they can test I'm going to take into consideration, until that point it is one of the thousands of intents which have no scientific verification. Most probably, based on the foggy ideas in this video, we will not have any improvement with respect to actual knowledge. It's also suspicious that having no physical results there are so many video on the tube on that subject. In any case it's ok that people go on searching for better physical models. If they start from more solid premises they may have more chances of succeed (and less chances to waste the public money given for research).
The task depicted of an elephant being printed is considered to be a possible task that is allowed by physics. To answer your question, there is nothing symbolic about that task because it is a task that we could direct a universal computer to carry out.
Consider the following: (reference video about 18:06, conservation of energy portion): a. Energy is output basically perpendicular to the horizontal plane of the spiral shaped galaxy that we are in at basically the center of the horizontal plane of the galaxy. b. Energy from the horizontal plane of the galaxy replaces the energy output in the perpendicular basically vertical plane. c. This energy transfer would basically be causing matter in the galaxy to be moved towards that center area. d. Our solar system is basically being pulled/pushed towards the center of the galaxy.
Reference this copy and paste from my files: Consider the following: * There are 3 basic options for life itself, which reduce down to 2, which reduce down to only 1: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We die trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. c. We die not trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. * 3 reduced down to 2: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We don't. And note, two out of the three options above, we die. * 2 reduced down to 1: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We truly don't have any conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. (And note, these two appear to be mutually exclusive. Only one way would be really true.) And then ask yourself the following questions: 1. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies form? The current narrative is that matter, via gravity, attracts other matter. The electric universe model also includes universal plasma currents. 2. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies become spiral shaped in a cause and effect state of existence? At least one way would be orbital velocity of matter with at least gravity acting upon that matter, would cause a spiral shaped effect. The electric universe model also includes energy input into the galaxy, which spiral towards the galactic center, which then gets thrust out from the center, at about 90 degrees from the input. 3. Ask yourself: What does that mean for a solar system that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy? Most probably that solar system would be getting pulled toward the galactic gravitational center. 4. Ask yourself: What does that mean for species that exist on a planet, that exists in a solar system, that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy, in an apparent cause and effect state of existence? Most probably that if those species don't get off of that planet, and out of that solar system, and probably out of that galaxy too, (if it's even actually possible to do for various reasons), then they are all going to die one day from something and go extinct with probably no conscious entities left from that planet to care that they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less whatever they did and or didn't do with their time of existence. 5. Ask yourself: For those who might make it out of this galaxy, (here again, assuming it could actually be done for various reasons), where to go to next, how long to get there, how to safely land, and then, what's next? Hopefully they didn't land in another spiral shaped galaxy or a galaxy that would become spiral shaped one day, otherwise, they would have to galaxy hop through the universe to stay alive, otherwise, they still die one day from something with no conscious entities being left from the original planet to care they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less that they made it out of their own galaxy. They failed to consciously survive throughout all of future eternity. 6. Ask yourself: What exactly matters throughout all of future eternity and to whom does it exactly and eternally matter to? Either at least one species truly consciously survives throughout all of future eternity somehow, someway, somewhere, in some state of existence, even if only by a continuous succession of ever evolving species, for life itself to have continued meaning and purpose to, OR none do and life itself is all ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things. Our true destiny currently appears to be: 1. We are ALL going to die one day from something. 2. We are ALL going to forget everything we ever knew and experienced. 3. We are ALL going to be forgotten one day in future eternity as if we never ever existed at all in the first place. Eternal Death 'IS' Eternal Peace. Currently: Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, AND Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. (OSICA) * (Note: This includes the rich, powerful, and those who believe in the right to life and the sanctity of human life. God does not actually exist and Nature is not biased other than as Nature. Nature does what Nature does in a cause and effect kind of way. Truth is still truth and reality is still reality, regardless of whatever we believe that reality to be. And denying future reality will not make future reality any less real in a cause and effect state of existence.) ** Hence also though, legalizing suicide (or at least make suicide not illegal) so as to let people leave this life on their own terms if they wish to do so. Many people and species are going to die in the 6th mass extinction event that has already started, at least some, horrible deaths. Many will wish they could die, and all will, eventually. And the 6th mass extinction event will not be the last mass extinction event for this Earth. But if suicide were legal (or at least not illegal), at least some people would not have the added guilt of breaking societies' law before doing so. Just trying to plan ahead here. Giving people an 'out' if they wish to take it. Added Note: As this is a search for the real absolute truth concerning the future, please feel free to copy and paste this elsewhere to further the analysis and discussion.
Do my gravity test for my TOE idea and 'if' true, potentially have the literal TOE of this entire universe: Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) (An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.
'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows: Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction. Then: 1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe. (And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have). And also how possibly mathematical constants exist in this universe as well.
The mathematics for the TOE doesn't even exist yet as far as I am currently aware. It goes beyond any quantum field theory formulas that I am currently aware of. The outline though is basically as follows: The formula has at least 3 levels to it: 1. The Internal Photon Level: The 3 interacting forces, (which might even be just a singular force with 3 different modalities), all interacting at basically 90 degrees to each other and all simultaneously pulsating and swirling. A complex part of the formula but I believe to be totally doable. 2. The External Photon Level: For each pulsating, swirling photon, all the pulsating, swirling photons interacting with it. An exponential part of the formula that I am not even sure modern day super computers could adequately handle. 3. The Inter-dimensional Photon Level: For each modality within each photon would have an energy frequency associated with it. The energy frequencies could be seen as being in their own space time dimension. (For me, 'space' is energy itself of which is the 'gem' photon and 'time' is the flow of energy; 'temperature' is the interaction of energy), so one would be dealing with way more than just 3 spatial dimensions and way more than just 1 time dimension (as there would many different energy frequencies with many different flows of energy). Whenever like resonate energy frequencies resonated with each other, they would affect each other, kind of like 'spooky action at a distance'. Anytime energy frequencies overlapped, there would be a temporary spike of some sort in each space time dimension. In addition, if in reality the 'gem' photon is just a singular force with 3 different modalities, it's possible that energy could 'slip' between modalities which would also affect the results. A very complex part of the formula on top of all the complexity that came before it. 4. Any time any energy moved in the system, the entire formula would have to be recalculated due to potential ripple effects. 5. In addition, I am operating in a realm where one plus one does not always equal two, and often does not. Like I said above, I don't even believe the mathematics exists yet for what I am trying to do, but at a minimum, the formula would contain the above levels the way I currently see it to be. And I never said it would be easy.
Exceptional talk. As someone who is so far removed from the ideas and the research that Chiara is sharing of, I can attest that the explanations as well the responses by Chiara are accessible and have provided me with so much to think of. Thank you Foresight Institute for hosting this event and a huge thank to Chiara Marletto for sharing your time with us. 🌸
I don't understand the controversy, It seem to me that is self evident that she Chiara Marletto is correct. A universal computer is not a Mac, or a linux box, is an abstraction. An approach to designing a minimal universal computer device. The device is super simple and can't interact with the *wide* outside world, it interacts with its tape. A Mac is far more sofisticated than a Turin machine, it's also weaker in some aspect (the T.M has infinite tape, so it can do stuff like compute forever).
@@jaimeduncan6167 yes, but the consensus is that everything that can be done by a modern computer can be done by a universal Turing machine, actually any computing device has an equivalent Turing machine. Thats why she changes computations to transformations in the beginning... But if there are transformations that cant be computed it seems strange to me, but she says there are... Things that a VonNeuman machine (which is not a computer according to Chiara) can do that a universal Turing machine (computing device) cant
@@ancestralrocha7709 -- Unfortunately no :( - I had not much hints where to even start looking for that mentioned paper. 1950 might not be the exact publication date.
@@mechadense I didnt find it too but there is a 2020 paper that maybe will help to find it "John von Neumann’s 1950s Change to Philosopher of Computation" I still have to read it though
Only thing is that Google and Caltech recently demonstrated that an ER = EPR dynamical model works as a theory of quantum gravity and a unified theory of everything using their Sycamore quantum computer. But, their quantum computer can't do anything beyond what a Turing machine can do so there's still room for constructor theory. But this wasn't known at the time of this upload, which makes sense. That discovery wasn't made until Nov. 30th 2022.
cool vibe, how about the reason the quantum world of photons can not be directly observed to generate a workable quantum computer, because of photons refracting and mirroring the observer, in turn changing their behavior when they are observed? so we would have to view them without looking at them to see their true behavior?
@@josephpchajek2685 interesting description of the priority inversion of wisdom/rationality over love. If you _need_ to know (too much) you're in danger of violating your integrity by prioritizing your models over reality and thereby becoming untruthful (and if your model is coherent, the ground truths might have a disconnect with reality). The abstract tower of babel once more. Love for truth in the end is more important than wisdom/knowledge/structure itself. It gains and constructs it.
@@josephpchajek2685 nice, but love surely comes from appreciating and accepting the direction at hand in the grand holistic scale, rather than the ideal of it? very true your point on observation, but applying that logic to a workable direction, takes understanding of the way things move and interact, or you might miss read the observation, which was my point
@@josephpchajek2685 ah jeez. look, the loving kindness 'everything is energy' blabla stuff is great and all at the level of making people happier on a day to day basis, less stressed, more generous, warm, open, etc. I genuinely do think all that is great and something we're sorely lacking in the world we live in. but when you go around espousing the kind of stuff you are and consciously refusing to disambiguate your use of terms such as 'consciousness', 'observation' from their proper scientific definitions, ultimately all you're succeeding in doing is raising the noise floor in society and perpetuating confusion. again, no problem with the sentiment, I think it's great and we're really crying out for some kind of framework for better social-emotional regulation, but doing it by deliberately muddying the waters around hard scientific facts ain't the way to go about it I don't think.
New Physics theories imply getting into increasingly extreme conditions: extremely big, extremely small, extremely fast. But after dealing with extreme conditions they become useful inside the non-extreme (everyday) conditions: GPS, semiconductors, laser, etc. What will be the more extreme conditions that will unveil the new Physics theory and what everyday life changes will bring it?
We appear to be entering a time where people say it is not possible to create the conditions to prove a theory, so let's not get hung up on that (String Theory, Multiverse, etc). I have no idea what constructor theory is supposed to be even though I've been following several of these videos.
@@jondrew55 No idea about what "Constructor theory" is, I am afraid it sounds to me to "object oriented programming". Computers are great tools but I don't worship them, impossible to replace human vision that is able to condense huge amount of truth inside EQUATIONS.
Thank you! I have been sitting on the sideline as a skeptic, this interview has certainly been very helpful in visualizing the concept. Have a beautiful day! ⚡🌌👽💞🌈⚡⚡⚡
37:00 I think that what this whole discussion is about, is the question of "life": life is the only self-replicating process that we know of, and machines just can't do it (for now)
Virus self-replicate but don't completely conform to standard definitions of 'life'. Also, isn't it a bit reductive and unfair to presenter and participants (excellent Q&A!) to say it's all about 'life'? UQC was the topic billed, + Category and (Integrated?) Information Theory rank also as core elements.
@@ylegoff It's "reductive" and "unfair" only if you want it to be. I don't. I just realized that this whole discussion was a quest for understanding something greater but without saying it, just like Bergson was discussing about the "élan vital", religions talk about "God", the Chinese use the word "Chi", others call it "Gaia", and so on. I bet it's safe to call it just "life" in the 2020s, before it changes name again
@@ThomasGodart my sense is that the main importance of the terms that you refer to isn't in their common referent which you identify (although that fact is definitely important), but rather the sociolinguistic sediment ('chat history'?) which has built up around them over time within their respective cultural contexts and how that relates to material changes within those societies.
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 I was thinking of inflation theory in which the universe expanded to about 36m light years in just a few seconds, so relatively instant.
@@rustybolts8953 then dark energy would be slower than that. Of course, that assumes time is constant, and is the same now as it was in the early universe. (As a rate). Inflation as a pressure difference, or a temperature difference. If the Universe was at extreme temperature, then moved to an area of lower pressure (like bonding forces broke down between energy states)... The the speed of inflation would be proportional to the temperature of the early Universe. And would have expanded rather quickly. (Being trillions of degrees). The question might be: how do you pack so much energy into such a small volume, without causing a black hole to form? Then again, if there was no "space" yet, then there would be no place for a black hole TO form. Since no Universe existed outside of it. Pre-inflation speculation is too mind bending. Now i need a cup of tea. ;-)
Great talk, thank you. I wonder if Chiara has met with Stephen Wolfram and his group's hypergraph model. What are possible or impossible seem to be encodable as hypergraph rewrite-rules ...
why would them be encodable? Idk, but my intuition tells me that cans and cants are embedded in very high levels of supervinience, then it would be very tough to write them by rewrite-rules, let alone first order graph rewrite-rules
@@vesperide598 That's interesting. I suppose to be a theory of physics it will need some mathematical expression to be usable. She speaks of being able to express the discrete set of possibilities and impossibilities and deriving the rest. It seems intuitive to attempt this as a set of rewrites in a category (theory). If not that then some other form mathematical mechanics. Otherwise, the theory is one of philosophy and not physics.
On the topic of self-replication - it is fascinating that, as sub-components of the Global system (i.e. "the Universe"), we ourselves conceptually iterate over all possible ontological configurations. It is almost as though there exists wiggle room (as untameable logical, combinatorial depth and corollary entropy) for the approximation of theories that effectively - themselves - exist upon an asymptotic arc towards optimally concise algorithmic self-definition. Notice that this invokes the incompleteness of explanatory assertions as necessarily and recursively irreducible - indefinitely-extensible.
I think JB remark is valid: a Turing machine can instantiate a Turing machine of course (think emulators). Isn't a cell just a kind of a Turing-complete machine running on the Turing-complete machine called the universe?
You can prove that pi is irrational, meaning, it can't be represented as the ratio of two integers. Its infinite, non-repeating representation as a decimal is just a reflection of that.
@@josephpchajek2685 Begs the question - what do you mean by "contain"? If all is field, and fields interpenetrate, then, yah, everything is acted upon by everything rather than contains everything.
Dear Chiara, I emailed but it says your mailbox is full... I listened with interest to your presentation on Foresight. May I pose some questions from a philosophical perspective? You state about the universal machine that it is capable of replicating itself and liken this to biological cell replication. Is this not confusing different types of organisms or constructors? A cell is part of a larger organism and can replicate, however, the biological entity (for example a person) cannot replicate itself, since even if it were to do so, it would then produce "another" rather than itself. In other words, a clone is not identical to its blueprint. Reversely, a beehive as a superorganism can replicate itself in some way, yet the individual bees can't. So when it comes to the living universe, other factors beyond mere physics must be at play. Does constructor theory incorporate the notion of consciousness? Finally, is it considered possible under this new theory to gain access to dimensions beyond the material universe to which the laws of physics apply exclusively by applying those laws of physics? I would appreciate your take on these questions to better help me understand the rationale as well as the limitations of this new theory. Kind regards, Dr. Sahib Bleher
So if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is correct and the universe is going to expand into the end of time and nothingness. Does this mean that the universe is purposely constructing itself into nothingness and the end of time?
Well, why not use Newton law with the law relativity, but add a direction or desired point with witch it starts? Of a cross or diverse equation will need to be factored in.
Yeah, indeed category theory must be very good match to constructor theory. Perhaps thinking of morphisms and equivalence classes, along with thinking of defining the universe laws of physics declaratively rather than procedurally, can be productive...
Come on people. No actual application is offered as example of utility. Can anyone give me an actual example use of this Constructor Theory being used to solve any real problem. Not theoretically but applied. I can handle the math Bring it on.
This was very confusing. But in short. Constructor theory is talking about 2 things. 1)What are all physically possible means to calculate information? 2)What are all physically possible tasks a machine can perform?
Grande Chiara.....premetto che sono uno curioso sulla fisica quantistica....e un tecnico elettronico come lavoro. Mi piacerebbe realizzare un trasmettitore digitale utilizzando elettroni o fotoni correlati. Ma come si correlano due o più fotoni o elettroni? come si confinano mantenendo intatto il loro spin?.....con la luce polarizzata si può determinare il loro spin?......ci sono documenti che spiegano tutto ciò?.........grazie!
The how to... is not known... a theory to allow comparabilities that are beyond current understanding is what is most delightful... well done... Go for it Chiara...
Fascinating discussion. Thank you. I'd be curious to hear an example of how constructor theory would play out in regards to a theory of consciousness. What tasks for consciousness are impossible?
@@LioraFarkovitz Thank you. I suspect this would be quite important as there is a possibility that information has to be understood in terms of consciousness. Perhaps, after all, it is consciousness that gives "meaning" to information, and not the other way around. Or at least we should consider that possibility, I think. For example, in one country Red traffic lights mean stop. But in the hypothetical tiny country of Moogabuto, Red traffic lights mean go. One day in NYC there are two people, a new yorker and citizen of Moogabuto. They both see the same traffic light. It is Red. For the new yorker it means "stop". But for the Moogabutoian it means "go". It is not the color of the light that gives it meaning... but the consciousness receiving it that does. Therefore a theory of fundamentals would probably need to account for this when assessing the question: what is Information? Anyway, the first stop I would want to make on the road to understanding Constuctor Theory is what I asked above. I don't know if it fits well as a question for Constructor Theory, of course, so I'm hoping I can learn more about it by hearing a response to my question. Thanks!
@@vbywrde I work with content on, or in, "things", whether that is text, code, or a/v input. That would make sense to me, that the content itself is interpreted by the recipient of it; that's always equal to true unless it's numeric calculations. Plus we know that once joined, it's never separated, and we also know just observing data, impact its action. Well, I can explain some of this, but I am not an advanced scientist at all. I would only be listening to it and trying to put it in simpler terms enjoyed by all.
@@LioraFarkovitz Thanks for your reply! I'm not a scientist, or mathematician, honestly. But I am a programmer, and I do a lot of work in the area of abstraction and generalization of logical constructs, so in a way this effort is something I can relate to... the effort to abstract principals upon which reality can be analyzed in order to derive a more coherent understanding is just the kind of thing I am interested in. So this project attracted my attention. But I'm far from an expert, and feel I can at this point only dimly grasp the significance of what I'm listening to. I've run the video repeatedly to gain better insight. It's truly fascinating!
@@vbywrde I'm kind of surprised how I am somehow able to intuit quantum anything at all. But whenever I hear it, I just seem to get it, even if I don't know any equations. It just feels like it makes sense... I said to someone that as a Kabbalist for over thirty years that that spiritual study "feels like" a poetic description of quantum physics. When I understood the 1 to infinity concept - rifling endlessly through possible solutions to problems... it makes weird sense to me. Like you would energetically, through common frequency, attract all the potential solutions to your soul quandary on Earth... and while you never know what exploration is the "right" one, you do seem to get closer and closer to a narrative that gives purpose and meaning to your soul journey - and this is math. It sure is nice to talk to someone that can discuss the abstract like this. Thanks!
Something you should avoid until you have the actual fundamentals down. Not saying that facecitiously well toward you anyway hahaha but before you go looking at new theories that might be just as this theorizer says wrong... memorize what's right.... there are constants for a reason as ever changing as they may be. It's hard enough to find the grasp we have now without people saying WOAH WOAH we need to remodel EVERYTHING.
Can contradictions exist in nature? This is a deep serious question. By the Principle of Explosion in Logic, everything follows from a contradiction. Nothing would be impossible & simultaneously some things would be impossible.
I don't understand the philosophical point you're trying to make. Contradictions occur everywhere in nature, they also can occur nowhere; what defines contradiction is how the problem is framed. If there are no limits, then conflict will never occur, but also nothing useful will be derived.
Chiara, thank you for the Constructor Theory.....explanation in layman's terms...I think C the ory..can benefit from possibly using the Touring Machine as imput code...for Quantum Supreme Computer as the main processing unit ....then you could use the output of the Quantum result as a kind of reinput method for Touring machine to validate the laws of constructor using the reinput results of Touring Michine... output) as validation of experiment..with the Quantum processing ...Machine acting as a higher dimensional proof of CT ....in the world of macroscopic world of General Relativity Theory...using the results as a higher degree of proof that Constructor theory 's grasp of All the established laws of modern fundamental Physics!!!!
For those of us cat owners, the failings in the proposed notion of the "computability of nature" become abundantly clear as evidenced by the 3rd graphic at 20:00. Put simply, don't expect any universal computer to function properly with cats in the picture (literally).
Boundary conditions aren't emergent consequences of principles. They are emergent conditions of measurement. Principles define the interactions of those bound entities.
@@abhijithcpreej How can you apply a principle to something that has no fixed position in spacetime? Surely you have to first measure it's position before you can apply any principle equation? At least that seems to be the case with sub-atomic particles.
There appear to be, although I am 'lay', some fantastic concurrencies between the 'flip-flop' of 'can'/'can't', holographic 'bit' use and Wolfram's 'rule' driven approach. Is it naive to ask for some fundamental physical substrate because, to paraphrase, it's just logic all the way down?
Who knew, as Simple Gyroscope, could prove whether the Earth's surface is relatively FLAT and LEVEL as you move across the Surface of it.......OR if the surface in front of YOU and the GYRO will make you TILT OVER, to "go over the curve"....To MOVE over the surface of a BALL in front of YOU...would be FORCED to TILT OVER......and of course because the Physics of a Gyroscope is both beautiful, and reliable due to it's inherent Physical PROPERTIES......IT will easily determine if the Earth is FLAT in front of you when you MOVE over the Surface.....OR if the Earth is a BALL, and you constantly tilt over as you move around it. Thank You guys. Wonderful Stuff. The ANSWER.
@Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis see what happens is...the Lake....pushes the water Up in the center, and this of course makes the surface of the water on the Lake round...like the curve on a marble...like glass, and round. Muwaahaahaahaha! 😆
@Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis I mean if you push down on the water it squoooshes out of the Lake....but if you pull up on the water, you can make it stay there and have that nice round surface you guys like.
@Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis they must use the Curve of the gravity thing to smash 200ft sections of Plate Glass completely Flat, lol. Or maybe they use Curved Laser beams to Quality control the Flatness!!!! Bah!!!!
Concerning Babbage and his Analytical Engine. He also creat6ed a table-size mechanical equivalent of a hand calculator and designed it in detail and, with a couple of fixes for small errors in the blueprints, it was actually built by a university a few years ago and worked properly (!!!). Of course, an electronic equivalent would be better, but back then that was not even a concept. Thus, his more complex and full-computer-functional, though base 10 so it was much more bulky than it could have been, would probably have worked too, though in a large building and slowly. Miss Lovelace actually wrote a paper on the ability of numbers to be used to describe non-number results (for word processing and the like) -- way, way ahead of anybody else on this subject. Smart person!!! Anybody interested in the history of computing must look this stuff up.
Why should a quantum computer be a universal constructor? 11:05 It's nice to have a universal constructor on your wish list, but a computer is not a constructor. These are different things. A computer cannot stack pieces or even subatomic particles next to each other. That would be a different thing, controlled by a computer - if we can one day stack arbitrary quarks and so on together to build a living penguin or a stone. Well, in the very distant future we could imagine computing things - the things themself might compute, much like nature itself is kind of computing how things happen, for example when two subatomic particles collide, they act accordingly without an external computer calculating this - nature itself is "calculating this" and the particles split or merge or divert according to the "code", to the properties in the particles, whether two particles, two stones or two penguins collide ;-) ... all of which are particle collisions with a giant mesh of particles in the compound of the stone or the penguin...
Very enjoyable. Thank you for the enlightening talk and answers to questions (Marletto), and thanks for being an entertaining and welcoming host (I missed your name, but thanks).
The work of Faye Dowker and Stephen Wolfram are also cutting edge. Wolfram work on generalized structure of possible rules, their application, ramifications and the dimension of rules is fascinating.
I wondered if 'things that can't be contructed' might correspond to things that would not have a route through multirullial or branchial space. Just a long shot thought. I am sure they have thought this already though. Smart people.
Super success super congrats. I am sorry I missed this talk. My question to Chiara, David and her team is that : is it possible to construct ideal universes with much better laws of physics that we can tweak to save our species from all extinctions? I guess it is possible to design self-replicating hyper quantum computers which can work on creating ideal universes with much better laws of physics in a sense like fine tuning those laws to save humanity from extinctions.
@@sedalia9356 Any "successor" to humanity will be derived from humanity itself-- whether this successor be instantiated in silicone or continue on in carbon-based forms. This successor, then, will have much to be thankful for in humans for solving the problems that allowed them to exist.
@@sirbalafort2620 Resist anthropomorphization. We are grossly inefficient at goal attainment. 10,000 years of civilization and artificially maintained imbalances in resource exploitation and distribution continue to create unnecessary misery. Machines are orders of magnitude more efficient because they are not crippled by psychosis.
"No energy system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all energy systems [including what's called Quantum Computing]. Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
Except dark energy. It increases into the future, is 70% if the Universe and growing, And doesn't follow Conservation of Energy rules. (It does what it wants.)
There are some things I simply don't get... To me it is actually not obvious why it is problematic that QM and GR don't go well together. As theories in their own right, they make usable predictions. They are working theories for all practical purposes. Why should they be unified and can't they be just descriptions of our reality/universe operating on different abstraction levels? GR seems at most a theory of geometry which deals with emergent properties (gravity, directionality, time). An arena in which QM can operate. The initial statements don't seem so obvious to me. If quantum computing works with the understanding we have, then even if we would completely overhaul the theories, it will still work… It would basically be a semantic re-definition. Regarding the self replicating Turing-machine: I understand that such a machine cannot replicate itself. It was never designed to do that and lacks the tools to do it. That seems so obvious to me that I don't get why it needs to be pointed out. Cars dont replicate themselves either. But if I have an iMac and connect it to the machinery of the factory which creates iMacs, I would be able to run a piece of software on that iMac which perfectly replicates itself and produces another physical copy of itself. Or if you have an AI system, I don't see how an AI is not able to halt itself or replicate itself. A Turing-machine to me seems like a system with very specific bounds and limits. I don't see how modern computing is limited to whatever the limits and conditions of the Turing-machine are.
GR describes the largest, QM describes the smallest. GR's depiction of what SHOULD be going on when things are small is wrong. Likewise QM's depiction of what should be occuring when shit gets big is ALSO wrong. Hence the inability to combine the theories. It's not a problem of abstraction, its more a problem of same-level-abstraction conflict, so constructor theory abstracts to a higher level in order to solve the conflict between the theories.
To what extent of recreation is it necessary for a constructor to be the universal constructor? Would not the ultimate universal constructor be one that can create atoms, electromagnetic waves, subatomic particles, or even time and space. You're searching to create a god, no?
This is where I would put my money.. If quantum mechanics and General Relativity are incompatible, then one or the other, and quite possibly, both are wrong in at least some way. That is precisely the reason to go around both and look for something more foundational like thermodynamics which has a well known connection to information theory (e.g., information is entropy).
@@josephpchajek2685 What do you mean? What about a beaker or a flask? Chemists have used them to isolate chemicals and study their reactions. In accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, they are able to predict the gain or loss of heat with a high degree of precision and standardization. But that is "completely wrong"?
@@josephpchajek2685 The last I checked double-blind placebo-controlled studies work remarkably well, to the extent we spend billions of dollars on them. That's how we developed the various COVID vaccines for example. But you're saying all of that is a waste of time and money?
@@josephpchajek2685 I watched both. How does either establish: 1) That thermodynamics is "completely wrong"? 2) That controlled, double-blind studies are useless; 3) That the COVID vaccines are to be distrusted?
@@josephpchajek2685 There is some basis to that in cosmology, particularly in the current conception of an expanding universe, in which energy conservation does appear to be violated. Nevertheless, in most everything else this principle works remarkably well. It has applied with virtually perfect reliability in such applications as chemistry and engine design. So instead of "completely wrong," would you agree with "open to question" or "not absolute"?
Surely if you built a quantum computer with arms, legs, hands etc. and gave it instructions on how it was built , it could build itself with the correct materials. Irs a problem of physical dexterity, not computational capability. (DATA in Star Trek is the 3D PRINTER). - BUT I don't understand quantum theory
you can compose a program a turing machine can run that will drive a numerical milling machine. you can therefore compose a program a turing machine can run that will build another turing machine. didn't Dell computer do this already?
I've downloaded one paper, and I'm confident there is legitimacy to this work. However, there is so much evangelization about this going on, I'm concerned it will simply become the next New-Age Philosophy Magnet. Please encourage all detailed papers to be available outside of paywalls. Please provide TH-cam videos with step-by-step exposition of the symbolic and programmatic development and application of CT.
all of the paper preprints are available through the constructor theory website as far as I can see: constructortheory.org/research/ as far as preventing possible distortion/inflation around the work so far and speculative hype, incentives for researchers at the individual level are all toward getting their work out there and in front of as many people as possible. it is not reasonable to expect researchers in their prime years to be responsible for how the 'lay community' at large understand their work, on top of their primary day-to-day research, secondary teaching and admin duties and personal responsibilities. we sorely need to re-establish the norm of the 'client' in the fact-checking process being responsible for doing their own research rather than putting the onus entirely on the 'server' or 'source' (in this case the researchers themselves). also, I think the request for detailed youtube video breakdowns of all the components of the theory may be asking a little too much for a theory which doesn't have a single foundational pedagogical text written on it yet and which is really only entering its embryonic stage. the kind of people interested in the theory right now should be more than able to dig into the meat of the papers already written themselves without needing to be handheld - at a certain point simplified explanations and pop science is just that - pop. there's much more harmful snake oil going around these days than a speculative new theory which essentially seems to boil down to introducing counterfactuals into foundational physics as first class elements of our theories in order to constrain the size of the admissible solution space.
@@paulcassidy4559 Thanks for your super-responsive reply. I agree researcher can't control misrepresentations of their work. However, they are out there Evangelizing what they are doing without concrete examples, or even prototypes such as they are working with. I think there should be a balance between substantiation and evangelism, and I'm not getting it. Deutsch et.al. are engaging in debate and hand-waving about constructor theory, which *is* exciting, and will be irresistible for snake-oil salesmen. I'll check out those documents before saying anything more.
I am working with a implant that has deep learning and machine learning what is frustrating is its very repeative. Its supposed to be learning through how I live. I need to talk to some one that can help me with it.
Awesome. I understand the general premise. The laws of physics are not immutable but constructor theory is really trying to hit the bedrock through simple logic supplemented by mathematics. I just cant tell where it is implemented in the framework of physics as a whole and how it can restrict what is and is not possible based on constants and first principles. Is it a new stratum of principles? Does it change over time or are the laws fixed as I would imagine is the aim. I can see this being useful as a tool to illuminate a "boundry" by which physics can realize itself. Or by which other principles can be derived definitely.
Which is possible in Constructor Theory, can be assigned different probabilities, which is impossible, can't. For example, in all possible universes, some things are more frequent than others, or, more probable
There's some confusion here. We can't day that a Turing Machine can't replicate itself because it cannot rewrite its tape and doesn't have arms but that a quantum computer can be a universal constructor - it won't have arms either. A program running on either with the right tooling could build arbitrary structures. It feels like levels of analysis are being intertwined.
I don’t truly know how Chiara thinks about this, but what her talk got me thinking about was stuff like.... if a machine uses an API to send off an order for a replacement of itself, and (somehow) pays someone to accept the delivery and plug the devices in (using human labor as a “raw material”), does that count? Or does it need to be able to do the mining, smelting, chemical purification, and/or whatever other tasks directly by itself? Not that this would have to look anything like computers or robots as we know them today, but....
I had a somewhat similar issue that was resolved while watching the Q and A so I think I can help. The problem to my thinking stemmed from this example you point out, and the name "constructor theory"... I found myself asking "wait, why is 'construction', some physical thing, MORE abstract or general than information theory. Surely math and information is more abstract and fundamental" It was somewhat irritating because the absolute bottom should be true or false right? And after combining trues and falses, these states of things, then at some point it's complex enough for a constructor. Just think of the atoms of the universal constructor as the 1s and 0s, and it's very simple to see how a constructor is a subset of the set of all information, not the other way around. This is the issue with this example, because what she goes on to say is how constructors themselves are the end product, like a computer, of the theoy, and what is really at hand is what's possible and what's not possible. Its kinda like saying the fact that you can't have a square circle is more fundamental than a true or false bit of whether or not a circle is square. While she uses the reconcilliation of quantum mechanics and gravity as her example, I think a better example might be the incomputability of quantum mechanical end results by classical computers without resorting to brute forcing probabilities. Or better, it's like a classical computer can store the end result state of some collapsed superposition, but not the superposition and interact superpositions before collapsing. A normal computer works just fine if you just resolve the answer of the question at one step before moving on to the next... first add A to B, then add the answer C to D. The problem is that the quantum computer operates by operating on what is possible itself. This is at the heart, and from this is abstracted a constructor that is capable of creating any possible state, whereas a classical computer can only work on this virtual array of states, theoretically a quantum computer could hold within it's virtual states a valid universe. The classical computer could only store one instance, it would be a dead tape. So this has implication on AI and consciousness as much as unifying relativity and quantum mechanics, which we are currently only looking at as an information problem instead of a reality problem. My main criticism is that she doesn't explicitly make this case very well even though she thinks her examples do this, from an information theory / programming / engineering point of view, this raises a lot of "wait that doesn't follow" reactions because we've set information theory at the center and ground level of everything. What she really has to show first is that (and I hate to use "constructors" because like she even says, this isn't the base layer) constructors are more fundamental. Instead of constructors, it needs to be something that essentially refers to a kind of objectivism, like the Pauli exclusion principle is essentially "A=A, A!=B". We think of the fact that only two electrons can occupy the same energy state when one is spin up and one is spin down, as an engineering fact and not something more fundamental than 1s and 0s, because in information theory we can posit all sorts of different systems with different unit elements that interact / combine in different ways, and therefore we assume that information is more fundamental... but what if it wasn't? What if we understood the real nature of what was and wasn't possible and could find that information was just a trick we use within virtual space to create a useful fantasy, when we could really be simulating what's possible using quantum computers with this deeper understanding. Anyway, I'm still trying to wrap my head around stuff despite the examples and wording she's using, but that's as far as I've figured out myself. TL;DR, the the underlying problem was that she was claiming information theory is not fundamental, and is suggesting ... idk possibility theory? is more fundamental from which you would get both turing computers and constructors, and now I'm having to look through everything to see if she does explicitly substantiate that claim in more ways than this example.that bugs us. Edit: I should also say I'm only an hour in so if I've got it wrong then I'll modify or delete this :P but this is what I have gotten from the Q and As
The quote is from Hedwig and the Angry Inch, in the movie it is the title of his thesis, I thought of it at the beginning of this presentation when it went into philosophy. For those less aware, its a nerdy pun on a song title.
How to extend quantum computing eyond quantum theory einstain way... Idea: forgot qm or qf just work with possible shapes which qm using to exist...geometry...then imagine chip layout as we know and try to rebuilt it with geometry possible in qm, qft... So like 4d, 5d tranzistors or logical gates... Shapes and geometry is always good way to represent integrated informations created by hidden language of nature/knkwledge/
Just as you can have computer that can do both addition & multiplication, why can't you also have a universal constructor that has a Turing machine incorporated within it, making it possible for a Turing machine to reproduce itself?
Just like number pile .ending equation of .005 or .003. 15 different quantum systems .combined . stock piled in side the factors on law of magnetic system 3.6.9 witch they say is bad .so flip it to 3.6.9 with 6 on bottom instead of being on top .with magno metter in Center
Caveat Constructor: In the Movie "Forbidden Planet" a "constructor/computer" system was created by an advanced race (The Krell). It seems to have been of the power and scope of a Universal Constructor. The programming of the Krell Computer was the Krell individual (and therefore collective) consciouness. The unreformed subconscious (Freudian Id) was resourced by the Constructor along with conscious thought and desire. The constructed "Monsters of the Id" destroyed the Krell, though not the Constructor. Is this possible to build a UQC with principles that restrict its lethality to Humanity ? One would have to have Possible/Not-Possible and a new constraint: "Not Permissable"
We write Freud out of the literature at our peril. Understanding the subconscious should be job one for humanity. Job two should be the reduction of subconscious trauma engrams so that we can begin to approach these existential problems with a minimally crippled mind.
Thank you. It's hard to find something this interesting that is understandable. One day I will share with my daughter Arabella Hill Father Kevin Hill Thanks
Chiara presents as a rock-solid proposer of an explanatory theory, without oversell or attempting to squeeze all explanations into this framework. Her intellectual honesty is fabulously refreshing to me. Her responses in the Q&A are coherent, consistent and well-argued.
Specify 10 things she said that are relevant, to anything. No, 5 things would be enough to support your claim of rock-solid proposals. She reminds me of Richard Nixon who could talk and talk and talk and in the end have said absolutely nothing. What is Constructor Theory and what are real world implications/applications of practicing such a theory? A machine which can create a copy of itself? Define "copy". We already have the tech to build self-replicating machines (depending on the def of "replication"). The recipe for cloning a human already exists in the DNA - we don't need a machine to do it. We problems which are much more relevant and much more solvable that wasting neurotic ideation on metaphysics. We don't need to know what, if anything, is on the other side of a Black Hole. Nor is an Equation Of State Of The Universe at all important.
The first sentence in the video description above reads:
"The theory of the universal quantum computer has brought us rapid technological developments, together with remarkable improvements in how we understand quantum theory."What tech developments and/or quantum theory improvements at all, much less remarkable ones, are we talking about? Name some. Name anything real that has resulted from universal quantum computer theory.
@@jrice135 I absolutely agree with you in regard to there being no tangible benefits from "universal quantum computer theory". I can however point out many massive tech leaps that have some from in the last five years that are already in use because of greater understanding of computation.
The universal constructor is a well defined thought experiment in computer science where the notion of "copy" is well defined. I assume this is what Chiara was referring to. She should have made it clear though. It's a completely theoretical "machine" that we don't have anything like the tech to build. The idea is that the machine needs a "description" of ('blueprint' or program for) itself, a universal constructor mechanism that can read any description and construct the machine (sans description) encoded in that description, and a universal copy machine that can make copies of any description.
Note that you can separate out the copy machine because all it needs to copy are the instructions, not the actual machine. So the definition of copy only relates to the universal constructor being able to copy the instructions (code) to build itself.
@@jrice135 DNA cloning a human and a "perfect copy" in this sense are totally different. DNA isn't a universal blueprint that is copied this way. It isn't even meant to behave this way because it recombines. This is why in the real world things evolve. You need to have things like error correction in the universal constructor as soon as you want to talk about the real world and not a thought experiment.
@@columbasaint465 can you clarify "(sans description)" I am french and even me I am not sure. Are you just stating the obvious that such a machine has never been described/detailed. Or does that mean that the universal constructor should be able to build the copy from a "3d picture" of the thing ? Can you elaborate, it may be essential ?
@@lcdvasrm Sorry for butchering your language. "Sans description" just means without the description.
The 3D picture would have to be encoded with all the instructions to build the universal constructor so I would imagine it is possible.
I think you might be having trouble still with understanding that the universal constructor is actually three separate parts. The "universal constructor" part of the whole universal constructor is not copying anything. It's only building the copy of itself and does not "know" anything about whether it is building a copy of itself or something new entirely.
It is solely the "copy" part of the whole universal constructor that does any copying and it only copies the blueprint/code/description. It can be thought of as a separate machine if you want to. It's nothing more than a photocopier.
The term "Universal Constructor" is both used to describe a whole machine with three separate mechanisms but when you treat all three mechanisms of the whole as separate machines; one is named the universal constructor, the other the universal copier and the third the blueprint/code/description.
This woman is absolutely breath taking
super great video. thanks to everyone at Foresight for making it and of course Dr. Marletto for her fantastic work and presentation + generosity in the detailed answers given to the questions. I'll be going back to uni soon to finish my BS in math & physics and Constructor Theory will be at the top of my list for potential thesis topics... so yeah super excited! keep up the great work!
Would this be correct?
Turing's definition of a universal machine doesn't disallow self replication. It's just that all replicants are also the machine and are included in the set of possible machine states, which can be countably infinite. Programs can also avoid HALT forever under some conditions. The idea that quantum computing will break out of Turing's constraints and become independent of programming is based on the creation of new states, or something that defies the definition of a state?
well-spoken and largely unambiguous ---- I am glad to have found this conversation . It is very heartwarming to hear you all express yourselves so clearly .
Does anybody know which Von Neumann paper she mentions in discussion with Joscha Bach?
"Exotic experience" is one way to put it. But Chiara's on the money: Worth the try.
If I understand you correctly here, you propose to change the method of defining the results of formulae and basic physical principles and laws from the "volumes" of the effective regions in the universe -- as defined by a n-dimensional graph of the inputs and the expected outputs of those principles -- into the BOUNDARIES of these "rules" giving where they allow results in our universe and where they do not. This would form the SURFACE of these volumes as a pair of green (OK) and red (IMPOSSIBLE for that rule) dots close together. For some rules, like quantum mechanical laws, these boundaries would be blurry shading from green to red due to the changing probabilities. To define what is actually possible and impossible, you take all; of these boundary regions of the laws that apply to some result and plot them all on the same graph, where only the place -- "volume" -- where they ALL OVERLAP will be the place where any results of use are possible. As you look at these many overlapping zone edges for any given problem to be solved, you will be able to see how the structure of the universe is shaped more easily. Kind of like a version of the Holographic Universe for each set of rules that apply to a desired solution. When you have enough of these boundary images, a more deep understanding of how the universe works may be possible to extrapolate. Is this correct?
That's what I got out of it, that or "I don't like the current model here's my crayola version, gimme grant"
14:50 it’s not just “satisfactory unproblematic predictions” - it is also workable and useful predictions. Why the scientific method and science is better than any other dogmatic way of thinning and explaining our universe before is exactly because those other ways were not very useful ideologies.. post-justifications. We have to keep an eye that our new explanations don’t become not very useful ideologies and post-justifications / post-rationalisations and semantics
What do you want the exchange rate of tokens to be?
Excellent presentation and QA very enjoyable too❤
Second watch, still great.
I just listened to Sean Carroll give a talk at the Sante Fe Institute this past week, it lines up with Chiara's understanding of quantum theory, the observer is irrelevant. It's all waves.
I find the construction theory here explained quite obscure. Apart the self-replicating machine which is just a technological issue, which can be clearly realized noways (it was maybe an issue at von neumann times where computers could just produce printed output). The explication as some bigger issues. For instance the thermodynamic examples (about the second law) illustrate exactly the opposite of what the girl is trying to claim. The laws of thermodynamics were found without the classical dynamical structure of physical theories (such as general relativity or electromagnetism) and they are working well, but just because Boltzmann at that time was ignorant about the real physical processes which cause these thermodynamic effects. When quantum mechanics was discovered we had a better picture of was going on and why the thermodynamic laws work in this way. Declaring that you you would like to describe things without an explication, just from an emergent point of view, basically because we have some difficulties doing in the usual way it seems to me quite short sighted. Gravity might be an emergent or effective phenomenology (and have been a huge literature in that sense), but I think that renouncing to understand in the hard way is not a step forward, just an admission of ignorance and of giving up in understanding how things really works, which is the main objective of physics. I hope they can in the future provide some prediction to test, verify or falsify their model, I'm frankly quite skeptical after listening this video. However remember that the scientific model provided us by Galileo, based on the dynamical analysis of nature, is the biggest engine of human progress (not only of physics).
Unfortunately, the first definition that Euclid and others used is prohibitive for expressing the visualization of a point. We need a better geometry to use for expressing our observations within the Scientific Method.
Wtf. I think you dont understand what she says.
@@capitanmission If you have some arguments please explain me, otherwise I do not understand why you are commenting
@@supermarcoa The use of space for mathematical operations is a problem for any theory. Gauss pointed this out in 1929 and it was 40 years old in his mind. See the last paragraph for his conclusion on where it would lead. I call his problem with Geometry "Gauss's Gordian Space Knot". He searched his life for its resolution. See his friends and former student Weber's attempt to resolve the issue.
14. Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 27 January 1829
…There is another topic, one which for me is almost 40 years old, that I have thought about from time to time in isolated free hours, I mean the first principles of geometry; I don’t know if I have ever spoken to you about this. Also in this I have further consolidated many things, and my conviction that we cannot completely establish geometry a prioir has become stronger. In the meantime it will likely be quite a while before I get around to preparing my very extensive investigations on this for publication; perhaps this will never happen in my lifetime since I fear the cry of the Boetians if I were to voice my views. It is strange, however, that except for the well known gaps in Euclid’s geometry which till now one has tried in vain to fill, and never will fill, there are other defects in the subject that to my knowledge no one has touched, and to resolve these is by no means easy (but possible). Such is the definition of a plane as a surface for which the line joining any two of its points lies wholly in it. This definition contains more than is necessary for the description of the surface, and tacitly involves a theorem which must be proved first ….
Reconstructing the geometrical theory is necessary for any progress on this subject. Points and lines and their use of them are delusional endures. If you are interested I can disclose this to you. RichardAlsenz@gmail.com. Your approach may have possibilities. Good lucK in an area which Gauss was upon.
"According to his frequently expressed view, Gauss considered the three dimensions of space as specific peculiarities of the human soul; people, which are unable to comprehend this, he designated in his humorous mood by the name Bœotians. We could imagine ourselves, he said, as beings which are conscious of but two dimensions; higher beings might look at us in a like manner, and continuing jokingly, he said that he had laid aside certain problems which, when in a higher state of being, he hoped to investigate geometrically.:?)
@@RichardAlsenz The inclusion of the spacetime is one of the biggest success of modern physics. It allows Einstein to explain effects such as the orbit of mercury (which newton theory cannot explain), deflection of light rays, gravitational redshift, and a tons of other thing including the big bang. Most notably the introduction of the geometry in physics, as a field, can predict the existence of incredible objects such as black holes, which nowadays can be observed. If you want to dismiss the notion of space in physics is better you can explain at least the observables that general relativity can do with a better accuracy. In the literature of the last 50 years it's plenty of proposals which try to overcome the General relativity spacetime, in particular to make it compatible with quantum mechanics, but no proposal have been able so far to explain better than general relativity our universe. Everybody knows that general relativity have to be modified or generalized to include a description of the microscopical effects, but nobody has come out with a legit theory so far, nor supergravity, nor string theory, nor loop quantum gravity, nor this intents the girl is speaking here. If they will have some observable effect they can test I'm going to take into consideration, until that point it is one of the thousands of intents which have no scientific verification. Most probably, based on the foggy ideas in this video, we will not have any improvement with respect to actual knowledge. It's also suspicious that having no physical results there are so many video on the tube on that subject. In any case it's ok that people go on searching for better physical models. If they start from more solid premises they may have more chances of succeed (and less chances to waste the public money given for research).
That was a great Q&A!!
I especially liked the interaction between Dr.Marletto and Joshua beginning @ 58:39.
His name is Joscha Bach :) and he is a living legend
@@diehenne Thank you !!! I didn't know how to find him.
Are there any discussions about what is considered good or bad in terms of physics ?
Wasn't Q.1 answered by Bob Coecke with his "quantum picturalism" (category theory)?
Should the 'constructing machine' depicted (at around 11 mins) showing a Pink Elephant as an output be understood symbolically?
would/wouldn't they be smaller & still smaller, ... 🙀
fractally equivalent miniaturization, ☕🤯🧟
The task depicted of an elephant being printed is considered to be a possible task that is allowed by physics. To answer your question, there is nothing symbolic about that task because it is a task that we could direct a universal computer to carry out.
Consider the following: (reference video about 18:06, conservation of energy portion):
a. Energy is output basically perpendicular to the horizontal plane of the spiral shaped galaxy that we are in at basically the center of the horizontal plane of the galaxy.
b. Energy from the horizontal plane of the galaxy replaces the energy output in the perpendicular basically vertical plane.
c. This energy transfer would basically be causing matter in the galaxy to be moved towards that center area.
d. Our solar system is basically being pulled/pushed towards the center of the galaxy.
Reference this copy and paste from my files:
Consider the following:
* There are 3 basic options for life itself, which reduce down to 2, which reduce down to only 1:
a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity.
b. We die trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity.
c. We die not trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity.
* 3 reduced down to 2:
a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity.
b. We don't. And note, two out of the three options above, we die.
* 2 reduced down to 1:
a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity.
b. We truly don't have any conscious existence throughout all of future eternity.
(And note, these two appear to be mutually exclusive. Only one way would be really true.)
And then ask yourself the following questions:
1. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies form? The current narrative is that matter, via gravity, attracts other matter. The electric universe model also includes universal plasma currents.
2. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies become spiral shaped in a cause and effect state of existence? At least one way would be orbital velocity of matter with at least gravity acting upon that matter, would cause a spiral shaped effect. The electric universe model also includes energy input into the galaxy, which spiral towards the galactic center, which then gets thrust out from the center, at about 90 degrees from the input.
3. Ask yourself: What does that mean for a solar system that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy? Most probably that solar system would be getting pulled toward the galactic gravitational center.
4. Ask yourself: What does that mean for species that exist on a planet, that exists in a solar system, that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy, in an apparent cause and effect state of existence? Most probably that if those species don't get off of that planet, and out of that solar system, and probably out of that galaxy too, (if it's even actually possible to do for various reasons), then they are all going to die one day from something and go extinct with probably no conscious entities left from that planet to care that they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less whatever they did and or didn't do with their time of existence.
5. Ask yourself: For those who might make it out of this galaxy, (here again, assuming it could actually be done for various reasons), where to go to next, how long to get there, how to safely land, and then, what's next? Hopefully they didn't land in another spiral shaped galaxy or a galaxy that would become spiral shaped one day, otherwise, they would have to galaxy hop through the universe to stay alive, otherwise, they still die one day from something with no conscious entities being left from the original planet to care they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less that they made it out of their own galaxy. They failed to consciously survive throughout all of future eternity.
6. Ask yourself: What exactly matters throughout all of future eternity and to whom does it exactly and eternally matter to?
Either at least one species truly consciously survives throughout all of future eternity somehow, someway, somewhere, in some state of existence, even if only by a continuous succession of ever evolving species, for life itself to have continued meaning and purpose to, OR none do and life itself is all ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things.
Our true destiny currently appears to be:
1. We are ALL going to die one day from something.
2. We are ALL going to forget everything we ever knew and experienced.
3. We are ALL going to be forgotten one day in future eternity as if we never ever existed at all in the first place.
Eternal Death 'IS' Eternal Peace.
Currently:
Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, AND Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. (OSICA)
* (Note: This includes the rich, powerful, and those who believe in the right to life and the sanctity of human life. God does not actually exist and Nature is not biased other than as Nature. Nature does what Nature does in a cause and effect kind of way. Truth is still truth and reality is still reality, regardless of whatever we believe that reality to be. And denying future reality will not make future reality any less real in a cause and effect state of existence.)
** Hence also though, legalizing suicide (or at least make suicide not illegal) so as to let people leave this life on their own terms if they wish to do so. Many people and species are going to die in the 6th mass extinction event that has already started, at least some, horrible deaths. Many will wish they could die, and all will, eventually. And the 6th mass extinction event will not be the last mass extinction event for this Earth. But if suicide were legal (or at least not illegal), at least some people would not have the added guilt of breaking societies' law before doing so. Just trying to plan ahead here. Giving people an 'out' if they wish to take it.
Added Note: As this is a search for the real absolute truth concerning the future, please feel free to copy and paste this elsewhere to further the analysis and discussion.
Do my gravity test for my TOE idea and 'if' true, potentially have the literal TOE of this entire universe:
Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way.
a. Imagine a 12 hour clock.
b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions.
c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions.
(The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.)
d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields.
e. Do this with the em fields on and off.
(The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.)
f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects.
(Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.)
(And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
(An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.)
'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done.
'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a.
My Current TOE:
THE SETUP:
1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism.
2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.).
3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them.
4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them.
5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them.
FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO:
6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field.
7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field.
8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality.
9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons.
10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary.
11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks.
12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do.
THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA:
13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc.
14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe.
15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe.
16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate.
17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure.
18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons).
THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY:
19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up.
20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency.
21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies.
NOTES:
22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well.
25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true.
26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught?
DISCLAIMER:
27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.
'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows:
Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction.
Then:
1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe.
(And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have).
And also how possibly mathematical constants exist in this universe as well.
The mathematics for the TOE doesn't even exist yet as far as I am currently aware. It goes beyond any quantum field theory formulas that I am currently aware of. The outline though is basically as follows:
The formula has at least 3 levels to it:
1. The Internal Photon Level: The 3 interacting forces, (which might even be just a singular force with 3 different modalities), all interacting at basically 90 degrees to each other and all simultaneously pulsating and swirling. A complex part of the formula but I believe to be totally doable.
2. The External Photon Level: For each pulsating, swirling photon, all the pulsating, swirling photons interacting with it. An exponential part of the formula that I am not even sure modern day super computers could adequately handle.
3. The Inter-dimensional Photon Level: For each modality within each photon would have an energy frequency associated with it. The energy frequencies could be seen as being in their own space time dimension. (For me, 'space' is energy itself of which is the 'gem' photon and 'time' is the flow of energy; 'temperature' is the interaction of energy), so one would be dealing with way more than just 3 spatial dimensions and way more than just 1 time dimension (as there would many different energy frequencies with many different flows of energy). Whenever like resonate energy frequencies resonated with each other, they would affect each other, kind of like 'spooky action at a distance'. Anytime energy frequencies overlapped, there would be a temporary spike of some sort in each space time dimension. In addition, if in reality the 'gem' photon is just a singular force with 3 different modalities, it's possible that energy could 'slip' between modalities which would also affect the results. A very complex part of the formula on top of all the complexity that came before it.
4. Any time any energy moved in the system, the entire formula would have to be recalculated due to potential ripple effects.
5. In addition, I am operating in a realm where one plus one does not always equal two, and often does not.
Like I said above, I don't even believe the mathematics exists yet for what I am trying to do, but at a minimum, the formula would contain the above levels the way I currently see it to be. And I never said it would be easy.
Where does nonlinearity come from?
Her book was released in hardback on 4th May. Can't wait to get my copy. ebook available soon.
Exceptional talk. As someone who is so far removed from the ideas and the research that Chiara is sharing of, I can attest that the explanations as well the responses by Chiara are accessible and have provided me with so much to think of. Thank you Foresight Institute for hosting this event and a huge thank to Chiara Marletto for sharing your time with us. 🌸
1:04:47 gotta find Von Neumanns article from around 1950 now ...
I don't understand the controversy, It seem to me that is self evident that she Chiara Marletto is correct. A universal computer is not a Mac, or a linux box, is an abstraction. An approach to designing a minimal universal computer device. The device is super simple and can't interact with the *wide* outside world, it interacts with its tape. A Mac is far more sofisticated than a Turin machine, it's also weaker in some aspect (the T.M has infinite tape, so it can do stuff like compute forever).
@@jaimeduncan6167 yes, but the consensus is that everything that can be done by a modern computer can be done by a universal Turing machine, actually any computing device has an equivalent Turing machine. Thats why she changes computations to transformations in the beginning... But if there are transformations that cant be computed it seems strange to me, but she says there are... Things that a VonNeuman machine (which is not a computer according to Chiara) can do that a universal Turing machine (computing device) cant
Did you find it?
@@ancestralrocha7709 --
Unfortunately no :( - I had not much hints where to even start looking for that mentioned paper. 1950 might not be the exact publication date.
@@mechadense I didnt find it too but there is a 2020 paper that maybe will help to find it "John von Neumann’s 1950s Change to Philosopher of Computation" I still have to read it though
Great video!!!! Language was the biggest barrier in this entire conversation. It just shows how incomplete all languages are at explaining reality!
Amazing Q&A!
@57:50 she mentions someone's nice theory about counterfactuals - can anyone help me with what she said?
Has to be Judea Pearl
The dynamics of Godel's incompleteness and incompleteness theorems?
Only thing is that Google and Caltech recently demonstrated that an ER = EPR dynamical model works as a theory of quantum gravity and a unified theory of everything using their Sycamore quantum computer. But, their quantum computer can't do anything beyond what a Turing machine can do so there's still room for constructor theory.
But this wasn't known at the time of this upload, which makes sense. That discovery wasn't made until Nov. 30th 2022.
cool vibe, how about the reason the quantum world of photons can not be directly observed to generate a workable quantum computer, because of photons refracting and mirroring the observer, in turn changing their behavior when they are observed? so we would have to view them without looking at them to see their true behavior?
@@josephpchajek2685 interesting description of the priority inversion of wisdom/rationality over love. If you _need_ to know (too much) you're in danger of violating your integrity by prioritizing your models over reality and thereby becoming untruthful (and if your model is coherent, the ground truths might have a disconnect with reality). The abstract tower of babel once more.
Love for truth in the end is more important than wisdom/knowledge/structure itself. It gains and constructs it.
@@josephpchajek2685 nice, but love surely comes from appreciating and accepting the direction at hand in the grand holistic scale, rather than the ideal of it? very true your point on observation, but applying that logic to a workable direction, takes understanding of the way things move and interact, or you might miss read the observation, which was my point
@@josephpchajek2685 ah jeez.
look, the loving kindness 'everything is energy' blabla stuff is great and all at the level of making people happier on a day to day basis, less stressed, more generous, warm, open, etc. I genuinely do think all that is great and something we're sorely lacking in the world we live in. but when you go around espousing the kind of stuff you are and consciously refusing to disambiguate your use of terms such as 'consciousness', 'observation' from their proper scientific definitions, ultimately all you're succeeding in doing is raising the noise floor in society and perpetuating confusion. again, no problem with the sentiment, I think it's great and we're really crying out for some kind of framework for better social-emotional regulation, but doing it by deliberately muddying the waters around hard scientific facts ain't the way to go about it I don't think.
New Physics theories imply getting into increasingly extreme conditions: extremely big, extremely small, extremely fast. But after dealing with extreme conditions they become useful inside the non-extreme (everyday) conditions: GPS, semiconductors, laser, etc. What will be the more extreme conditions that will unveil the new Physics theory and what everyday life changes will bring it?
We appear to be entering a time where people say it is not possible to create the conditions to prove a theory, so let's not get hung up on that (String Theory, Multiverse, etc). I have no idea what constructor theory is supposed to be even though I've been following several of these videos.
@@jondrew55 No idea about what "Constructor theory" is, I am afraid it sounds to me to "object oriented programming". Computers are great tools but I don't worship them, impossible to replace human vision that is able to condense huge amount of truth inside EQUATIONS.
Thank you! I have been sitting on the sideline as a skeptic, this interview has certainly been very helpful in visualizing the concept. Have a beautiful day! ⚡🌌👽💞🌈⚡⚡⚡
37:00 I think that what this whole discussion is about, is the question of "life": life is the only self-replicating process that we know of, and machines just can't do it (for now)
Virus self-replicate but don't completely conform to standard definitions of 'life'. Also, isn't it a bit reductive and unfair to presenter and participants (excellent Q&A!) to say it's all about 'life'? UQC was the topic billed, + Category and (Integrated?) Information Theory rank also as core elements.
@@ylegoff It's "reductive" and "unfair" only if you want it to be. I don't. I just realized that this whole discussion was a quest for understanding something greater but without saying it, just like Bergson was discussing about the "élan vital", religions talk about "God", the Chinese use the word "Chi", others call it "Gaia", and so on. I bet it's safe to call it just "life" in the 2020s, before it changes name again
@@ThomasGodartHmm. I didn't think of the Bergson angle. It's food for thought. And to be fair, he was anything but reductive.
@@ThomasGodart my sense is that the main importance of the terms that you refer to isn't in their common referent which you identify (although that fact is definitely important), but rather the sociolinguistic sediment ('chat history'?) which has built up around them over time within their respective cultural contexts and how that relates to material changes within those societies.
What power can add or subtract time/space that is create or un-create space/time instantly?
Dark energy.
(Continuous, but i don't know how to frame "instant").
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 I was thinking of inflation theory in which the universe expanded to about 36m light years in just a few seconds, so relatively instant.
@@rustybolts8953 then dark energy would be slower than that. Of course, that assumes time is constant, and is the same now as it was in the early universe. (As a rate).
Inflation as a pressure difference, or a temperature difference. If the Universe was at extreme temperature, then moved to an area of lower pressure (like bonding forces broke down between energy states)... The the speed of inflation would be proportional to the temperature of the early Universe. And would have expanded rather quickly. (Being trillions of degrees).
The question might be: how do you pack so much energy into such a small volume, without causing a black hole to form?
Then again, if there was no "space" yet, then there would be no place for a black hole TO form. Since no Universe existed outside of it.
Pre-inflation speculation is too mind bending. Now i need a cup of tea. ;-)
Great talk, thank you. I wonder if Chiara has met with Stephen Wolfram and his group's hypergraph model. What are possible or impossible seem to be encodable as hypergraph rewrite-rules ...
I also wondered this
@@newenglandbarbell4647 same
why would them be encodable? Idk, but my intuition tells me that cans and cants are embedded in very high levels of supervinience, then it would be very tough to write them by rewrite-rules, let alone first order graph rewrite-rules
@@vesperide598 That's interesting. I suppose to be a theory of physics it will need some mathematical expression to be usable. She speaks of being able to express the discrete set of possibilities and impossibilities and deriving the rest. It seems intuitive to attempt this as a set of rewrites in a category (theory). If not that then some other form mathematical mechanics. Otherwise, the theory is one of philosophy and not physics.
Yup. My first [or second] thought too... these have so much in common.
I think it's very brave to be moving 'beyond' something which hasn't happened yet!
40:44 is that not the fundamentals of a.i. ???
On the topic of self-replication - it is fascinating that, as sub-components of the Global system (i.e. "the Universe"), we ourselves conceptually iterate over all possible ontological configurations. It is almost as though there exists wiggle room (as untameable logical, combinatorial depth and corollary entropy) for the approximation of theories that effectively - themselves - exist upon an asymptotic arc towards optimally concise algorithmic self-definition. Notice that this invokes the incompleteness of explanatory assertions as necessarily and recursively irreducible - indefinitely-extensible.
Simultaneity connects to our Universe. How?
I think JB remark is valid: a Turing machine can instantiate a Turing machine of course (think emulators). Isn't a cell just a kind of a Turing-complete machine running on the Turing-complete machine called the universe?
A cell is a machine, but not a Turing machine. It isn't Turing complete or universal.
I wondered if recurring constants like pi were a result of us using a decimal system, or simply only measuring them in some of their dimensions.
You can prove that pi is irrational, meaning, it can't be represented as the ratio of two integers. Its infinite, non-repeating representation as a decimal is just a reflection of that.
is the Universal Constructor than self adaptive?
* then
@@josephpchajek2685 Begs the question - what do you mean by "contain"? If all is field, and fields interpenetrate, then, yah, everything is acted upon by everything rather than contains everything.
@@josephpchajek2685 maybe ease up on the psilocybin
Dear Chiara, I emailed but it says your mailbox is full...
I listened with interest to your presentation on Foresight. May I pose
some questions from a philosophical perspective?
You state about the universal machine that it is capable of replicating
itself and liken this to biological cell replication. Is this not
confusing different types of organisms or constructors? A cell is part of a larger
organism and can replicate, however, the biological entity (for example a
person) cannot replicate itself, since even if it were to do so, it would
then produce "another" rather than itself. In other words, a clone is not
identical to its blueprint. Reversely, a beehive as a superorganism can
replicate itself in some way, yet the individual bees can't. So when it
comes to the living universe, other factors beyond mere physics must be
at play. Does constructor theory incorporate the notion of
consciousness? Finally, is it considered possible under this new theory
to gain access to dimensions beyond the material universe to which the
laws of physics apply exclusively by applying those laws of physics? I
would appreciate your take on these questions to better help me
understand the rationale as well as the limitations of this new theory.
Kind regards,
Dr. Sahib Bleher
This was very nice. Great discussion! Thank you Chiara and Allison.
So if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is correct and the universe is going to expand into the end of time and nothingness. Does this mean that the universe is purposely constructing itself into nothingness and the end of time?
Well, why not use Newton law with the law relativity, but add a direction or desired point with witch it starts? Of a cross or diverse equation will need to be factored in.
Yeah, indeed category theory must be very good match to constructor theory. Perhaps thinking of morphisms and equivalence classes, along with thinking of defining the universe laws of physics declaratively rather than procedurally, can be productive...
Come on people. No actual application is offered as example of utility. Can anyone give me an actual example use of this Constructor Theory being used to solve any real problem. Not theoretically but applied. I can handle the math
Bring it on.
This was very confusing. But in short. Constructor theory is talking about 2 things. 1)What are all physically possible means to calculate information? 2)What are all physically possible tasks a machine can perform?
The Best Q&A of any topic that I have seen a decade, at least.
Grande Chiara.....premetto che sono uno curioso sulla fisica quantistica....e un tecnico elettronico come lavoro. Mi piacerebbe realizzare un trasmettitore digitale utilizzando elettroni o fotoni correlati. Ma come si correlano due o più fotoni o elettroni? come si confinano mantenendo intatto il loro spin?.....con la luce polarizzata si può determinare il loro spin?......ci sono documenti che spiegano tutto ciò?.........grazie!
The how to... is not known... a theory to allow comparabilities that are beyond current understanding is what is most delightful... well done... Go for it Chiara...
Fascinating discussion. Thank you. I'd be curious to hear an example of how constructor theory would play out in regards to a theory of consciousness. What tasks for consciousness are impossible?
Oh, that's a fascinating question!
@@LioraFarkovitz Thank you. I suspect this would be quite important as there is a possibility that information has to be understood in terms of consciousness. Perhaps, after all, it is consciousness that gives "meaning" to information, and not the other way around. Or at least we should consider that possibility, I think. For example, in one country Red traffic lights mean stop. But in the hypothetical tiny country of Moogabuto, Red traffic lights mean go. One day in NYC there are two people, a new yorker and citizen of Moogabuto. They both see the same traffic light. It is Red. For the new yorker it means "stop". But for the Moogabutoian it means "go". It is not the color of the light that gives it meaning... but the consciousness receiving it that does. Therefore a theory of fundamentals would probably need to account for this when assessing the question: what is Information? Anyway, the first stop I would want to make on the road to understanding Constuctor Theory is what I asked above. I don't know if it fits well as a question for Constructor Theory, of course, so I'm hoping I can learn more about it by hearing a response to my question. Thanks!
@@vbywrde I work with content on, or in, "things", whether that is text, code, or a/v input. That would make sense to me, that the content itself is interpreted by the recipient of it; that's always equal to true unless it's numeric calculations. Plus we know that once joined, it's never separated, and we also know just observing data, impact its action.
Well, I can explain some of this, but I am not an advanced scientist at all. I would only be listening to it and trying to put it in simpler terms enjoyed by all.
@@LioraFarkovitz Thanks for your reply! I'm not a scientist, or mathematician, honestly. But I am a programmer, and I do a lot of work in the area of abstraction and generalization of logical constructs, so in a way this effort is something I can relate to... the effort to abstract principals upon which reality can be analyzed in order to derive a more coherent understanding is just the kind of thing I am interested in. So this project attracted my attention. But I'm far from an expert, and feel I can at this point only dimly grasp the significance of what I'm listening to. I've run the video repeatedly to gain better insight. It's truly fascinating!
@@vbywrde I'm kind of surprised how I am somehow able to intuit quantum anything at all. But whenever I hear it, I just seem to get it, even if I don't know any equations. It just feels like it makes sense... I said to someone that as a Kabbalist for over thirty years that that spiritual study "feels like" a poetic description of quantum physics. When I understood the 1 to infinity concept - rifling endlessly through possible solutions to problems... it makes weird sense to me. Like you would energetically, through common frequency, attract all the potential solutions to your soul quandary on Earth... and while you never know what exploration is the "right" one, you do seem to get closer and closer to a narrative that gives purpose and meaning to your soul journey - and this is math.
It sure is nice to talk to someone that can discuss the abstract like this. Thanks!
So fun to listen to all of you!
That was awesome! I'm blown away
Joscha Bach is quite the intellectual sparring partner! Would be interesting to see Joscha and David debate the topic he raises.
Interesting talk about constructor theory, whatever that is. And I still don't have any idea what it is.
Something you should avoid until you have the actual fundamentals down. Not saying that facecitiously well toward you anyway hahaha but before you go looking at new theories that might be just as this theorizer says wrong... memorize what's right.... there are constants for a reason as ever changing as they may be. It's hard enough to find the grasp we have now without people saying WOAH WOAH we need to remodel EVERYTHING.
Can contradictions exist in nature? This is a deep serious question. By the Principle of Explosion in Logic, everything follows from a contradiction. Nothing would be impossible & simultaneously some things would be impossible.
I don't understand the philosophical point you're trying to make. Contradictions occur everywhere in nature, they also can occur nowhere; what defines contradiction is how the problem is framed. If there are no limits, then conflict will never occur, but also nothing useful will be derived.
Chiara, thank you for the Constructor Theory.....explanation in layman's terms...I think C the ory..can benefit from possibly using the Touring Machine as imput code...for Quantum Supreme Computer as the main processing unit ....then you could use the output of the Quantum result as a kind of reinput method for Touring machine to validate the laws of constructor using the reinput results of Touring Michine... output) as validation of experiment..with the Quantum processing ...Machine acting as a higher dimensional proof of CT ....in the world of macroscopic world of General Relativity Theory...using the results as a higher degree of proof that Constructor theory 's grasp of All the established laws of modern fundamental Physics!!!!
For those of us cat owners, the failings in the proposed notion of the "computability of nature" become abundantly clear as evidenced by the 3rd graphic at 20:00. Put simply, don't expect any universal computer to function properly with cats in the picture (literally).
Boundary conditions aren't emergent consequences of principles. They are emergent conditions of measurement. Principles define the interactions of those bound entities.
Controversial. It could be the other way around. Principles themselves could be used to create boundary conditions of degrees.
@@abhijithcpreej How can you apply a principle to something that has no fixed position in spacetime? Surely you have to first measure it's position before you can apply any principle equation? At least that seems to be the case with sub-atomic particles.
Does string theory emerge from constructor theory?
This was wonderful. Thank you.
great to see you here.. :)
the audience had some very very interesting questions..
There appear to be, although I am 'lay', some fantastic concurrencies between the 'flip-flop' of 'can'/'can't', holographic 'bit' use and Wolfram's 'rule' driven approach. Is it naive to ask for some fundamental physical substrate because, to paraphrase, it's just logic all the way down?
Who knew, as Simple Gyroscope, could prove whether the Earth's surface
is relatively FLAT and LEVEL as you move across the Surface of
it.......OR if the surface in front of YOU and the GYRO will make you
TILT OVER, to "go over the curve"....To MOVE over the surface of a BALL
in front of YOU...would be FORCED to TILT OVER......and of course
because the Physics of a Gyroscope is both beautiful, and reliable due
to it's inherent Physical PROPERTIES......IT will easily determine if
the Earth is FLAT in front of you when you MOVE over the Surface.....OR
if the Earth is a BALL, and you constantly tilt over as you move around
it. Thank You guys. Wonderful Stuff. The ANSWER.
@Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis oy..now air bubbles are round so of course all of the Lake surfaces are round.....duh. 😆
@Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis see what happens is...the Lake....pushes the water Up in the center, and this of course makes the surface of the water on the Lake round...like the curve on a marble...like glass, and round. Muwaahaahaahaha! 😆
@Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis I mean if you push down on the water it squoooshes out of the Lake....but if you pull up on the water, you can make it stay there and have that nice round surface you guys like.
@Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis they must use the Curve of the gravity thing to smash 200ft sections of Plate Glass completely Flat, lol. Or maybe they use Curved Laser beams to Quality control the Flatness!!!! Bah!!!!
Concerning Babbage and his Analytical Engine. He also creat6ed a table-size mechanical equivalent of a hand calculator and designed it in detail and, with a couple of fixes for small errors in the blueprints, it was actually built by a university a few years ago and worked properly (!!!). Of course, an electronic equivalent would be better, but back then that was not even a concept. Thus, his more complex and full-computer-functional, though base 10 so it was much more bulky than it could have been, would probably have worked too, though in a large building and slowly. Miss Lovelace actually wrote a paper on the ability of numbers to be used to describe non-number results (for word processing and the like) -- way, way ahead of anybody else on this subject. Smart person!!! Anybody interested in the history of computing must look this stuff up.
Some say the universe IS a universal computer. Do you think they may be in some sense correct?
No
@@johnnycharisma162 LOL THATS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS !!
mind blowing thinkers.. it was really fantastic. Thanks.
Sorry yes i would think that way .however does it really apply while groups are taking out over half of the world population ?
Why should a quantum computer be a universal constructor? 11:05
It's nice to have a universal constructor on your wish list, but a computer is not a constructor. These are different things.
A computer cannot stack pieces or even subatomic particles next to each other.
That would be a different thing, controlled by a computer - if we can one day stack arbitrary quarks and so on together to build a living penguin or a stone.
Well, in the very distant future we could imagine computing things - the things themself might compute, much like nature itself is kind of computing how things happen, for example when two subatomic particles collide, they act accordingly without an external computer calculating this - nature itself is "calculating this" and the particles split or merge or divert according to the "code", to the properties in the particles, whether two particles, two stones or two penguins collide ;-)
... all of which are particle collisions with a giant mesh of particles in the compound of the stone or the penguin...
Very enjoyable. Thank you for the enlightening talk and answers to questions (Marletto), and thanks for being an entertaining and welcoming host (I missed your name, but thanks).
The work of Faye Dowker and Stephen Wolfram are also cutting edge. Wolfram work on generalized structure of possible rules, their application, ramifications and the dimension of rules is fascinating.
I wondered if 'things that can't be contructed' might correspond to things that would not have a route through multirullial or branchial space. Just a long shot thought. I am sure they have thought this already though. Smart people.
@@seancharles1595 there isn't always the cross pollination there could be between realms. The Wolfram project aims to
I'm just here for Chiara & Allison.. that's all!
Super success super congrats. I am sorry I missed this talk. My question to Chiara, David and her team is that : is it possible to construct ideal universes with much better laws of physics that we can tweak to save our species from all extinctions? I guess it is possible to design self-replicating hyper quantum computers which can work on creating ideal universes with much better laws of physics in a sense like fine tuning those laws to save humanity from extinctions.
Why? A serious question. I'm not half as as smart as David & Chiara but even I can imagine a better successor to humanity.
@@sedalia9356 Any "successor" to humanity will be derived from humanity itself-- whether this successor be instantiated in silicone or continue on in carbon-based forms. This successor, then, will have much to be thankful for in humans for solving the problems that allowed them to exist.
@@sirbalafort2620 Resist anthropomorphization. We are grossly inefficient at goal attainment. 10,000 years of civilization and artificially maintained imbalances in resource exploitation and distribution continue to create unnecessary misery. Machines are orders of magnitude more efficient because they are not crippled by psychosis.
Thousands of oriental languages are near extinction
real talk in this comment! nice
"No energy system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all energy systems [including what's called Quantum Computing].
Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
Except dark energy.
It increases into the future,
is 70% if the Universe and growing,
And doesn't follow Conservation of Energy rules.
(It does what it wants.)
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 20th Century Physics is a shocking demonstration on how fossil fuels are dangerously hypnotic to humans.
TIME DOESNT FLOW FROM PAST TO FUTURE !! LOL... THATS A SIMPLE WAY OF THINKING !! LMAO
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 EXACTLY
There are some things I simply don't get... To me it is actually not obvious why it is problematic that QM and GR don't go well together. As theories in their own right, they make usable predictions. They are working theories for all practical purposes. Why should they be unified and can't they be just descriptions of our reality/universe operating on different abstraction levels? GR seems at most a theory of geometry which deals with emergent properties (gravity, directionality, time). An arena in which QM can operate. The initial statements don't seem so obvious to me. If quantum computing works with the understanding we have, then even if we would completely overhaul the theories, it will still work… It would basically be a semantic re-definition.
Regarding the self replicating Turing-machine: I understand that such a machine cannot replicate itself. It was never designed to do that and lacks the tools to do it. That seems so obvious to me that I don't get why it needs to be pointed out. Cars dont replicate themselves either. But if I have an iMac and connect it to the machinery of the factory which creates iMacs, I would be able to run a piece of software on that iMac which perfectly replicates itself and produces another physical copy of itself. Or if you have an AI system, I don't see how an AI is not able to halt itself or replicate itself. A Turing-machine to me seems like a system with very specific bounds and limits. I don't see how modern computing is limited to whatever the limits and conditions of the Turing-machine are.
GR describes the largest, QM describes the smallest. GR's depiction of what SHOULD be going on when things are small is wrong. Likewise QM's depiction of what should be occuring when shit gets big is ALSO wrong. Hence the inability to combine the theories. It's not a problem of abstraction, its more a problem of same-level-abstraction conflict, so constructor theory abstracts to a higher level in order to solve the conflict between the theories.
I'll watch later.. fantastic..
To what extent of recreation is it necessary for a constructor to be the universal constructor? Would not the ultimate universal constructor be one that can create atoms, electromagnetic waves, subatomic particles, or even time and space. You're searching to create a god, no?
you cant create matter out of nothing. you can only transform
This is where I would put my money.. If quantum mechanics and General Relativity are incompatible, then one or the other, and quite possibly, both are wrong in at least some way. That is precisely the reason to go around both and look for something more foundational like thermodynamics which has a well known connection to information theory (e.g., information is entropy).
@@josephpchajek2685 including the universe?
@@josephpchajek2685 What do you mean? What about a beaker or a flask? Chemists have used them to isolate chemicals and study their reactions. In accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, they are able to predict the gain or loss of heat with a high degree of precision and standardization. But that is "completely wrong"?
@@josephpchajek2685 The last I checked double-blind placebo-controlled studies work remarkably well, to the extent we spend billions of dollars on them. That's how we developed the various COVID vaccines for example. But you're saying all of that is a waste of time and money?
@@josephpchajek2685 I watched both. How does either establish: 1) That thermodynamics is "completely wrong"? 2) That controlled, double-blind studies are useless; 3) That the COVID vaccines are to be distrusted?
@@josephpchajek2685 There is some basis to that in cosmology, particularly in the current conception of an expanding universe, in which energy conservation does appear to be violated. Nevertheless, in most everything else this principle works remarkably well. It has applied with virtually perfect reliability in such applications as chemistry and engine design. So instead of "completely wrong," would you agree with "open to question" or "not absolute"?
You've given me a headache .. Yet I will endure and must listen too many times ..GREAT SHOW , THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH .
Surely if you built a quantum computer with arms, legs, hands etc. and gave it instructions on how it was built , it could build itself with the correct materials. Irs a problem of physical dexterity, not computational capability. (DATA in Star Trek is the 3D PRINTER). - BUT I don't understand quantum theory
you can compose a program a turing machine can run that will drive a numerical milling machine. you can therefore compose a program a turing machine can run that will build another turing machine. didn't Dell computer do this already?
Great talk..
I've downloaded one paper, and I'm confident there is legitimacy to this work.
However, there is so much evangelization about this going on, I'm concerned it will simply become the next New-Age Philosophy Magnet.
Please encourage all detailed papers to be available outside of paywalls.
Please provide TH-cam videos with step-by-step exposition of the symbolic and programmatic development and application of CT.
Agreed
all of the paper preprints are available through the constructor theory website as far as I can see: constructortheory.org/research/ as far as preventing possible distortion/inflation around the work so far and speculative hype, incentives for researchers at the individual level are all toward getting their work out there and in front of as many people as possible. it is not reasonable to expect researchers in their prime years to be responsible for how the 'lay community' at large understand their work, on top of their primary day-to-day research, secondary teaching and admin duties and personal responsibilities. we sorely need to re-establish the norm of the 'client' in the fact-checking process being responsible for doing their own research rather than putting the onus entirely on the 'server' or 'source' (in this case the researchers themselves).
also, I think the request for detailed youtube video breakdowns of all the components of the theory may be asking a little too much for a theory which doesn't have a single foundational pedagogical text written on it yet and which is really only entering its embryonic stage. the kind of people interested in the theory right now should be more than able to dig into the meat of the papers already written themselves without needing to be handheld - at a certain point simplified explanations and pop science is just that - pop. there's much more harmful snake oil going around these days than a speculative new theory which essentially seems to boil down to introducing counterfactuals into foundational physics as first class elements of our theories in order to constrain the size of the admissible solution space.
@@paulcassidy4559 Thanks for your super-responsive reply.
I agree researcher can't control misrepresentations of their work. However, they are out there Evangelizing what they are doing without concrete examples, or even prototypes such as they are working with.
I think there should be a balance between substantiation and evangelism, and I'm not getting it. Deutsch et.al. are engaging in debate and hand-waving about constructor theory, which *is* exciting, and will be irresistible for snake-oil salesmen.
I'll check out those documents before saying anything more.
It's already started
Thank you for sharing and explaining such ground breaking work.
I am working with a implant that has deep learning and machine learning what is frustrating is its very repeative. Its supposed to be learning through how I live. I need to talk to some one that can help me with it.
Program it my guy research your company and then be like bruh... can you call darpa or alexa or w.e siri get them to help you?
One of my gifts is describing the indescribable
Awesome. I understand the general premise. The laws of physics are not immutable but constructor theory is really trying to hit the bedrock through simple logic supplemented by mathematics. I just cant tell where it is implemented in the framework of physics as a whole and how it can restrict what is and is not possible based on constants and first principles. Is it a new stratum of principles? Does it change over time or are the laws fixed as I would imagine is the aim. I can see this being useful as a tool to illuminate a "boundry" by which physics can realize itself. Or by which other principles can be derived definitely.
THATS RIGHT .
THATS WRONG
Which is possible in Constructor Theory, can be assigned different probabilities, which is impossible, can't. For example, in all possible universes, some things are more frequent than others, or, more probable
THERE MUST BE A CANT . WE CAN CHANGE IT TO EVENTUALLY BUT WHY ?
There's some confusion here. We can't day that a Turing Machine can't replicate itself because it cannot rewrite its tape and doesn't have arms but that a quantum computer can be a universal constructor - it won't have arms either. A program running on either with the right tooling could build arbitrary structures. It feels like levels of analysis are being intertwined.
I don’t truly know how Chiara thinks about this, but what her talk got me thinking about was stuff like.... if a machine uses an API to send off an order for a replacement of itself, and (somehow) pays someone to accept the delivery and plug the devices in (using human labor as a “raw material”), does that count? Or does it need to be able to do the mining, smelting, chemical purification, and/or whatever other tasks directly by itself? Not that this would have to look anything like computers or robots as we know them today, but....
I had a somewhat similar issue that was resolved while watching the Q and A so I think I can help.
The problem to my thinking stemmed from this example you point out, and the name "constructor theory"... I found myself asking "wait, why is 'construction', some physical thing, MORE abstract or general than information theory. Surely math and information is more abstract and fundamental" It was somewhat irritating because the absolute bottom should be true or false right? And after combining trues and falses, these states of things, then at some point it's complex enough for a constructor. Just think of the atoms of the universal constructor as the 1s and 0s, and it's very simple to see how a constructor is a subset of the set of all information, not the other way around.
This is the issue with this example, because what she goes on to say is how constructors themselves are the end product, like a computer, of the theoy, and what is really at hand is what's possible and what's not possible. Its kinda like saying the fact that you can't have a square circle is more fundamental than a true or false bit of whether or not a circle is square. While she uses the reconcilliation of quantum mechanics and gravity as her example, I think a better example might be the incomputability of quantum mechanical end results by classical computers without resorting to brute forcing probabilities. Or better, it's like a classical computer can store the end result state of some collapsed superposition, but not the superposition and interact superpositions before collapsing. A normal computer works just fine if you just resolve the answer of the question at one step before moving on to the next... first add A to B, then add the answer C to D. The problem is that the quantum computer operates by operating on what is possible itself. This is at the heart, and from this is abstracted a constructor that is capable of creating any possible state, whereas a classical computer can only work on this virtual array of states, theoretically a quantum computer could hold within it's virtual states a valid universe. The classical computer could only store one instance, it would be a dead tape.
So this has implication on AI and consciousness as much as unifying relativity and quantum mechanics, which we are currently only looking at as an information problem instead of a reality problem. My main criticism is that she doesn't explicitly make this case very well even though she thinks her examples do this, from an information theory / programming / engineering point of view, this raises a lot of "wait that doesn't follow" reactions because we've set information theory at the center and ground level of everything. What she really has to show first is that (and I hate to use "constructors" because like she even says, this isn't the base layer) constructors are more fundamental. Instead of constructors, it needs to be something that essentially refers to a kind of objectivism, like the Pauli exclusion principle is essentially "A=A, A!=B". We think of the fact that only two electrons can occupy the same energy state when one is spin up and one is spin down, as an engineering fact and not something more fundamental than 1s and 0s, because in information theory we can posit all sorts of different systems with different unit elements that interact / combine in different ways, and therefore we assume that information is more fundamental... but what if it wasn't? What if we understood the real nature of what was and wasn't possible and could find that information was just a trick we use within virtual space to create a useful fantasy, when we could really be simulating what's possible using quantum computers with this deeper understanding.
Anyway, I'm still trying to wrap my head around stuff despite the examples and wording she's using, but that's as far as I've figured out myself. TL;DR, the the underlying problem was that she was claiming information theory is not fundamental, and is suggesting ... idk possibility theory? is more fundamental from which you would get both turing computers and constructors, and now I'm having to look through everything to see if she does explicitly substantiate that claim in more ways than this example.that bugs us.
Edit: I should also say I'm only an hour in so if I've got it wrong then I'll modify or delete this :P but this is what I have gotten from the Q and As
"You, Kant, always get what you want."
Hume begs to differ :)
"But if you try sometimes," you can get what you can't.
The quote is from Hedwig and the Angry Inch, in the movie it is the title of his thesis, I thought of it at the beginning of this presentation when it went into philosophy. For those less aware, its a nerdy pun on a song title.
How to extend quantum computing eyond quantum theory einstain way...
Idea: forgot qm or qf just work with possible shapes which qm using to exist...geometry...then imagine chip layout as we know and try to rebuilt it with geometry possible in qm, qft...
So like 4d, 5d tranzistors or logical gates...
Shapes and geometry is always good way to represent integrated informations created by hidden language of nature/knkwledge/
I love the quantum entangled hair of Dr Chiara 😍
It's perfect physicist-writing-on-30-chalkboards-for-1000-hours-and-then-yelling-EUREKA! hair
Awesome!
Just as you can have computer that can do both addition & multiplication, why can't you also have a universal constructor that has a Turing machine incorporated within it, making it possible for a Turing machine to reproduce itself?
Chiara is such a a fascinating woman
BTFOs Beyesians so diplomatically, I think I'm in love 😍
Just like number pile .ending equation of .005 or .003. 15 different quantum systems .combined . stock piled in side the factors on law of magnetic system 3.6.9 witch they say is bad .so flip it to 3.6.9 with 6 on bottom instead of being on top .with magno metter in Center
The Cosmos is a fractal constructed with the fabric of space.
SO SHWEEEETTT...much love Tee with LIONS NAMED LEO.[the music worldwide}
ssoooo cool..
Reminds me of Deleuze : Definitions arise through differences, not similarities.
could you elaborate a little on that please? sounds interesting!
Caveat Constructor: In the Movie "Forbidden Planet" a "constructor/computer" system was created by an advanced race (The Krell). It seems to have been of the power and scope of a Universal Constructor. The programming of the Krell Computer was the Krell individual (and therefore collective) consciouness. The unreformed subconscious (Freudian Id) was resourced by the Constructor along with conscious thought and desire. The constructed "Monsters of the Id" destroyed the Krell, though not the Constructor.
Is this possible to build a UQC with principles that restrict its lethality to Humanity ? One would have to have Possible/Not-Possible and a new constraint: "Not Permissable"
That would not be logical.
We write Freud out of the literature at our peril. Understanding the subconscious should be job one for humanity. Job two should be the reduction of subconscious trauma engrams so that we can begin to approach these existential problems with a minimally crippled mind.
Thank 💜 You LOVE
Thank you. It's hard to find something this interesting that is understandable.
One day I will share with my daughter Arabella Hill
Father Kevin Hill
Thanks