🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:12 🌌 Constructor Theory Overview - Constructor theory is a new mode of explaining physics and physical reality. - Prevailing physics relies on predictions given laws of motion and initial conditions. - Constructor theory proposes a shift, expressing everything in terms of possible and impossible tasks. 02:52 🔄 Challenges in Prevailing Conception - Prevailing physics has been successful but struggles with certain problems. - Constructor theory addresses issues like information, life, and phenomena the current conception can't handle. - It introduces a different mode of explanation based on possible and impossible tasks. 06:20 🔍 Recovering Dynamical Laws - Recovering dynamical laws is part of future research in constructor theory. - The theory provides statements about possible and impossible tasks as its foundation. - Constructor theory aims to offer predictions, both existing ones and new ones not derived from current laws. 09:42 🏗️ Understanding Constructors - Constructor theory is not about constructors; it's about possible and impossible tasks. - A constructor represents the limit of a sequence of objects capable of performing a task. - The concept of constructors is crucial in understanding what is possible in physical transformations. 14:27 🔄 Implications for Reductionism - Reductionism within the prevailing conception needs reevaluation with constructor theory. - Entities considered emergent in the current view become fundamental in constructor theory. - Exact laws about traditionally emergent entities can be formulated in constructor theory. 19:40 🌐 Motivations for Constructor Theory - Constructor theory addresses the need for a foundational basis for physics. - It incorporates the concept of information and accommodates possibilities and causation. - It explains the capacity of constructors like biological cells and aims to promote optimism about knowledge and technology. 23:30 🧠 Foundations in Physics - Foundations in physics involve primitive elements, like initial conditions or principles in constructor theory. - Constructor theory's foundations are more general and may underlie future theories. - The need for new foundations arises from phenomena not well accommodated or ignored in the prevailing conception. 26:18 🧠 Constructor Theory and Principles - Principles in Constructor Theory are not fundamentally different; they follow a similar logic to other scientific principles. - Testing laws that conform to principles is the standard approach, maintaining consistency in the logic of testing. 27:23 🔄 Interoperability Principle - Introduces the interoperability principle for information in Constructor Theory. - Information media, like traffic lights and transistors, share the property of performing certain transformations and tasks. - The interoperability principle asserts that when two systems qualify as information media, their composite system remains an information medium, allowing tasks like copying information. 32:39 🔄 Rethinking Second Law of Thermodynamics - Challenges the second law of thermodynamics when applied to nano-scale engines. - Constructor Theory provides an exact formulation of the second law, potentially leading to new predictions for nano-scale systems. - Explores the potential implications for understanding and predicting behavior in small-scale engines. 36:19 🔄 Information as Fundamental - Discusses the fundamental nature of information and challenges the idea that it only emerges at a certain level. - Information, as described in Constructor Theory, is theory-independent and applies universally. - Emphasizes the additional regularity present in Constructor Theory, allowing for a broader understanding of information. 38:24 🖥️ Quantum Computing and Constructor Theory - Quantum computing is introduced as a branch of fundamental physics, exploring the use of quantum systems for computation. - Constructor Theory extends beyond quantum computing, defining a universal constructor capable of all physically possible transformations. - Highlights the foundational aspects of quantum computing and its implications for understanding the laws of physics. 44:11 🔗 Connecting Constructor Theory to Human Concepts - Addresses the human implications of Constructor Theory, as discussed by David Deutsch. - Constructor Theory provides room for concepts like possibility, free will, and causality in fundamental physics. - The idea of knowledge in Constructor Theory is introduced, connecting it to the creation of valuable information and its role in unpredictable knowledge creation. 53:09 🧠 Constructor Theory and Free Will - The deterministic nature of the universe and the challenge in accommodating free will. - Constructor theory's connection to free will through the unpredictability of knowledge creation. - Speculative idea: Brain configurations leading to decisions may only be predictable through simulating the universe. 56:09 🔄 Knowledge Creation Unpredictability - The clash between the predictability of brain configurations and the unpredictability of creative knowledge. - The role of simulation in potentially predicting knowledge outcomes. - Constructor theory's potential to accommodate the inherent unpredictability of knowledge creation. 57:41 🤔 Constructor Theory's Approach to Unpredictability - The challenge of accommodating unpredictability in the traditional computational view. - Constructor theory's potential to handle unpredictability in knowledge creation. - The speculative nature of these ideas within the framework of constructor theory. 58:11 🔄 Determinism vs. Free Will - Discussing the difference between predictability and the fixed nature of decisions. - Exploring the compatibility of Fred's choices and the dynamical evolution of his brain. - The potential role of new tools in physics to incorporate free will into the worldview. 01:02:05 🌐 Compatibilism and Approximate Concepts - Comparing the views on free will between a physicist's perspective and a compatibilist stance. - Exploring the approximate nature of free will relative to physics. - The proposition that free will is about our capacity as agents, not moment-by-moment fixation by physics. 01:03:02 🚀 Optimism in Constructor Theory - David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto's optimism derived from constructor theory. - The concept of "momentous bekata me" and its connection to the achievability of tasks. - The optimism in approaching challenges either by discovering new laws of physics or by finding ways to implement tasks. Made with HARPA AI
Having watched this only 1.1 times I am looking forward to leaning much more about "Constuctor" theory. Just the general approach to knowledge and learning, excites my curiosity. Thank you all...
49.22 For example, I say, instead of DNA, say Fractals of small non-biologicals like water that makes snow that is self replicating under certain initial conditions.
If we live in a multiverse, where all possible paths are taken through space~time (an intertwined fabric where each thread is a unique timeline/awareness), then indeed the prediction of physics would be "all possible outcomes happen". Which isn't that useful once you acknowledge it the first few times. So, instead, looking more closely at what IS and ISN'T possible, and what we WANT to do, is far more valuable a science.
This is most certainly innovative. Though in fairness I am not sure whether it is a logical repeatable methodology or a repetitive means of deriving more and more precise information. In truth I probably don't have a clue. Chaira gives a nice presentation.
As a lay person trying to follow these sessions, I can't get beyond a metaphorical understanding. I expect that actually (not metaphorically) understanding Constructor Theory would require familiarity with mathematics at a level considerably beyond the my high-school algebra and trigonometry. Can anyone enlighten me about what mathematics I would need to know to grapple directly with this theory? I'm wondering whether, absent such familiarity, I'm easy prey as a beautiful and eloquent verbal magician spins intellectual straw into gold before my credulous eyes.
While I don't disagree with your comment, I do question the appropriateness of such lines of thought. Would a less beautiful face delivering the same content be any less valuable? Would a similarly minded woman 30y her elder delivering the content be less valuable? How about a man? Would you have made a similar remark about a handsome man delivering the content?
@@rileylynn8962 , mansoor is not limiting his evaluations to the content of her speech alone. You reframed it that way in order to cut out the value that beauty adds to the overall experience of watching the video.
@@rileylynn8962 This is the internet. Thirsty comments are appropriate. Here is a video where she is interviewed by another hot chick: th-cam.com/video/B2SSJmE0TeM/w-d-xo.html - I still haven't understood much of what they're talking about, but I like it.
Funny that tue example she gave, about non-cloning, is a statement that was conceived without the help of constructor theory, but within 'conventional' physical thinking. To me this theory is just a meta-theory about physical methodology, rather than a theory in its own right.
In the "prevailing conception", it's easy to think about hypothetical universes, since a universe is just some dynamical laws plus initial conditions. Constructor theory instead seems to conceive of a universe as just a list of "tasks", some of which are labeled as "possible", and some of which are labeled as "impossible". Moreover, if I understand the theory correctly, there's a limited set of "fundamental tasks" which combine via the axioms of constructor theory to give us facts about the possibility or impossibility of more complex, specific tasks. But the "fundamental" tasks include, I think, things like evolution of life / creation of knowledge (one of the two - in Deutsch's view they're somewhat equivalent), as well as thermodynamic tasks. Point being, these are very hard to imagine being different, even in universes with very different dynamical laws. Surely there are no conceivable universes where epistemology works differently? It seems to me that constructor theory can easily describe universes which turn out to be physically impossible --- if physical possibility amounts to there being some dynamics and initial conditions that would agree with the constructor-theoretic possibilities.
Constructor theory is really all that amazing or complex, it's essentially giving more credence to information in theoretic fashion within fundamental physics. i.e. It's grants more philosophical weight to information and thus they have devised a theoretical way of being able to quantize and compute this relevance, so in some sense it will show different levels of information and their importance to a system (or at least be able to help one compute this importance across various systems as this theory does not throw away how physics is done, it's still all the same, it's really just adding another tool to the toolkit of physicist) I'm sure there well eventually show results that will be important to various disciplines may it be physics, computer science, chemistry, biology, etc... also it's basically allowing them to apply in mathematical terms/theories an application of a type of logic (it's allowing counterfactual statements to be applied in physics in ways that it was not before i.e. What I mention above about how information has now gained a certain level of weight philosophically that is to say it's now trying to be thought more as a fundamental aspect with regards to its importance in the hierarchy of fundamental physics. What you said in your comment was pretty good, seems like you have a decent intuition already given your exposure, if you want to have a better more accurate understanding just look up their seminal papers on this "new theory" where they outline exactly what they are talking about where they show the maths and all. Just google constructor theory and you will find their website which also has links to their seminal papers on this hosted on the avrix website so you can view them for free. Though I'd like to also warn that from what I've seen of her and detusche work in regard to having a good philosophical understanding of fundamental physics is quite questionable as they have clearly attached themselves to one camp of though which is never a great idea especially the questionable ones that they have clearly bet on. A good physicist remains open to all even if they have a favorable interpretation. Philosophically speaking many physicist are very weak even with respect to their own subject and if your looking for physicist who go into how to properly interpret physics and have an interpretation to fundamental physics there are many better equipped physicist/philosophers out there to listen to, also to add none of that has any real relevance necessarily on their constructor theory just wanted that noted as well. Cheers
@@metatron5199 I did read some of the foundational papers back in 2016 or so. My feeling is that Deutsch is above average in philosophical thinking, but I totally agree that he is attached to one camp much more than he thinks he is. (Can't speak as to Marletto, I think I only read Deutsch.) Deutsch for example is right to notice that Bayesian statistics isn't compatible with strict Popperian philosophy of science, but Deutsch takes this to imply Bayesianism is unscientific, rather than realizing the Bayesian model is a step or two closer to reality. As for constructor theory vs. traditional physics, I *do* think constructor theory throws something out. Deutsch specifically wants to allow laws that look more like "universal computation is possible" and less like, say, Maxwell's equations. He doesn't *rule out* the latter, but allowing these sorts of laws to coexist is rather radical, in that it constrains what will happen at a different descriptive level. What's being discarded is the idea that low-level, "state + dynamics" descriptions have priority, or perhaps some sort of universality; constructor theory claims there are real laws which are missed in such an approach. So my feeling is that constructor theory has a bit different of an ambition than just uncovering mathematical / logical laws governing information in physics and biology. It seeks to answer questions about what direction reductionism should even go, and even study the distant past in a much different way. Well, maybe you're right overall, my argument wasn't that convincing. Anyway, thanks for the comment! Good discussions in youtube comments are quite welcome. :)
Daniel Demski well put! So you clearly do have an understanding of what they are proposing lol, bc from your original comment you came off as being unsure, but it seems like your in the ball park and understand what game they are trying to play w/ constructor theory. My apologies if I came off sounding pedagogical at all, since it's hard to judge just who one is speaking to in the YT comments section lol. And just to note I'm well aware of my fallibility, in that of course I could have totally read their papers incorrectly.... but I'd like to think that at least in a very coarse grain way I understood what the aim of the project is (even if I personally don't have any interest at the moment in pursuing to learn more deeply about the theory i.e. How to properly use it etc... and yes I was being harsh on Deutsch, I know he is a great physicist and academician... I just like to hold them to the fire sometimes (depending on whom I'm speaking w/, since most ppl don't read philosophy yet alone the philosophy of physics, so I raise the level of the bar maybe a little to high sometimes lol) but given your well measured response I can infer your at least familiar w/ the subject matter (and by all means may know more than myself...) great comment, and yes it was pleasure to respond back to you, something which is quite rare to find here in the TH-cam comments section! Cheers!!!
@@metatron5199 Yep, I don't remember my exact motivations (probably something the interviewer said in the video?) but probably I was hedging like that because I was making ontological statements about "possible universes", whereas for example Deutsch keeps his assertions to "possible principles" and Marletto's ontological commitments are toward counterfactuals. So although Deutsch does talk about lists of possible and impossible tasks, it's at least a little more speculative of me to consider such a list a possible universe. It's possible that a thoroughly constructor-theoretic view would lend itself to a different concept of "possible universe", or that speculating about possible universes is not really in keeping with the spirit of constructor theory at all.
@@metatron5199 Just a little update, I'm reading Marletto's book now, and she definitely talks in terms of "possible universes" where various constructor-theoretic principles are true or false. I can't say exactly what a possible universe *is* in constructor theoretic terms; I'm left still picturing some initial conditions and dynamics, since my intuition is still that a universe is more than just its set of possible transformations. But maybe I should picture some things put into the principles which, to me, feel more like happenstance (or almost like initial conditions), such as "there are some humans" etc.
I find the idea of a whole new way of thinking about the world very engaging - constructor theory seems to address many issues that bug me, like the poverty of reductionism. Great interview technique, Joe.
Well, you can run the Fred simulation up to the point of choice retrospectively, and watch what he chooses 1000 times. If there's true unpredictability the results will vary between biscuits and croissant. If the result is the same every time, it's an illusion of choice really, no matter how we think of the process behind the choice...
And I guess it applies to the scientific way, and our experiments yielding the same result every time to verify a theory. It's a solid nail in the coffin of free will and point to determinism. But then quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle come into play, but it's so anthropomorphic and dependent on the thing/tool/person performing the experiment that one could just accept defeat and say that yes, the Universe is absolutely deterministic it's just that humans are imperfect instruments and can't measure it precisely. There's the illusion of free will again.
The reality of choice is compatible with both determinism and predictability. People get spooked by predictability because if an *agent* could predict you, then sure, it could manipulate you, and hence you'd have no free will. But the laws of physics are not an agent, and so predictability-in-principle is no threat to free will.
I see, constructor theory is a bit like brexit (which Deutsch seems to have supported with the same undoubting certainty in which he tolerates no deviance from multiverse theory, which like brexit we all have to accept -see another video he made): the benefits are lying in the future (and perhaps doomed to always remain there?), as she says that the physical laws remains to be ... constructed. Is that why it is callerd constructor theory: the eternal construction of the real theory?
The good thing about string theory is that it never started with such hype, it clearly showed a plausible way to explain many things, not everything though.
To accuratly predict future we need as much bits as Universe has, so 1 bit per 1 quant of Universe, placed in place where comps quants will not interact with Universe (to not increase difficulsy of prediction) . This place is "nowhere" , it is there actually) There is no answer on free will theme, every second millions of possiblities resolved, on the other hand, as long as system describes events in terms of itself (arguments, applied to function comes from previous states of function itself, and prev. states also camed from prev. state of system etc.). Sorce of every unpredictability - events from outside system itself (input as you say), but Universe by defenition have no input, because there is nothing outside of Universe to give unpredictability, so there is millions of choices but all that choices were predicted. (PS. Your eyes can bend events, don't lose it)
Right now this theory seems much like a framework of wishful thinking. As it is, Calling it a theory is very misleading. The interviewer nailed down in the first question.
The fact that for centuries we have been looking for TOE and not yet scratched its surface, then this re lensing of the ground work I believe will nudge us closer to this and beyond. I find that most respondents are like, this is my truck how dare you not call it a truck by suggesting a truck is not a state of a permanent predictable reality of a truck but an expression of its current information. Event horizons, conciseness including thinking or particle /wave slit experiments. Suggest this has merit to inquire. To just scoff at this is to be against th e pursuit of knowledge even if it sounds obscure. History has scoffed at many other such people who laid our current foundations before.
No, he clearly is following her train of thought. It's just that he needs for her to provide him with the perspective that she has developed since it introduces a new set of rules into the standard mix he is familiar with.
If you want, you can read David Deutsch's books, "The Fabric of Reality" and "The Beginning of Infinity", to get a better idea. It might seem like he's writing about various different fields, but really he is in fact thinking about Constructor Theory the whole time. For instance, whenever he describes a (seemingly) universal law or principle, he is careful to phrase it in terms of what transformations are possible.
These ideas sound very interesting and inspairing, but I'm afraid that constructor theory will fail, because seeting very high goals, wouldn't reach concreate results, that can be rigorously tested. And without such results, it will just die out.
Isn't constructor theory a complete gamble? What if we never suss out quantum computation? Also, philosophically, tapping into the deeper aspects of intelligence is never a guarantee of finding anything fundamental about information, but perhaps that's the point? Still, is there any way to make constructor theory palatable to the layman? Even relativity can be understood by a layman. Taglines! Soundbites! That's what we need!
It depends what you mean by "scientific". The theory involves well defined mathematical objects, and it is claimed that quantum mechanics can be fitted into that paradigm; how and if constructor theory will be useful to actual predictive physics, that's a different story.
Also, it bears remembering that Einstein's most famous contributions were based on "thought experiments"...notions some scientific method hardliners might well call "philosophy".
The idea of a front-loaded universe assumes, in its very name, a physics based on initial conditions + dynamical laws. Constructor theory is an alternative paradigm and claims this is the wrong way of formulating physical truths. However, I'm not actually familiar with this front-loaded hypothesis; would you care to explain the similarity?
Daniel Demski a front loaded universe is essentially like it sounds, it's basically putting in all the information/laws etc... that will allow the universe to evolve in a given fashion so it's basically very similar in stripe to an intelligently designed universe etc...
Ok, she's beautiful, but the physicss she talks about - abstract babling about wrapping currently known physics under the title of "constructor". You want to explain how brain and consciousness work? Why choose so difficult topic, let's start with much more simplified environment. For example the double slit experiment. Let's explain that in a way of "constructor theory". Obviously, you can't, because the underlying physics is unkonwn (accepted, but in conflics with other accepted theories, so probably wrong in details).
Finally a comment at least seeing where this inquiry may be able to scratch a surface of. Why not try. It has sound possibilities. It is theoretical like every place we started.
"how do we get back to things at time T because prediction of things with initial conditions was useful?"..... ...."that's part of future research" lololol then don't make a video yet lol
Solved.Sequence ⭐️+1 bit - to use natural atoms around us to create - anything the rules allow! 1bit of dense information - structural time. Using time mechanics & mathematics! ♾4D depth not horizontal Each information structure is a independent technology. Elemental Algorithm A sequence of mathematical interactions recreated via Fibonacci, prime mn ++ sets = preload last bit data! Braided create a unique sequence through infinity information to collect pre entanglement information. Universe / persons - choices = Updates 1bit - @ each infinite moment! Same 1 bit holds compressed time information - all previous to current information no need for previous loads! All can be extrapolated from 1bit. Each moment is 1bit updating No space - depth in time! The sequence expands & retracts! P N P for children of Ai ? Increasing information thus entropy! Decay! Raw atomic information turned into - Organic built - technologies? You just need the code! The or a specific- Sequence. Zero else.. Organic computer🤓🖖♾ Geometric information structures Geometric moments Geometric timeline Geometric Time-lines Geometric universes! INTERCHANGEABLE Paths in information! TO? 🌬⭐️ mergeability ..not a word is now for a moment. Priceless information- screenshot have it checked. Come curse me if wrong! 😊😌🖖 welcome to DMs are open.
Cummon... she's really good at ums, its the words in between that challenge her. Clever gabble is enough for TH-cam, and she is master. I could not listen either.
You haven't really paid any attention, then. Braces MAKE teeth yellow because it is nearly impossible to brush them effectively. I remember someone having braces when I was in middle school who had yellow teeth, and the as soon as they came off, their teeth were whiter than I had ever seen before.
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt In that case, you're just a raging asshole. I was trying to give you a plausible out for why you said something so crass and hateful, but you have made it clear to everyone that you simply have a black soul.
@@KravMagoo This is TH-cam dypshyt. If you're going to whine and thumbsuck about comments you don't like, you've got a few billion more to address. Or you could just F off and not be a bedwetting panzy
When she started touching her neck @50:00, I lost complete track of what she was saying and had to go back about half a minute to pick up the line of thought. Props to this guy for hanging in there...I know (especially if I was holding eye contact w/ her) that I would constantly find myself suddenly realizing that I hadn't heard anything she said for the last 5-15 seconds. Working around this woman would be very distracting. Cool, but distracting. Particularly distracting would be when she smiles as she is describing elements of constructor theory (because she finds the theory fascinating!), but I would foolishly think "She's smiling at me!" (no doubt because she finds ME fascinating!). Then I would eventually snap out of it and say, "I'm sorry, could you repeat that again." Hopefully, she would find that cute.
I have no idea of what she is saying but she is a stunning brilliant woman. He appears like a poster child for the homeless. Man soap and toothpaste are cheap.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:12 🌌 Constructor Theory Overview
- Constructor theory is a new mode of explaining physics and physical reality.
- Prevailing physics relies on predictions given laws of motion and initial conditions.
- Constructor theory proposes a shift, expressing everything in terms of possible and impossible tasks.
02:52 🔄 Challenges in Prevailing Conception
- Prevailing physics has been successful but struggles with certain problems.
- Constructor theory addresses issues like information, life, and phenomena the current conception can't handle.
- It introduces a different mode of explanation based on possible and impossible tasks.
06:20 🔍 Recovering Dynamical Laws
- Recovering dynamical laws is part of future research in constructor theory.
- The theory provides statements about possible and impossible tasks as its foundation.
- Constructor theory aims to offer predictions, both existing ones and new ones not derived from current laws.
09:42 🏗️ Understanding Constructors
- Constructor theory is not about constructors; it's about possible and impossible tasks.
- A constructor represents the limit of a sequence of objects capable of performing a task.
- The concept of constructors is crucial in understanding what is possible in physical transformations.
14:27 🔄 Implications for Reductionism
- Reductionism within the prevailing conception needs reevaluation with constructor theory.
- Entities considered emergent in the current view become fundamental in constructor theory.
- Exact laws about traditionally emergent entities can be formulated in constructor theory.
19:40 🌐 Motivations for Constructor Theory
- Constructor theory addresses the need for a foundational basis for physics.
- It incorporates the concept of information and accommodates possibilities and causation.
- It explains the capacity of constructors like biological cells and aims to promote optimism about knowledge and technology.
23:30 🧠 Foundations in Physics
- Foundations in physics involve primitive elements, like initial conditions or principles in constructor theory.
- Constructor theory's foundations are more general and may underlie future theories.
- The need for new foundations arises from phenomena not well accommodated or ignored in the prevailing conception.
26:18 🧠 Constructor Theory and Principles
- Principles in Constructor Theory are not fundamentally different; they follow a similar logic to other scientific principles.
- Testing laws that conform to principles is the standard approach, maintaining consistency in the logic of testing.
27:23 🔄 Interoperability Principle
- Introduces the interoperability principle for information in Constructor Theory.
- Information media, like traffic lights and transistors, share the property of performing certain transformations and tasks.
- The interoperability principle asserts that when two systems qualify as information media, their composite system remains an information medium, allowing tasks like copying information.
32:39 🔄 Rethinking Second Law of Thermodynamics
- Challenges the second law of thermodynamics when applied to nano-scale engines.
- Constructor Theory provides an exact formulation of the second law, potentially leading to new predictions for nano-scale systems.
- Explores the potential implications for understanding and predicting behavior in small-scale engines.
36:19 🔄 Information as Fundamental
- Discusses the fundamental nature of information and challenges the idea that it only emerges at a certain level.
- Information, as described in Constructor Theory, is theory-independent and applies universally.
- Emphasizes the additional regularity present in Constructor Theory, allowing for a broader understanding of information.
38:24 🖥️ Quantum Computing and Constructor Theory
- Quantum computing is introduced as a branch of fundamental physics, exploring the use of quantum systems for computation.
- Constructor Theory extends beyond quantum computing, defining a universal constructor capable of all physically possible transformations.
- Highlights the foundational aspects of quantum computing and its implications for understanding the laws of physics.
44:11 🔗 Connecting Constructor Theory to Human Concepts
- Addresses the human implications of Constructor Theory, as discussed by David Deutsch.
- Constructor Theory provides room for concepts like possibility, free will, and causality in fundamental physics.
- The idea of knowledge in Constructor Theory is introduced, connecting it to the creation of valuable information and its role in unpredictable knowledge creation.
53:09 🧠 Constructor Theory and Free Will
- The deterministic nature of the universe and the challenge in accommodating free will.
- Constructor theory's connection to free will through the unpredictability of knowledge creation.
- Speculative idea: Brain configurations leading to decisions may only be predictable through simulating the universe.
56:09 🔄 Knowledge Creation Unpredictability
- The clash between the predictability of brain configurations and the unpredictability of creative knowledge.
- The role of simulation in potentially predicting knowledge outcomes.
- Constructor theory's potential to accommodate the inherent unpredictability of knowledge creation.
57:41 🤔 Constructor Theory's Approach to Unpredictability
- The challenge of accommodating unpredictability in the traditional computational view.
- Constructor theory's potential to handle unpredictability in knowledge creation.
- The speculative nature of these ideas within the framework of constructor theory.
58:11 🔄 Determinism vs. Free Will
- Discussing the difference between predictability and the fixed nature of decisions.
- Exploring the compatibility of Fred's choices and the dynamical evolution of his brain.
- The potential role of new tools in physics to incorporate free will into the worldview.
01:02:05 🌐 Compatibilism and Approximate Concepts
- Comparing the views on free will between a physicist's perspective and a compatibilist stance.
- Exploring the approximate nature of free will relative to physics.
- The proposition that free will is about our capacity as agents, not moment-by-moment fixation by physics.
01:03:02 🚀 Optimism in Constructor Theory
- David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto's optimism derived from constructor theory.
- The concept of "momentous bekata me" and its connection to the achievability of tasks.
- The optimism in approaching challenges either by discovering new laws of physics or by finding ways to implement tasks.
Made with HARPA AI
Having watched this only 1.1 times I am looking forward to leaning much more about "Constuctor" theory. Just the general approach to knowledge and learning, excites my curiosity. Thank you all...
Many thanks for this fascinating interview. Very much looking forward to seeing how this work pans out
This was a really good one. Old, but gold. Thank you
this was very interesting - looking forward what comes out of constructor theory
49.22 For example, I say, instead of DNA, say Fractals of small non-biologicals like water that makes snow that is self replicating under certain initial conditions.
If we live in a multiverse, where all possible paths are taken through space~time (an intertwined fabric where each thread is a unique timeline/awareness), then indeed the prediction of physics would be "all possible outcomes happen". Which isn't that useful once you acknowledge it the first few times. So, instead, looking more closely at what IS and ISN'T possible, and what we WANT to do, is far more valuable a science.
I really appreciate the choice of a Philip Pullman book from a physicist.
Fantastic Chiara! Thank you for the inspiration & for “doing something about it!!” 😉
Ron
Don't get hung-up on the word "constructor"; That's the key to understanding Constructor theory.
This is most certainly innovative. Though in fairness I am not sure whether it is a logical repeatable methodology or a repetitive means of deriving more and more precise information. In truth I probably don't have a clue. Chaira gives a nice presentation.
Great interview.
Thank you
Pleasure. Thanks for watching.
As a lay person trying to follow these sessions, I can't get beyond a metaphorical understanding. I expect that actually (not metaphorically) understanding Constructor Theory would require familiarity with mathematics at a level considerably beyond the my high-school algebra and trigonometry. Can anyone enlighten me about what mathematics I would need to know to grapple directly with this theory? I'm wondering whether, absent such familiarity, I'm easy prey as a beautiful and eloquent verbal magician spins intellectual straw into gold before my credulous eyes.
she’s so charismatic she makes me want to learn math just like rock stars made me want to learn music
Well put
So envious of her brain! Ghawdammit!
Thank you David Deutsch for Constructor Theory
She's a great combination of beauty and intelligence
Does constructor theory construct anything?
Everything becomes beautifully clear at 1:02:20.
Took her long enough..
Thank you for this helpful comment
lol
Lyra's Oxford, nice 😃
possible, not predictable!
All I can say...Thank you very much. We rarely get videos like this, beautiful in face and beautiful in mind!
While I don't disagree with your comment, I do question the appropriateness of such lines of thought. Would a less beautiful face delivering the same content be any less valuable? Would a similarly minded woman 30y her elder delivering the content be less valuable? How about a man? Would you have made a similar remark about a handsome man delivering the content?
@@rileylynn8962 , mansoor is not limiting his evaluations to the content of her speech alone. You reframed it that way in order to cut out the value that beauty adds to the overall experience of watching the video.
@@rileylynn8962 This is the internet. Thirsty comments are appropriate.
Here is a video where she is interviewed by another hot chick: th-cam.com/video/B2SSJmE0TeM/w-d-xo.html - I still haven't understood much of what they're talking about, but I like it.
@@rileylynn8962 hes just a thirsty boy.
awesome. great interview :)
sounds just like dependent origination
geez...she's beautiful.
Great stuff!
Eliminate the negative; accent the positive!
Funny that tue example she gave, about non-cloning, is a statement that was conceived without the help of constructor theory, but within 'conventional' physical thinking. To me this theory is just a meta-theory about physical methodology, rather than a theory in its own right.
Constructor theory runs into the problem of irreducible computational complexity. You can't short-circuit Turing-complete computation.
In the "prevailing conception", it's easy to think about hypothetical universes, since a universe is just some dynamical laws plus initial conditions. Constructor theory instead seems to conceive of a universe as just a list of "tasks", some of which are labeled as "possible", and some of which are labeled as "impossible". Moreover, if I understand the theory correctly, there's a limited set of "fundamental tasks" which combine via the axioms of constructor theory to give us facts about the possibility or impossibility of more complex, specific tasks. But the "fundamental" tasks include, I think, things like evolution of life / creation of knowledge (one of the two - in Deutsch's view they're somewhat equivalent), as well as thermodynamic tasks. Point being, these are very hard to imagine being different, even in universes with very different dynamical laws. Surely there are no conceivable universes where epistemology works differently? It seems to me that constructor theory can easily describe universes which turn out to be physically impossible --- if physical possibility amounts to there being some dynamics and initial conditions that would agree with the constructor-theoretic possibilities.
Constructor theory is really all that amazing or complex, it's essentially giving more credence to information in theoretic fashion within fundamental physics. i.e. It's grants more philosophical weight to information and thus they have devised a theoretical way of being able to quantize and compute this relevance, so in some sense it will show different levels of information and their importance to a system (or at least be able to help one compute this importance across various systems as this theory does not throw away how physics is done, it's still all the same, it's really just adding another tool to the toolkit of physicist) I'm sure there well eventually show results that will be important to various disciplines may it be physics, computer science, chemistry, biology, etc... also it's basically allowing them to apply in mathematical terms/theories an application of a type of logic (it's allowing counterfactual statements to be applied in physics in ways that it was not before i.e. What I mention above about how information has now gained a certain level of weight philosophically that is to say it's now trying to be thought more as a fundamental aspect with regards to its importance in the hierarchy of fundamental physics. What you said in your comment was pretty good, seems like you have a decent intuition already given your exposure, if you want to have a better more accurate understanding just look up their seminal papers on this "new theory" where they outline exactly what they are talking about where they show the maths and all. Just google constructor theory and you will find their website which also has links to their seminal papers on this hosted on the avrix website so you can view them for free. Though I'd like to also warn that from what I've seen of her and detusche work in regard to having a good philosophical understanding of fundamental physics is quite questionable as they have clearly attached themselves to one camp of though which is never a great idea especially the questionable ones that they have clearly bet on. A good physicist remains open to all even if they have a favorable interpretation. Philosophically speaking many physicist are very weak even with respect to their own subject and if your looking for physicist who go into how to properly interpret physics and have an interpretation to fundamental physics there are many better equipped physicist/philosophers out there to listen to, also to add none of that has any real relevance necessarily on their constructor theory just wanted that noted as well. Cheers
@@metatron5199 I did read some of the foundational papers back in 2016 or so. My feeling is that Deutsch is above average in philosophical thinking, but I totally agree that he is attached to one camp much more than he thinks he is. (Can't speak as to Marletto, I think I only read Deutsch.) Deutsch for example is right to notice that Bayesian statistics isn't compatible with strict Popperian philosophy of science, but Deutsch takes this to imply Bayesianism is unscientific, rather than realizing the Bayesian model is a step or two closer to reality.
As for constructor theory vs. traditional physics, I *do* think constructor theory throws something out. Deutsch specifically wants to allow laws that look more like "universal computation is possible" and less like, say, Maxwell's equations. He doesn't *rule out* the latter, but allowing these sorts of laws to coexist is rather radical, in that it constrains what will happen at a different descriptive level. What's being discarded is the idea that low-level, "state + dynamics" descriptions have priority, or perhaps some sort of universality; constructor theory claims there are real laws which are missed in such an approach. So my feeling is that constructor theory has a bit different of an ambition than just uncovering mathematical / logical laws governing information in physics and biology. It seeks to answer questions about what direction reductionism should even go, and even study the distant past in a much different way.
Well, maybe you're right overall, my argument wasn't that convincing. Anyway, thanks for the comment! Good discussions in youtube comments are quite welcome. :)
Daniel Demski well put! So you clearly do have an understanding of what they are proposing lol, bc from your original comment you came off as being unsure, but it seems like your in the ball park and understand what game they are trying to play w/ constructor theory. My apologies if I came off sounding pedagogical at all, since it's hard to judge just who one is speaking to in the YT comments section lol. And just to note I'm well aware of my fallibility, in that of course I could have totally read their papers incorrectly.... but I'd like to think that at least in a very coarse grain way I understood what the aim of the project is (even if I personally don't have any interest at the moment in pursuing to learn more deeply about the theory i.e. How to properly use it etc... and yes I was being harsh on Deutsch, I know he is a great physicist and academician... I just like to hold them to the fire sometimes (depending on whom I'm speaking w/, since most ppl don't read philosophy yet alone the philosophy of physics, so I raise the level of the bar maybe a little to high sometimes lol) but given your well measured response I can infer your at least familiar w/ the subject matter (and by all means may know more than myself...) great comment, and yes it was pleasure to respond back to you, something which is quite rare to find here in the TH-cam comments section! Cheers!!!
@@metatron5199 Yep, I don't remember my exact motivations (probably something the interviewer said in the video?) but probably I was hedging like that because I was making ontological statements about "possible universes", whereas for example Deutsch keeps his assertions to "possible principles" and Marletto's ontological commitments are toward counterfactuals. So although Deutsch does talk about lists of possible and impossible tasks, it's at least a little more speculative of me to consider such a list a possible universe. It's possible that a thoroughly constructor-theoretic view would lend itself to a different concept of "possible universe", or that speculating about possible universes is not really in keeping with the spirit of constructor theory at all.
@@metatron5199 Just a little update, I'm reading Marletto's book now, and she definitely talks in terms of "possible universes" where various constructor-theoretic principles are true or false. I can't say exactly what a possible universe *is* in constructor theoretic terms; I'm left still picturing some initial conditions and dynamics, since my intuition is still that a universe is more than just its set of possible transformations. But maybe I should picture some things put into the principles which, to me, feel more like happenstance (or almost like initial conditions), such as "there are some humans" etc.
I find the idea of a whole new way of thinking about the world very engaging - constructor theory seems to address many issues that bug me, like the poverty of reductionism. Great interview technique, Joe.
Well, you can run the Fred simulation up to the point of choice retrospectively, and watch what he chooses 1000 times. If there's true unpredictability the results will vary between biscuits and croissant. If the result is the same every time, it's an illusion of choice really, no matter how we think of the process behind the choice...
And I guess it applies to the scientific way, and our experiments yielding the same result every time to verify a theory. It's a solid nail in the coffin of free will and point to determinism. But then quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle come into play, but it's so anthropomorphic and dependent on the thing/tool/person performing the experiment that one could just accept defeat and say that yes, the Universe is absolutely deterministic it's just that humans are imperfect instruments and can't measure it precisely. There's the illusion of free will again.
Also, Chiara is super sexy, she rolls charisma +10 and it has to do with the intelligence modifiers as well :)
The reality of choice is compatible with both determinism and predictability. People get spooked by predictability because if an *agent* could predict you, then sure, it could manipulate you, and hence you'd have no free will. But the laws of physics are not an agent, and so predictability-in-principle is no threat to free will.
I see, constructor theory is a bit like brexit (which Deutsch seems to have supported with the same undoubting certainty in which he tolerates no deviance from multiverse theory, which like brexit we all have to accept -see another video he made): the benefits are lying in the future (and perhaps doomed to always remain there?), as she says that the physical laws remains to be ... constructed. Is that why it is callerd constructor theory: the eternal construction of the real theory?
Another "string theory" in the making. Just HYPE. 😁😁😂😂
The good thing about string theory is that it never started with such hype, it clearly showed a plausible way to explain many things, not everything though.
To accuratly predict future we need as much bits as Universe has, so 1 bit per 1 quant of Universe, placed in place where comps quants will not interact with Universe (to not increase difficulsy of prediction) . This place is "nowhere" , it is there actually)
There is no answer on free will theme, every second millions of possiblities resolved, on the other hand, as long as system describes events in terms of itself (arguments, applied to function comes from previous states of function itself, and prev. states also camed from prev. state of system etc.). Sorce of every unpredictability - events from outside system itself (input as you say), but Universe by defenition have no input, because there is nothing outside of Universe to give unpredictability, so there is millions of choices but all that choices were predicted. (PS. Your eyes can bend events, don't lose it)
Right now this theory seems much like a framework of wishful thinking. As it is, Calling it a theory is very misleading. The interviewer nailed down in the first question.
Any overlap with Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory?
If you read The Fabric of Reality, The Beginning of Infinity and Neural Darwinism I think you should have a pretty clear picture of the whole thing :)
The fact that for centuries we have been looking for TOE and not yet scratched its surface, then this re lensing of the ground work I believe will nudge us closer to this and beyond. I find that most respondents are like, this is my truck how dare you not call it a truck by suggesting a truck is not a state of a permanent predictable reality of a truck but an expression of its current information. Event horizons, conciseness including thinking or particle /wave slit experiments. Suggest this has merit to inquire. To just scoff at this is to be against th e pursuit of knowledge even if it sounds obscure. History has scoffed at many other such people who laid our current foundations before.
Way beyond my knowledge and intellect, possibly above the interviewers as well.
No, he clearly is following her train of thought. It's just that he needs for her to provide him with the perspective that she has developed since it introduces a new set of rules into the standard mix he is familiar with.
If you want, you can read David Deutsch's books, "The Fabric of Reality" and "The Beginning of Infinity", to get a better idea. It might seem like he's writing about various different fields, but really he is in fact thinking about Constructor Theory the whole time. For instance, whenever he describes a (seemingly) universal law or principle, he is careful to phrase it in terms of what transformations are possible.
These ideas sound very interesting and inspairing, but I'm afraid that constructor theory will fail, because seeting very high goals, wouldn't reach concreate results, that can be rigorously tested. And without such results, it will just die out.
The Reductionist Approach could be a Vector in a Constructivist Method.
Isn't constructor theory a complete gamble? What if we never suss out quantum computation?
Also, philosophically, tapping into the deeper aspects of intelligence is never a guarantee of finding anything fundamental about information, but perhaps that's the point?
Still, is there any way to make constructor theory palatable to the layman? Even relativity can be understood by a layman.
Taglines! Soundbites! That's what we need!
Thanks Bro because of your videos I completed my research , I HACKED GOD MODEL and I have ANTI LIFE EQUATION
Interesting, though much of it goes way over my head. But it seems to be more of a philosophical theory than a scientific one.
It depends what you mean by "scientific". The theory involves well defined mathematical objects, and it is claimed that quantum mechanics can be fitted into that paradigm; how and if constructor theory will be useful to actual predictive physics, that's a different story.
Also, it bears remembering that Einstein's most famous contributions were based on "thought experiments"...notions some scientific method hardliners might well call "philosophy".
The *constructor theory,* Could it be a plagiarized idea? Nothing new here, it is very similar to *”The Hypothesis of Front-loaded Universe”.*
The idea of a front-loaded universe assumes, in its very name, a physics based on initial conditions + dynamical laws. Constructor theory is an alternative paradigm and claims this is the wrong way of formulating physical truths. However, I'm not actually familiar with this front-loaded hypothesis; would you care to explain the similarity?
Daniel Demski a front loaded universe is essentially like it sounds, it's basically putting in all the information/laws etc... that will allow the universe to evolve in a given fashion so it's basically very similar in stripe to an intelligently designed universe etc...
the males in this comments section who can't not talk about this person's looks/womanhood whatever: TOTAL LAMES i wish we could send you back
I totally agree!
But she really is gorgeous, isn't she? :)
The most interesting women I have met.
She's just one
met?
Some set of incoherent words ... listened for 20 minutes and did not understand a single sentence...
Ok, she's beautiful, but the physicss she talks about - abstract babling about wrapping currently known physics under the title of "constructor".
You want to explain how brain and consciousness work? Why choose so difficult topic, let's start with much more simplified environment.
For example the double slit experiment. Let's explain that in a way of "constructor theory".
Obviously, you can't, because the underlying physics is unkonwn (accepted, but in conflics with other accepted theories, so probably wrong in details).
Finally a comment at least seeing where this inquiry may be able to scratch a surface of. Why not try. It has sound possibilities. It is theoretical like every place we started.
yep, pin in the point of the center of the target.
"how do we get back to things at time T because prediction of things with initial conditions was useful?"..... ...."that's part of future research" lololol then don't make a video yet lol
I think this is baloney . Where's the math ?
math arises from logic.
They've already begun construct an algebra specifically for constructor theory
@@HitomiAyumu citation and papers pleasr.
Solved.Sequence ⭐️+1 bit - to use natural atoms around us to create - anything the rules allow!
1bit of dense information - structural time.
Using time mechanics & mathematics! ♾4D depth not horizontal
Each information structure is a independent technology.
Elemental Algorithm
A sequence of mathematical interactions recreated via Fibonacci, prime mn ++ sets = preload last bit data!
Braided create a unique sequence through infinity information to collect pre entanglement information.
Universe / persons - choices = Updates 1bit - @ each infinite moment!
Same 1 bit holds compressed time information - all previous to current information no need for previous loads!
All can be extrapolated from 1bit.
Each moment is 1bit updating
No space - depth in time!
The sequence expands & retracts!
P N P for children of Ai ?
Increasing information thus entropy!
Decay!
Raw atomic information turned into - Organic built - technologies? You just need the code! The or a specific- Sequence. Zero else..
Organic computer🤓🖖♾
Geometric information structures
Geometric moments
Geometric timeline
Geometric Time-lines
Geometric universes!
INTERCHANGEABLE Paths in information! TO? 🌬⭐️ mergeability ..not a word is now for a moment.
Priceless information- screenshot have it checked. Come curse me if wrong! 😊😌🖖 welcome to DMs are open.
Take a drink every time she says em... Deutsch is much easier to understand all around
Yea....i feel she, despite her intelligence, isnt an effect communicator. In English at least.
As brilliant as Im sure she is, she struggles to organize her responses and creating a logic in her communication.
Honestly, I am a native english speaker and her english is 100x better than my latin or whatever.
Lots of sexual tension in this one…getting a bit awkward
Good brain, amazing eyes
Don't do this.
Um, um, um, um and um!
Cummon... she's really good at ums, its the words in between that challenge her. Clever gabble is enough for TH-cam, and she is master. I could not listen either.
@@thecatsman English is likely not her primary language, ay whole 😀
Let’s see you learn a foreign language and speak it with no hiccups
Never seen braces on yellow teeth before
You haven't really paid any attention, then. Braces MAKE teeth yellow because it is nearly impossible to brush them effectively. I remember someone having braces when I was in middle school who had yellow teeth, and the as soon as they came off, their teeth were whiter than I had ever seen before.
@@KravMagoo
🤣 I've had braces myself, as well as others I know. You have no idea what you're talking about.
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt In that case, you're just a raging asshole. I was trying to give you a plausible out for why you said something so crass and hateful, but you have made it clear to everyone that you simply have a black soul.
@@KravMagoo
This is TH-cam dypshyt. If you're going to whine and thumbsuck about comments you don't like, you've got a few billion more to address.
Or you could just F off and not be a bedwetting panzy
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt And thus my point is firmly established for the world to see.
When she started touching her neck @50:00, I lost complete track of what she was saying and had to go back about half a minute to pick up the line of thought. Props to this guy for hanging in there...I know (especially if I was holding eye contact w/ her) that I would constantly find myself suddenly realizing that I hadn't heard anything she said for the last 5-15 seconds. Working around this woman would be very distracting. Cool, but distracting. Particularly distracting would be when she smiles as she is describing elements of constructor theory (because she finds the theory fascinating!), but I would foolishly think "She's smiling at me!" (no doubt because she finds ME fascinating!). Then I would eventually snap out of it and say, "I'm sorry, could you repeat that again." Hopefully, she would find that cute.
Certain things are better left unsaid...
hahaha
A nice lady but absolutely zero as a physicist... Probably her power is just in the unification of the named categories.
Atom comment, atom contained, basic really.
hydrogen, You ARE really the most basic element in nature
I have no idea of what she is saying but she is a stunning brilliant woman. He appears like a poster child for the homeless. Man soap and toothpaste are cheap.
He is a great interviewer
@@pragmafunds good but dirty
He fancies her..