Excerpt from: CONSTRUCTOR THEORY Link to Source: www.edge.org/video/constructo... Creator: Edge Foundation, Inc A special thanks to David Deutsch for his exceptional work.
The philosophy paper he refers to was published in 2013. And he also starts by mentioning his book that was recently finished. So I would guess between 2011-2013.
One interesting philosophical feature of constructor theory seems to be that it plays very well with strongly anti-reductionistic stances in debates about laws of nature. On the Ramsey-(David) Lewis account of natural laws, laws are the most general (strong & simple, given some vocabulary of so-called natural properties) statements of an exhaustive description of the universe. This is the reductionistic account, since it permits that laws change from a possible world to a possible world. This means, in other words, that there is no sharp distinction between initial state of a system and the differential equation describing it (in the pre-constructor theory vocabulary). This property, called confusingly Humean Supervenience (while barely having anything to do with Hume), of a physical theory is known to not be satisfied by any interpretation quantum mechanics due to its inseparability (this property is sometimes confusingly called "locality" but Bell's theorem doesn't say anything about locality proper of quantum mechanics!), as demonstrated famously by e.g. Bell's theorem (unless one is willing to give up the idea of a "physical system" and say that there are only states of individual particles and of the world as a whole ...which is completly unscientifc). But constructor theory from the very ground isolates the issue of initial & final states and laws constraining them (that is: possible transformations) very clearly, which is unsurprising, if the Ramsey-Lewis account fails specifically in quantum contexts, where the theory was born afterall. It also makes sense for a Popperian (critical rationalist) who emphasizes the non-cumulative nature of scientific evidence to make this move, of course, although since QM was introduced, and especially EPR, Bell etc. thought deeply about entanglement, it is also (immediately) warranted by physics. And, of course, with the multiple worlds interpretation of QM modality is introduced at the ground level which destroys the purpose of any reductive account, since the theory itself already talks about possible worlds.
It is the interpretation and understanding of a test, results, and then the anomalies that can not keep being tossed out rather than addressed. In archeology, science, most fields that have careers resting on past theories now that testing proves, DHA emits and takes in protons, converts them to information, and expresses our thoughts so well others can feel our stare from a distance and look at us due to the DHA, foundation block of DNA, RNA, and our photo-optic cabling systems in humans just now being proven to exist. If one is not autodidactic and consuming multidisciplinary new science daily, the ego makes some think they have all the answers before the anomalies are explained. No anomalies can exist for a perfect answer to the material world... reality as Wii, the eyes, that see, the "I"s that claim to see more.
To me Constructor Theory works in this analogy if I've understood what's been said. The answer to finding the answer is that the laws of physics are puzzle pieces and to fit them all together you have to place each piece in the correct order eg piece 1 then test another p and then find p2 and keep going until you complete the puzzle. However if you ever get stuck you have to retest every piece you've placed even if you have to start again. You repeat this heartbreaking method you'll eventually reach the end.
I didn’t know quantum theory of computation, let alone constructor theory was a thing, nevertheless, I seem to have invented something like that for myself from scratch. It looks like your quest is to create a theory/algebra (of “everything”, hopefully) using mainly a series of mathematical formulas/algorithms and values/matrices/graphs representing existing, inherently incomplete intellectual formations and are heavily affected by the visibly incomplete scientific landscape we collectively painted so far. Also, you apparently consider using mathematics as something utterly unquestionable and inherently unavoidable - which it might or might not be, depending on what we mean under “algebra”. Many want to use computers and software for the same purpose and train them to create the very best, most profitable impression of intelligence by a finite number of successive iteration loops of “deep learning” written in an existing, Boolean-based (all binary) programming language, processing vast amount of human input to create an increasingly convincing illusion of intelligence which, however, has exactly nothing to do with the intelligence of the nature that arguably created this comment from thin air. Meanwhile, I’m trying to formulate an increasingly abstractive third approach in which the logical frameworks of multiple substantially different organizational/intellectual jumps are reduced into more (the most) fundamental common denominators. Since the only intelligence we can currently be perfectly convinced about is our human intelligence, therefore I started to analyze the major milestones of its formation: particles forming atoms, atoms self-assembling into proteins, proteins forming cells (possibly in multiple logical steps that cannot even be traced back), cells evolving into neurons, neurons cooperating to form a conscious being (and, of course, all stages experience various environmental interventions). The more abstract we get, the fewer and more fundamental categories we find, and we end up with an infinitely abstract and general “Earth, Wind and Fire” style theoretical approach. This all stays a pseudoscience and an esoteric fantasy until someone puts it to the test by designing and running some kind of computer code (computational formation) that brings at least some undeniable results. Too bad this attempt will probably be based on traditional binary machines with hardly any q-bits in it, but this can change after some fairly convincing results are achieved on a sketchy digital system… and the sky(net) is the limit.
These are very deep thoughts about Information (with a capital letter). If we talk about the word information, it is very polysemy. And it is difficult for me express I want to say. Your definition of information as Computation is very correct. It seems to me the Information isn't to either in words or in texts. The words, images, is a lot of date with the help of which, a person interprets these data (starts a calculation) and generates Information within himself (for example, a text from a book). It not only gives birth to a mental form from words, it launches a continuous flow in its neural network (in the brain) which interacts with other layers Information of the neural network in your head. No need to think that Information is a human privilege. If we accept the main concepts necessary for exist Information, the Observer (and this is any system capable of creating Information from data ) and the Storage (this is a system storing images of information or data, or correlations) you can find continuous flows of the Information in any interacting systems our real world
I figured out TOE awhile ago, have posted amd written plenty on it. Its kind of annoying watching the world slowly use it and learn it while i go unnoticed.
Perhaps the better name and idea would be “constraint theory” rather than “constructor theory”, because it seems to be more about meta-constraints, that is, the constraints on constraints. Getting close to the core of the concept reflects how every existing object or system seems to be more dependent on the constraints than the degrees of freedom. For a crude example, an engine works because the expanding gas is constrained to relatively few degrees of motion, as are the moving mechanical parts of the engine. If it was not constrained so, it would not be as efficient or it wouldn’t work at all. So if there is a recipe list of machines, constraints and their consequences are more fundamental than the resulting motions, per, se, because without the constraints, the motion could not manifest. What’s possible and not possible in physics seems to be more about the meta-constraints, and/or perhaps harmonic or oscillation of constraints, how they interplay, than the phenomena that process gives rise to.
