Constructor Theory

An introduction to Constructor Theory presented by David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto, introduced by Simon Benjamin. See ConstructorTheory.org

[@gastonpossel]

A lot of emphasys on how this theory can explain "exactly" some known phenomena, yet not a hint on what the theory is actually about.

[@robbs96]

Totally agree. Lots of talking but nothing is being said.

[@zorgon410]

Guys… this is the bridge, finally! If you don’t understand you will.

[@ericw1355]

sure they dont explain the theory but they are walking around in a museum so it must be pretty important right? lol

[@gastonpossel]

@@robbs96 I'm 85% sure @Zorgon was being sarcastic (+/- 5%)

[@robbs96]

@@gastonpossel yeah, i guess you're right. My dumb reply removed.

[@ManifoldSky]

This video portrays itself as an "introduction to Constructor Theory", however, at no point does it actually explain constructor theory. Instead it presents a list of things constructor theory addresses, and defends its applicability to various fields of physics, for those already familiar with the field.

[@malcolmabram2957]

I am interested in this theory, but I found this difficulty as well. I felt I learnt little.

[@RAMcGough]

My thought exactly. And oddly enough, it is exactly the same as the previous video I watched with the Chiara Marletto that claimed to "explain" the theory but said nothing of any content.

[@williammabon6430]

Here is the proof for the Construct theory: Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 This equation is God's mathematical name. God's name in this equation reads: God's Mind Is Man Changed With God. Breakdown: God's mind is infinite. In math this measure out as the set of infinity In math (1/x) represents a fraction of a whole. Any child is a fraction of a parent and man according to the Bible is God's child. Therefore man is a fraction of God Change in math is represented by the Greek letter (delta) and it denotes a difference of some kind. Plus (+) in math means to combine or add something with something. There is only one God. In math the number 1 means something or someone is complete and individual from all the rest. Spelled out: God's Mind (Infinity) is (=) Man (1/x) Changed ( delta) With (+) God (1). Scientific Method Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always = 4 Step 2 Question: Do math and Divinity share a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exist He should be found in the house of mathematics Step 4 Prediction: God's Mind Is Man Change With God is an equation Step 5 Test: Any number (Infinity) is (=) a set in space (1/x) that change (x^2) with (+) space (1)) Again: All and any number is a set in space that change with space Note: "X" describes any set, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise This equation tells us why 2 feet is not the same as 2 inches. Both distances are measured out as 2 units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each sets in a space of distance but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: New look at what makes up reality. Reality consist of 3 domains of space a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space or the whole of knowledge a.k.a. information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real therefore the value in enumeration demand God exist otherwise the domain for enumeration would be incomplete. We know the domain for enumeration is complete because we can count. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. As we can see God is fundamental in the cross between information and physical relationships I wrote a research doc looking deeper into this matter. Anyone who wants a free copy can contact me at: [e-mail] God's Mind Is Man Changed With God

[@olivierrokks]

I did the research guys. Constructor theory is basically a type of physics where priority is placed on “constructors” which are things that are capable of performing certain transformations on matter. The focus is on the transformation itself and not on the things being transformed. For example an engine is a constructor because it is capable of performing a specific transformation (fuel to kinetic energy) over and over. Other examples of constructors are enzymes (chemical constructors).

[@noxot13]

@@williammabon6430 you might be interested in looking into Alfred North Whitehead. he is a mathematician that turned into a metaphysician.

[@odenwalt]

You explained what constructor theory is supposed to explain and what is excludes, but you failed to explain the theory itself. Not unlike an infomercial where someone is presenting an amazing product without explaining the mechanism of how it works. I was hoping to learn more about the philosophy, interpretations, and ascertainable physical properties.

[@ingebygstad9667]

The way I understood it is that the way things works _now,_ at current state with the computers we have now, is that future can only be measured with the data currently at hand. Constructor Theory allows you to play with the hypotheticals, the _"What If's"_ and get correct results, based on those. Quantum computers will be able to give correct weather forecasts. Constructor Theory allows you to play with a _hypothetical_ Krakatoa eruption in Indonesia, and see how that would change things, and correctly. ...at least that's how I understood it. But I wrote my own post - and that kinda explains the rest in one sentence.

[@markpmar0356]

She literally said, "Error correction for the bacterium is when anything that goes wrong in the copying of the recipe is corrected." which is not at all how DNA or mitosis works. Your impression that there's major beating around the bush in this video is shared and what seems to be lost totally is the idea that information has meaning that must be understood and, absent that, it's just noise.

[@ingebygstad9667]

@@markpmar0356 I lost her there too. I just tried to explain the best I could about what the Constructor Theory was about. Not the things it obviously isn't. I guess it was an incredibly poor attempt to tell that with constructor theory it is possible to finally find the true answers to Abiogenesis, as it let you play with the _what if's_and rules out those that simply does not work, as it plays by laws of physics and does not allow magic to be a part of the game. I'm not a scientist. Call me a buffoon if you like - it is a more correct title. I'm just doing my very best to understand this stuff.

[@kaasronald3623]

@@markpmar0356 i'm just replying to admire the phrasing of your comment. It reads like an email I spent 1 hour on cutting all the unnecesary parts and wording it as clear a possible. wholeheartedly agreed as well.

[@markpmar0356]

@@kaasronald3623 Thank you for the message. I don't think I have anything against "constructor theory" but I also believe that physics cannot offer a full enough explanation for something like evolution. It would suffice to say that the information needed for everything to exist as it does was present at the instant of the "big bang", if that is how the universe began. How could it be otherwise?

[@ernststravoblofeld]

I wish I could find ONE video on constructor theory that starts with, "A constructor is: ..."

[@lrvogt1257]

I heard all the words but haven't yet got a sense of what it really is yet. But it is intriguing.

[@erichodge567]

Constructor theory is one of those things that has been at the edge of my awareness for about a year. Chiara Marletto was on Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast last year (I think), but I was unable to understand anything that was being said at that time. This video managed to make clear to me what was distinctive about Constructor theory. Anyway, thanks. Videos like this are why KZbin is such an important resource.

[@brandonpoehler9675]

Me: which came first? The chicken or the egg? Constructor theory: Yes

[@SuperMrMuh]

That's my type of humor!

[@miontorus]

The goose had a gander and realized it was Anaximander.

[@ginobean737]

I would prefer to have just seen a simple example of Constructor Theory explaining ONE feature of reality better than the current laws of physics has been able to. As it is, it doesn't seem like Constructor Theory is anywhere close to being FALSIFIABLE..

[@matterasmachine]

you have no idea what is falsifiable. all physics is not falsifiable because it IGNORES that physics themselves disprove it's base by not following least action principle

[@david203]

@@matterasmachine Nonsense. Physics originated the Principle of Least Action: it is calculable using the Lagrangian of a system. "Falsifiable" means "can be disproven by experiment". It is the basic principle of determining what is true, objectively.

[@matterasmachine]

@@david203 so why bird don’t move by parabola?

[@david203]

@@matterasmachine This is fundamental physics: only ballistic systems move in parabolic paths. A bird contains energy and a means of converting its energy into directed motion.

[@matterasmachine]

@@david203 then that’s not a law as it’s falsified.

[@SimonBenjamin]

To read more including the published papers, visit our site at ConstructorTheory.org

[@lilrat489]

So basically they tore a page from Aristotle.

[@vapourmile]

Well no they didn't just do that which is why this video exists.

[@BUSeixas11]

John Von Neumann

[@davidweihe6052]

@@vapourmile This video exists because they wished it to, and had the sophisticated equipment and processes to make and store it, just as Sandy Peterson was able to make videos on CthulhuWars and GodsWars, two board games that he created. How is Constructor Theory different from those games? It better be, or this is just a bunch of people who cannot grok M-theory and decided to blame it, rather than them not having the 250 IQ that it seems to require to get anything from it. There are a bunch of hours of videos from the presenters, presumably related to Constructor Theory rather than their favorite bands or pets, but I do not think that it is ready to do anything but handwave at real problems, yet, so I'll let some other people enjoy tracking down and watching them all, and digesting it for the rest of us. To be fair, this could be like looking at Quantum Mechanics in 1900.

[@obijuan3004]

So what is the theory? When does constructer theory not apply?

[@choimdachoim9491]

This brings to mind the old Science Fiction story wherein it is stated that a description of the Universe would be infinitely larger than the Universe. It also makes me wonder...if no Life-forms are existing in the Universe, does "Information" still exist? I also wonder how will what they're studying change my life.

[@Burbituate]

HYPOTHESIS, constructor hypothesis. A hypothesis becomes a theory when the hypothesis predicts something and is observed.

[@BenMalaki]

It seems like they're trying to describe Information at a fundamental level... Info-Dynamics?

[@vladkapustiin1390]

I really hope it's not a cult, where are the applied methods ? are they trying to sell something ? how could i use this hypothesis ?

[@XXcreeps]

@@vladkapustiin1390 like that brain worm cult thing 😬 that company that supposedly uploaded a nematode brain have went all woo woo and money hungry lol their youtube vids are out there lol

[@aitan6593]

I disagree with this assessment. The semantics of the use of the word “theory” are based on the fact that constructor theory provides a mode of considering a phenomenon. More particularly, it is a theoretical view of physical phenomena as they may be influenced by information. In the philosophy of biology, which is where I am currently studying constructor theory application, the theory of reductionism (via physicalism) is the idea that we may be able to understand biology and biological mechanisms by reducing them into all of their physico-chemical components. This is commonly refuted (see anti-reductionism, as outlined by John Dupré), and is not considered a strong candidate of explanation in biology. Constructor theory, through the use of counter-factuals effectively takes the opposite approach. That is to say, constructor theory is concerned with emergence as a function of possibilities and impossibilities. I am currently contending in my work that constructor theory is a materialist, anti-reductionist theory applicable in biology which is capable of bridging fundamental laws of physics with biological phenomena. This is important because classical reductionism in biology fails for a key reason. Particularly, biological phenomena are teleonomic (they have the appearance of purposeful design), while physics is not (there is no apparent goal in the existence of particles). For more on this distinction see Massimo Pigliucci’s “Biology vs. Physics: Two Ways of Doing Science?”. As a direct result of this distinction, fundamental physics cannot predict via reduction the emergent properties of organisms and biological mechanisms. Constructor theory therefore provides what I perceive to be the best reconciliation of biology and fundamental physics. Though this was previously seen to be only possible through the lens of reductionism, constructor theory now offers a manner of viewing the more strongly rooted and widely accepted concept of emergence. Now, to wrap back, constructor theory is a theory because it has moved past the idea of hypothesis and is a set of epistemological principles which must all be true for constructor theory to be true. A hypothesis, by contrast, would only contain the initial suggestion, which is whether or not there are abstract constructors as Deutsch and Chiara describe. The theory maintains not only that there are, but that the metaphor (the application of abstract thinking, fundamental to the development of a theory) holds true in all cases of emergence in physical systems. Constructor theory actually started out as the “Constructor Theory of Information”, which is why they talk about it so much. The actual value of constructor theory has since been expanded to many domains of knowledge and it is in this idea that potential application across many disciplines are possible. This is what I believe to be so exciting and what has driven me to write a lengthy comment about very early research on a KZbin video. This is my view on the matter but do not take it as fact. I simply wish to provide some more context as to why constructor theory is theoretically promising and not junk science. Even if constructor theory never finds its footing, the hope of furthering scientific inquiry is in forcing us to consider concepts which were not previously considered.

[@Burbituate]

@@aitan6593 Never considered it junk science, agree concerning limits of reductionism, thanks for the comment.

[@cerstvemlieko]

Oh, Bellatrix Lestrange, you are my favorite magician.

[@markpmar0356]

I had initially been skeptical of constructor theory due to the fact that I was misinterpreting (shades of irony here) what is meant by the use of the term "information". I realize now that this truly is the next level in physics due to the fact that literally everything is information and the "understanding" of the information is precisely what is NOT meant nor implied. The information precedes the understanding, the information is manifest by the things that are informed by it. Quite clearly, then, the next question is, "where or what is the origin of the information?" and I have to say, that is the most fascinating thing I can contemplate currently. Consider: why are there two charges or spin - positive and negative? There's also neutral, where did the charge information go? As I contemplated this, I realized there is an ENTIRE LAYER of the universe that must hold this information. Criminy!

[@andresagu]

this is definitely a teaser for what constructor theory actually is but it's really cool to notice how they've sort of - and this is a rudimentary thought - been inspired by one of the basics ideas of object oriented programming to begin to describe quantum physics. When they talk about the constructor theory, it sounds like they're trying to figure out what constructors the universe uses to create all the things we see in our physical universe. It's really cool to think of the universe also having defined constructors to create objects and information, perhaps it even allows for overloading constructors and default parameter values. If anyone has found any useful links to look deeper into this please do share!

[@thomasseptimius]

Lots of people calling BS on David Deutch. I would urge you to hold your horses and maybe dig a little bit more into where DD is coming from. Understanding David Deutch and constructor theory requires a little more than just listenting to this presentation. I can recommend Fabrics of Reality and especially The beginning of Infinity. It's also important to point out that David is the godfather of quantum computation and he thinks about information very differently than most people normally do. He is an amazing thinker, probably one of the most important of our time and his theory of knowledge is at the foundation of constructor theory.

[@macdermesser]

You may be right but perhaps they should have taken some one very simple example and expressed it in terms of the theory, so as to exhibit the moving parts. Nothing here to sink one's teeth into, not even a definition of a constructor. Are the books more substantial?

[@thomasseptimius]

​@@macdermesser the books are outstanding. They changed my life. But keep in mind they are kind of explaining it to other scientists not laymen (I am one myself but just happen to know a lot about physics and thus what they are trying to do)

[@flatgash]

How do we know that information has a fundamental nature, or is this a hypothesis? Could it be an emergent property of more fundamental physical laws? Could emergence itself be the fundamental nature of information?

[@vasukhanna8867]

I just understood in 11 minutes that what power "Constructor Theory" has! It can do a lot of things still remaining in the realm of physics. But I got almost no hint of what this theory actually is. It was as if the proffesors were advertising the theory. If anyone understood anything about the theory from the video do reply please. Still an informative video. Thanks.

[@riot121212]

Read her book, the science of can and can’t

[@ThomAnno]

Where did the information come from?

[@pdc7482]

At wish state is CT today? Which is the progress, which are the predictions?

[@bumovision]

What museum did they film in? I want to visit it.

[@mikloscsuvar6097]

www.glam.ox.ac.uk/museum-natural-history#/. There is Lewis Carrol's dodo from Alice.

[@bumovision]

@@mikloscsuvar6097 Thanks!

[@waltdill927]

If the "golden ratio' were a carrier wave....? Or: What is the (im)mediate relation of a phonograph record and a digital disc? Both construct and deconstruct the same information -- depending on "where you are' in the "question".

[@david203]

Robert Heinlein once wrote something like, "to ask a clear question, one must already know most of the answer". Vague concepts are not the same as scientific knowledge.

[@PickledPixiePie]

7 minutes in and I have yet to see a theory, just the idea of a theory based on the realization that the ancient saying "Everything is Everything" is quite literally true in the most abstract ways down to the very fabric of reality itself; the most multi-faceted metaphor that anyone ever will ever understand in the most literal of ways.

[@markphc99]

Nice job getting cash from Templeton , did you include the word spiritual in the grant application or something?

[@kennychaffin4578]

Yeah, Templeton Sucks, but this work is important!

[@jaytyler7700]

Are they insinuating that the purpose of a thing and how it plays out in time/space/reality etc implies more of what the thing is... in relation to everything?? Trying to see what actually decides and forms the purpose of raw atom material??

[@macinvictus]

But DNA can do its work without human, "conscious" interaction. A mobile phone can't. Without artificial "factories" and effort, there is no self reproduction and replication of a man-made object and it's very easy to introduce some varience and therefore the mentioned accuracy goes out of the window. I struggle with understanding how a harddrive and DNA are fundamentally, then, the same beyond a very cursory definition of being physical objects that store information in some fashion. The attempt to now materialize and reduce even now information is...troubling. Especially with a lot of other scientific research leading away (finally) from nothing but reductionalist materialism and gradualism.

[@arnebovarne7759]

I think they need this theory mostly to get research funding or to make themselves interesting.

[@michealcherrington6531]

Do you understand what observations of quantum mechanical events mean then? Oh do share your genius, because no one else does. Endless quantum measurements and no one has the theory. THAT is what this theory is meant to address. No one understands base reality. Good thing to finally figure out. And they are not the ones needing help to be interesting Ame. lol.

[@arnebovarne7759]

@@michealcherrington6531The theory is presented as possible and more impossible transitions in configurations of matter. That it thus creates other possibilities than the purely linear projection of events. But this is known and used as a model in several places. In algorithms, for example, where you look for solutions that way. Is not crystallization such a reverse process for example? That's the first thing. The second is that this thought or mechanism is misused to explain a wide range of problems that sometimes tend to religion and cult.

[@matterasmachine]

any scientist needs funding

[@seditt5146]

@@michealcherrington6531 "Do you understand what observations of quantum mechanical events mean then? Oh do share your genius, because no one else does" As in "No One Else ".... You mean.... YOU? Because Science knows what it means. Curious what you are talking about. These two in the video are speaking Gibberish. End of story. They don't even understand what Information is in Quantum physics so why are we even here and why does this video exist if these folks are peddling something they themselves do not understand. Watch any talk on this nonsense and it is clear they are snake oil salesman.

[@mr.rogers1019]

Dude kind of looks like a Bill Gates and Andy Warhol hybrid.

[@rdevaughn22]

No one interprets information by considering in any way all the counterfactual possibilities of that information. Imagine reading a sentence and only being able to infer it's meaning by considering all the things the sentence could have said but did not.

[@nightfly1000000]

Isn't that what quantum computers are expected to do? Maybe they are working to that end.. writing an operating system for quantum computers?

[@robdeskrd]

"A new language for physics in which the questions can be made precise"- Bravo man!!!! Wittgenstein would be pleased.

[@david203]

It would be wonderful to have precise questions. But more valuable would be to have some answers that are better than those of accepted physics. I don't know about Wittgenstein, but for me, I see Constructor theory as words without much science or meaning. Can it make predictions about observations or experiments? No. Can it be tested by experiment? Again, apparently, no.

[@timemechanic5055]

@@david203 I have never seen a project (the word theory would be an injustice) that has attracted so many cranks and shills. Why are they churning out so many videos all with the same empty message?

[@david203]

@@timemechanic5055 I have absolutely no idea. It reminds me a bit of Cold Fusion, which after many years and millions of dollars of research is still an unclear phenomenon. If Constructor theory is real, why can't it be presented clearly and concisely, like many of the various descriptions of quantum mechanics? If it is not real, why is it being promoted so vigorously by so few, and why mainly by David Deutsch, a pioneer of quantum computation, rather than by a philosopher of physics? References: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deutsch, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion .

[@RobertAdamsMajikBob]

Thanks for this video guys. It may be just the thing I need to convince my friends to read the Constructor Theory papers!

[@stephenbeacham9717]

Did it work?

[@Vinterborn]

So where's this museum ?

[@runstrong9559]

This is exactly how I saw the world growing up, how it all made sense to me.. weird to hear someone else think about this.

[@arandomcayote8638]

I'm sorry if I'm not paying attention but does this theory talks about quantum physics or just biology specifically? I have adhd and it's difficult for me to comprehend long sentences, even though how well and informative you honestly convey it, (I might be just forgetful.) yet I'm still determined to understand this interesting and profound field of thinking, I'm also working on Information Physics and I'm hoping that it would explain everything, mine is different, more like physics and logic in particular, my theory goes like the universe and observer relationship and it says that information occupies nothingness, and that process must be witnessed by an observer for it to expand furthermore, however its still a conundrum.

[@paulcurry8383]

Did a bit of reading on this subject. It’s a mathematical notation of phenomena in the world. Like any maths, it can be invented and then retro-fitted onto existing phenomena, however it seems like this theory hasn’t borne any fruit in terms of real life predictions.

[@Wafflecat09]

Not yet but imagine it would be feasible. Unlimited energy efficient systems far beyond what we think limits are. Like a binary computer vs a quantum computing kinda scenarios.

[@svendkorsgaard9599]

Patience man, it's still in early stages. Look at string theory, over 50 years old and still no testable predictions, but people still work on it.

[@drottercat]

Seems like entropy should have a place in a theory where information is so important, but it was not mentioned once. And, does the Constructor Theory help us understand why some things are impossible? Like the things forbidden by the Laws of Thermodynamics?

[@david203]

Does CT solve even one of the many difficult problems in physics?

[@juliansmith4036]

Entropy and information have the same mathematical definition so it's feasible that they just use information as a shorthand for both

[@david203]

@@juliansmith4036 But they can't have the same definition. Entropy is disorder while information is a particular kind of order. Give a reliable reference for your statement, such as an article in Wikipedia.

[@mtw2457]

I'd like an explanation that goes something like "I see/experience X and want to know how Constructor Theory explains X and allows one to make predictions based on said experience." This presentation doesn't make any sense to a retired engineer (me.) Information isn't independent of context. This topic is certainly getting a lot of exposure on my Google News feed.

[@ThomAnno]

Where did the information come from? It seems that this concept can command energy from nothing. Can that be possible? I have to question the explicit reference to Darwin, which makes no sense at all. Information, as seen in our Universe, is very very specific and can never have come about, by happenstance. Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm afraid, I'm not a scientist.

[@mtw2457]

@@ThomAnno Some very interesting questions you bring up. It strikes me that you might be interested in self organizing systems and emergent behavior. There are many videos on both subjects. The question of the origin of information kind of gets to the Big Bang Theory (and I don't mean the American situation comedy TV show.) What are the initial conditions of the Universe? Are there initial conditions? etc. How do they evolve?

[@tomekstanek]

When they show that constructor theory?

[@seditt5146]

Never, in any talk, any forum, anything. Its bullshit to wooooh rich stupid people.

[@mauricegold9377]

This to me is metaphysics. It seems to include the world and experience of humans and human society. But surely we need to delve not into complex societal constructs (which will vary across different societies in the world), but rather put all this human-derived layering of signals to one side, and get back to asking things like: 'how deep can we delve into the sub-atomic world till we reach a point where matter and space are made of the same thing (or whatever))'. For I would like to have seen an instance here, where some new light is shed on what is more fundamental than DNA, (but might lead to it), more fundamental than Air-traffic Control Systems. Because all I learned is that there are folks attempting to do something more akin to psychology and semantics than physics. Let's have some predictions, please. Isn't that what theories are supposed to do? My two pence on this.

[@rodmack302]

Constructor theory - A concept that generates grants proportional to vagueness of information on which the theory is based.

[@renierp.duplessis4017]

I think this very cool - opens up so many possibilities

[@hertzfall0]

We are talking Wittgenstein applied to physics here. A superimposing algorithm of a self-propagating system. A system that bootstrap its complexity (and thereby itself) by taking in information and transforming it into Wittgenstein's notion of knowledge. Constructor theory here seemingly states that an organism, a complex system as such, needs a property that allows receipt, storage, reading, and transformation of data/information as governed by the laws of physics. That means in biology a system producing molecules and proteins in response to an external stimulus (or internal such as genes' activity governed by stochastic cycles, or cycles that are in fact specifically time-dependent). The difference between a cell and a virus then is that a virus does not have the ability to read or transform data. It is a capsule for information, yes. And this capsule, like any protein structure, can interact with a designated partner. Covid-19 spike proteins are an example. So, yes they state examples. And by these examples they state constructor theory. A notion of and nod to this theory's nature. Would love to cross paths with these two minds!

[@ronaldmarcks1842]

Didn't Von Neumann think about this in the 1940's? Not sure, just asking.

[@kukhokuhletsengwa5730]

All the people in the comments complaining about "where is the actual theory". Go read the papers published by Deutsh and others my friends.

[@gusmore26]

Avoid seeking a reconciliation of Constructor Theory with what you already know i.e. you're subconsciously assuming that what they are saying is just a rearranging of what conventional physics is already doing. This is only the second video on Constructor Theory that I've seen and I already realize that their starting point is not a absolute reductionist point (e.g. THEE smallest particle, or the very beginning of the Universe) rather they are looking first at the available information about ‘any’ starting structure level (e.g. biological cell, animal, geometric shape, sacred geometry, Universal Constants, etc.) and seeing how - its perceived information relates its own possibilities and impossibilities, and the complementary and supplementary information of other forms and systems that the one originally under consideration interacts with. Such an investigation not only shows how the phenomenon under consideration follows the accepted conventional laws of physics, it also allows for our intellectual freewise to describe, in logically valid, not previously formulated math and science language - the possibilities for new information and thus better knowledge of supposed anomalies and deviations from our Standard Models of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. In other words, with Constructor Theory - we are not bound within and limited by a Grand Paradigm; rather we keep the languages of Logic, Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry, while elevating ‘Information’ to at least ‘their equal’ in a way that respects the individual forms’ possibilities within their dependent relations within their own intrinsic nature and that of the other forms correlated to them that are outside their material form’s manifestation. - Gus More Oct. 2, 2021

[@coolieo2222]

If I am reading this correctly they are trying to say that every single thing in existence can be described as a system of various steps that can be put into order and then deconstructed to a baser logical system, then compare to each other? I am really interested in this.

[@coolieo2222]

@Kyle Purdy lol for sure. If there is nothing after death then we look to absurdism. I like what you said about human consciousness, I eventually thought about that and it has helped me with personal issues and growth because I inly have to look at the output of my existence daily and then work backwards from there till I find the source or cause.

[@xaindsleena8090]

David would look quite good with a wig like Newton wore

[@rembeadgc]

What we call "the sun" was what it is long before we assumed to know it's composition and will still be what it is after we've discovered it's something more than what we first, secondly, thirdly... imagined.

[@SiFi5478]

“Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters.” - Dōgen.

[@Eris123451]

My first impression was something like, Von Neumann Constructors meet Symbolic Logic. Non of this feel really new; but then after watching these two wandering around earnestly waving their hand in the air and speaking very slowly and clearly for the benefit of the hard of comprehension I still don't have the faintest idea what Constructor Theory is, how it operates or why it's so important to physics and particularly not how Quantum Mechanics arises so naturally out of it ? Unhelpful.

[@Milletrulli]

There are some similarities here with Dr. David Sinclair's theory about longevity. He states, that aging is essentially a failure of error correction in the biological information theory implemented by the DNA. If this is true, then constructor theory could maybe one day also explain also why we age and what we can do to prevent it?

[@davidjames3494]

Someone needs to Deconstruct this Constructor Theory (CT). This presentation suggests CT is just a paradox , the ultimate paradox. In short, What is not, is also is.

[@tambolianmap]

Would the question, does the universe exist and why do we need to know that? Conform to construction theory outcome?

[@ogvibe11]

wow is the world ready for this! honestly i meditate on this topic myself, and i have once said that their should be a new langauge for this deep form of conversation, one almost spirtual in nature but is actually nature. but what could be evoked at the utterance of these new words, this honestly sounds super metaphysical and they're just using science words. shes an obvious witch

[@kaasronald3623]

here's some constructive critisism. please give an example of any law that exists within constructor theory. "Constructor theory can do that" ok explain to me HOW does it manage to do that? Don't just say it.

[@chicawhappa]

They're pushing BS and living off the grant money.

[@pauloabelha]

Very interesting. Wish I had enough knowledge to understand it deeply, mathematically. I couldn't help but think of Jean Piaget's work with trying to unify a constructivist view of life evolution and knowledge construction by the child. If he was still alive I bet this would be the perfect research group for him to connect with. Amazing to see we trying to unify all these different fields with one language.

[@dontcrasherdotcity6801]

Super genius math is the false generalization ("chosen oneness"); there are only two generalizations ("we exist" AND "zero exists") and two directions (clockwise AND counterclockwise). So use the symbol (+) for "additional" and the square root symbols for "diagonals" and "evidence". That is "quantum mechanics" (or synonymously "consensus mechanics", as "consciousness" or "generalizing" amounts to "predicting the future in general again tomorrow" (aka "physics", "biology", "the ability to count"). On the off chance that reason works for you, dig up the East (disproving zeroism): "oneness" is "always observed as context" so "starting over" is "counting from two". Aka false (pretend, artificial) intelligence (counting) counts ones as zeros. You have as much knowledge as anyone else ... google "diagonal argument" if want to unify fields with "one" language (Noether's "thermodynamic time equality = now") ... common sense ... predicting the future in general begins (and ends) with the future (as observed between false predictions) :)

[@bryaneberly3588]

@@dontcrasherdotcity6801 I've read this ten times and I still can't comprehend what you are trying to say. Communication is key to spreading ideas.

[@bryaneberly3588]

@@dontcrasherdotcity6801 You're first claim is that "super genius math is the false generalization...," and then you make an instant generalization, or in your case the equal but opposite, specification. And a false one. So, let's start the scientific probing here: why are you insisting that "there are only two generalization ("we exist" AND zero exists)?" Please show your evidence for that conclusion. (And put down your thesaurus/dictionary; use your own intellect)

[@david203]

@@dontcrasherdotcity6801 Sorry, what was the question?

[@dontcrasherdotcity6801]

@@david203 in terms of common sense panpsychism, one of these "generic generalizations' remains provable (between exclusive points, excluding zero in favor of clockwise and counterclockwise localizations): we exist (observed) zero exists (predicted) aka "predicting the future in general" aka "consciousness" aka "inverse squaring disproves squaring negatives" additionalEvidence.com aka "to question everything, prioritize nothing (-)"

[@TG-ge1np]

Are they being sponsored by Apple?

[@michaelfine9211]

How does Constructor Theory explain the problem of information without intelligence as its source, such as the protein folding problem?

[@GEOFERET]

All this is very interesting, but can you please give us an example of how constructor theory explains one phenomenon? That would be very helpful. Or aren't we there yet?

[@theronsokol8078]

Very have to see some legitimate progress in understanding. Many thanks

[@elijahgold9806]

Just the same ideas in a different form. All objects are constructors within a system (systems theory) or you could say, they are constructors within a process (process philosophy), whichever metaphor you choose.

[@justtekina6709]

Maybe it’s too difficult to find constructs because it’s like a prime number but can’t be divisible meaning no math to find it or say the answer

[@squeaksallan8195]

This make me think of language, as in how a shape or a pattering can have a prefund affect on a persons proception of a pace of information. for example a human can see a square but space and time will see a box. if you can fallow what i mean.

[@andrewthomas3926]

This makes me think that information will be a direct consequence of a better theory of quantum coherence and entanglement

[@Zickafoose2024]

But the information is always there, we only organise it in a pattern that is copiable. There may be missing information always.

[@MadhuSudan-gz2uq]

Excellent...I like the way our braind gather ' knowledge' from raw Data and acquires a constructive information..

[@PeterFallenius]

0:00 What is the fundamental nature of change? 1:07 Science explains the physical world in terms of laws of nature. 2:39 What does the existence of information tell us about the laws of physics? 4:18 What is the counterfactual property of information? 6:03 A DNA molecule is an information storage and retrieval device 7:48 Self-reproduction and replication are the basic mechanisms of life. How can they occur with such accuracy? 10:22 Knowledge is central to constructor theory.

[@ramkumarr1725]

Information and Quantum information is included. Is there a book or article for n00bs? A person I knew only talked aboit counterfactuals. Knowledge is centr to the theory

[@madvoice3703]

Just wait for Grand unified theory , I am going to change the world

[@fluff1353]

By saying, "if information transcends physical systems," you can only be talking about mathematics...which is in essence a physical system in itself...or, something undiscovered by physical means and thus theoretical without empirical data. Information only matters if we consciously receive it. We receive ALL information out of a physical system of some kind. We are trying so hard to fix the potholes of physics that we are threatening the stability of the road. Maybe there IS a limit in this universe to what we can understand given our current mathematical and physical sciences. But the question shouldn't be, "what if THIS happens." It should continue to be "Why did THIS happen, when THAT should have happened."

[@ericg3810]

I think what they are getting at, without expressly saying it, is that information is fundamental, matter is not. Partlicle physics is dead and doesn't explain our reality completely. It is an evolutionary way to look at our reality that physical science has not been able to explain.

[@caseyhawthorne7138]

For information transfer to occur Presupposes Spacetime Or Does information transfer Generate Spacetime 🙃

[@horizonScope]

The world is built with information

[@prosimulate]

The Universe is a search space, we beings are parameters with a life span.

[@Dybbouk]

The correction of error is the beginning of infinity as DD put it.

[@RyanDietrich-rf1ic]

This will be a difficult theory to flesh out. The mechanics of information have to be converted into information. There are clear patterns in the ‘physics’ of information that we can already detect as humans but how do we assign these to fundamental laws? ☯️

[@sbrotherton6208]

Well done.

[@eroshan]

Wish it actually explained constructor theory, atleast how you can look for proof of it.

[@apalomba]

Constructor theory seems a bit vague, but I like where it is going.

[@laxtobuttgroyn1193]

First time I learned a rock is information was Ray Kurzweil talking about his singularity.

[@david203]

What do you mean by "rock"? What did Kurzweil talk about? What is his "singularity"? Why not make clear postings instead of unclear ones?

[@ogvibe11]

this form of language would be diffrent then what we currelty speak, this langue would be outward facing in. when you speak this langue there is high energy.

[@danrayson]

Perhaps we would take more responsibility for the crap we put out there, because it turns out we're constantly constructing our environments.

[@ogvibe11]

@@danrayson how do you confirm what you're seeing or hearing or feeling

[@danrayson]

@@ogvibe11 I was making a jibe at your inability to construct a sentence, my dude.

[@ogvibe11]

@@danrayson that's what I'm saying in the comment. Yes I have spelling errors, but you can't tell what I'm talking about without this new language. You would have to have gnosis

[@danrayson]

@@ogvibe11 High Energy. I think you've had enough energy drink for today.

[@ShugaBuns1]

Why does every constructor theory video not explain what constructor theory is

[@ferkinskin]

I rather think that the system behind the "change" determines the laws of physics, or, to put it another way, we have deciphered part of that systems mechanism and translated it into the language of physics.

[@inmindo346]

Great, thanks for this! I would suggest to more consider the principles of resonance. Therefore the dynamics between frequencies (elektromagnetic, acoustical/sound etc.) and molecular structures like the DNA. The word "information" could be much more specified in this report. But I know it's just a quick summary and easily understandable.

[@PeterMorgan3000]

Nice.

[@tracezachdaniels4264]

SO SHWEEEETTT...much love Tee with LIONS NAMED LEO.[the music worldwide} soooo cool

[@mediawolf1]

This is fascinating

[@brianthered]

How do you know that living organisms are truly so different from the planets, stars, galaxies and beyond? Just because you cant quite grasp the scale doesn’t mean they are so different. One could say its the space we keep between us that causes a variation in the expected result.

[@EngineerNick]

I feel no wiser on the subject. Is this a serious science? Or just a more-sophisticated-than-usual magic nonsense cult?

[@creeperkinght1144]

Information can studied and observed through natural algorithms so why not use that as a proper base and go from there? Even the entropic development of everything can be applied to this using agency systems.

[@jamesmatteuzzi8732]

Constructor theory, new and exciting... uses all the laws of physics to do its work.

[@tonyennis1787]

There are many words being spoken, but not a lot of information being passed to us. I feel like this video is trying to sell me something.

[@fredjimbob2962]

Exactly. If it was genuinely interesting they wouldn't need to sell it, it would have sold itself.

[@HASHHASSIN]

and "Constructor Theory" explained...?

[@jatinreddy1677]

well , this is new!

[@ClubCarambaGuitar]

ctor: AbstractFactory()

[@Strutingeagle]

It is interesting that in a magnetic type memory storage for computers, the mass of the information is zero. Yet it exists as an image that can have profound effects in the physical world. The DNA molecule weighs no more if the sequence is random or structured to provide information. Our emotions weigh nothing but who would argue they do not exist? Images, patterns, sequences are interesting in a world that says entropy will eventually wash them away, yet because of reproduction, the information can become more complex, and more organized over time with the sum of changes for the generations of information.

[@saukraya3254]

Information is only consist of on/off, think of binary code. It properties like energy, in various format but remain the same.

[@odc_josefbedux5498]

Constructor theory touches the realms of spirits. I think its a theory where the physical world meets the spiritual world.

[@siddhartharay01]

Hmm, so you mean that laws of physics came into being in the way they are so that they can carry information?

[@danielnofal]

Fascinating window to new possibilities. Very well presented and explained.

[@TomTom-rh5gk]

They didn't explain anything. The Emperor Has No Clothes.

[@markb36911]

So they claim to have a theory which can accurately predict what any given universe would look like if what happened didn't happen and something else did, but it didn't. Oh and by the way, we are going to rule out all the things which didn't happen which our currently limited view of physics precludes, so the predicted outcomes won't be all the things which would have happened if something else that happened, which didn't happen did happen. Just the things we in our ignorance currently believe could happen. Bloody useful that!

[@lukedifato5340]

the comet example brought forth by David Deutsch could be explained by newtonian mechanics in BOTH cases. Are there any actual new axioms, equations theorems, arguments, even lemmas to come out of this or is it all hog wash?