1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    18 Apr '17 21:42
    http://constructortheory.org/

    Anything to this?
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    18 Apr '17 22:495 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://constructortheory.org/

    Anything to this?
    I just read it and don't make much sense of it;
    It says;
    "... in constructor theory laws are about which physical transformations are possible and which are impossible, and why. ..."
    But, in this context, you cannot answer questions about what is "possible" and "why" unless you know the laws of physics so you can answer in terms of those laws of physics and yet, if I am reading that link right, it seems to imply you can deduce the laws of physics from reason alone i.e. without empirical observation, which I think is just total nonsense.

    The authors of this theory might be confusing what in philosophy is called "logical possible" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility ) with what is called "causally possible" ( https://storiesandsoliloquies.com/2015/05/01/the-philosophers-lexicon-logical-and-causal-possibility/ );
    -a very common logical error many people make that leads to all sorts of highly erroneous reasoning and nonsense conclusions; basically leads to total rubbish.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    19 Apr '17 10:16
    Originally posted by humy
    I just read it and don't make much sense of it;
    It says;
    "... in constructor theory laws are about which physical transformations are possible and which are impossible, and why. ..."
    But, in this context, you cannot answer questions about what is "possible" and "why" unless you know the laws of physics so you can answer in terms of those laws of physics and ...[text shortened]... sorts of highly erroneous reasoning and nonsense conclusions; basically leads to total rubbish.
    Also, besides that, I didn't see anything suggesting predictibility either.
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78641
    19 Apr '17 15:58
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://constructortheory.org/

    Anything to this?
    This is David Deutsche's attempt to turn physics into computer science. I wouldn't dismiss it, but I don't believe him either. The Wikipedia page gives an overview of what they're trying to achieve.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructor_theory
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Apr '17 10:33
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    This is David Deutsche's attempt to turn physics into computer science. I wouldn't dismiss it, but I don't believe him either. The Wikipedia page gives an overview of what they're trying to achieve.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructor_theory
    I don't really understand what they are arguing, but I do make objection to this claim:

    For example, a drop of dye can dissolve in water but thermodynamics shows that the reverse transformation, of the dye clumping back together, is effectively impossible. We do not know at a quantum level why this should be so.

    (on the Wikipedia page, but originating here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22469-theory-of-everything-says-universe-is-a-transformer )

    We actually do know the answer. Its simple statistics.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 Apr '17 12:17
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I don't really understand what they are arguing, but I do make objection to this claim:

    For example, a drop of dye can dissolve in water but thermodynamics shows that the reverse transformation, of the dye clumping back together, is effectively impossible. We do not know at a quantum level why this should be so.

    (on the Wikipedia page, ...[text shortened]... thing-says-universe-is-a-transformer )

    We actually do know the answer. Its simple statistics.
    Isn't that just like the probability that all the air molecules in a room collect together in one corner?
  7. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78641
    20 Apr '17 13:37
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I don't really understand what they are arguing, but I do make objection to this claim:

    For example, a drop of dye can dissolve in water but thermodynamics shows that the reverse transformation, of the dye clumping back together, is effectively impossible. We do not know at a quantum level why this should be so.

    (on the Wikipedia page, ...[text shortened]... thing-says-universe-is-a-transformer )

    We actually do know the answer. Its simple statistics.
    Yes, but science journalists have a habit of getting the wrong end of the stick, so I wouldn't put too much weight on that statement.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Apr '17 15:55
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Yes, but science journalists have a habit of getting the wrong end of the stick, so I wouldn't put too much weight on that statement.
    Yes, its most likely the journalists not the scientists claim.
Back to Top