Anyone study 'constructor theory'?

http://constructortheory.org/

Anything to this?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.