Damn, your questions were so so good. loved this. Thank you so much for doing this. I have been very interested in what David has to say and how the constructor hypothesis pans out in my lifetime.
Wonderful talk! Second half of this veers off from constructor theory and talks about the intelligentsia of the universities and their folly... pure gold! David needs to be heard, sadly no one is listening.
Hi Logan, thank you so much for these videos! Do you perhaps know of any Discord group (or something similar) for people who might want to talk to others about a) David's ideas, and/or b) general problems in society and how to solve them?
Excellent and interesting interview. I haven't heard about the 'Universal Constructor' theory yet, however I doubt the plausibility of the idea of such a construct. Wouldn't it be tantamount to the compressed information of all possible constructible structures and as such fall victim to inescapable self-referential regress ad infinitum?
Excellent interview! ...disobedience is necessary for their more important functionality of explanatory universality" (at 11:48) Why is disobedience necessary to attain explanatory universality?
Because explanatory universality implies that an entity (a person) can create new options for itself, some of which contradict the wishes of the 'programmer' in question.
Another way to think about it: a universal explainer (person) that is “programmed” to be obedient cannot create explanations outside the scope of the dictating authority, thus arbitrarily limiting their explanatory capacities, making them non-universal.
From my primitive understanding I believe it fails the increasing entropy test. Also the determinism test - randomness is a concept, not an understanding.
Let’s agree that certain things occur once eg the big bang of our universe. Ergo they cannot emcompassed by the empirical method by reason of singularity of occurrence and therefore requires non conventional proof
Damn, your questions were so so good. loved this. Thank you so much for doing this. I have been very interested in what David has to say and how the constructor hypothesis pans out in my lifetime.
Wonderful talk! Second half of this veers off from constructor theory and talks about the intelligentsia of the universities and their folly... pure gold! David needs to be heard, sadly no one is listening.
Deutsch is one of our most important thinkers.
Great interview, but David gave you a perfect setup for a final question: what are the attributes of a working academic research system?
Hi Logan, thank you so much for these videos! Do you perhaps know of any Discord group (or something similar) for people who might want to talk to others about a) David's ideas, and/or b) general problems in society and how to solve them?
Hi Paul, my pleasure! Please email me at chipkin.logan@gmail.com.
Excellent and interesting interview. I haven't heard about the 'Universal Constructor' theory yet, however I doubt the plausibility of the idea of such a construct. Wouldn't it be tantamount to the compressed information of all possible constructible structures and as such fall victim to inescapable self-referential regress ad infinitum?
Goat
How goes a 3D printer fit in with your idea of a universal constructor?
Universe constructored by wisdom of crater. Edukate!!
Excellent interview!
...disobedience is necessary for their more important functionality of explanatory universality" (at 11:48)
Why is disobedience necessary to attain explanatory universality?
Because explanatory universality implies that an entity (a person) can create new options for itself, some of which contradict the wishes of the 'programmer' in question.
Another way to think about it: a universal explainer (person) that is “programmed” to be obedient cannot create explanations outside the scope of the dictating authority, thus arbitrarily limiting their explanatory capacities, making them non-universal.
From my primitive understanding I believe it fails the increasing entropy test. Also the determinism test - randomness is a concept, not an understanding.
General Organizing Device
14:15 programming and engineering will be jobs forever
18:30 David is an entrepeneur scientist
📍15:44
So, can you construct a device that is capable of destroying the Universal Constructor?
Yes - in general, it's far easier to destroy than to create. Try dropping a modern universal computer in a pool.
yes, a Universal De-constructor!!
There are more ads in this than content lol
Let’s agree that certain things occur once eg the big bang of our universe. Ergo they cannot emcompassed by the empirical method by reason of singularity of occurrence and therefore requires non conventional proof
Nice, we're talking about God: almighty :p :)