Mindscape 167 | Chiara Marletto on Constructor Theory, Physics, and Possibility
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- Patreon: / seanmcarroll
Blog post with audio player, show notes, and transcript: www.prepostero...
Traditional physics works within the “Laplacian paradigm”: you give me the state of the universe (or some closed system), some equations of motion, then I use those equations to evolve the system through time. Constructor theory proposes an alternative paradigm: to think of physical systems in terms of counterfactuals - the set of rules governing what can and cannot happen. Originally proposed by David Deutsch, constructor theory has been developed by today’s guest, Chiara Marletto, and others. It might shed new light on quantum gravity and fundamental physics, as well as having applications to higher-level processes of thermodynamics and biology.
Chiara Marletto received her DPhil in physics from the University of Oxford. She is currently a research fellow at Wolfson College, University of Oxford. Her new book is The Science of Can and Can’t: A Physicist’s Journey Through the Land of Counterfactuals.
Mindscape Podcast playlist: • Mindscape Podcast
Sean Carroll channel: / seancarroll
#podcast #ideas #science #philosophy #culture 
Наука
By far the best discussion regarding constructor theory I've heard to date, keep up the great work 🙏🙏
This should be a good one. Have you reached out to David Deutsch to be on the podcast?
because the female founder of the field, and main contributor isn't enough...?
@@crehenge2386 what do you mean “isn’t enough”? Should this be the last podcast I listen to because surely this interview is enough?
@@manuelrufin1693 have you fallen asleep on the keyboard?😀
On your latest AMA on the patreon you mentioned that uploading this to youtube doesn't make you any money, so thanks for uploading anyway for people like me who prefer this format due to unlimited data on youtube app with my phone company.
he does make money with uploading on youtube, that's why the podcats have ads
@MuscleTalkRadio he doesn't get any money from sponsors as the youtube views doesn't count into that. The sponsors only count the "listens" on certain podcast apps and pay him depending on that. He gets some small amount of money from youtube ads but its not worth it financially because these episodes get so few views compared to what they get on his official podcast apps. So he is not putting episodes on youtube for financial reasons but because some people like to listen to it here.
@MuscleTalkRadio He did say that, I've listened to all his AMA's multiple times a week.
Somehow. i 've missed this episode. What a lovely surprise to find it when I was looking up Chiara's work. Thank you as usual Sean and Chiara.
Hello Dear Professor Carroll
*Physics again ... Great*
Thank you so much
Honestly, this Constructor Theory sounds too vague and widely applicable for my layman mind, and it doesn't look like it would advance physics very much. I just fail to see what pressing problems it solves. Maybe this is one of those, where you actually have to dig into the math to even remotely understand anything.
Exactly
Reminded me of Steven Wolfram's "Physics Project" - Fringe Science.
20:23 it allows to go beyond the limitations of Turing's and quantum theories: "the phenomena that leads to the task being performed by the constructor is allowed to an arbitrarily high accuracy". This and the previous parts did not require me to dig into math to get a notion (I'm not into math or physics).
@@andanssas But will it make any predictions that can be tested, or will it end up like String Theory? Is quantum mechanics really constrained too much by the current way of doing things?
@@bytefu 57:02 "at the level of predictions and statements we're doing in constructive theory..."
15:23 limitations of quantum theory described here.
Constructor theory sounds like what Type/Category theory is used for in designing programming languages
my thoughts exactly. It's almost like you could reframe Group theory as a way to trace out structures not by talking about internal dynamics, but by talking about possible invariances (symmetry by counterfactuals)
I normally understand most of the stuff in such podcasts etc because I've listened to a great deal. But to be honest, this just confused me. I listened to it twice. I still don't understand it. What is constructor theory then? 😂
Now listen 4-hour podcast with Steven Wolfram. Are are in for a treat.
If you are familiar with programming languages, constructor theory sounds like building a type system for the universe. Types in programming languages restrict the possible values data can have. Some strongly type systems are also used for automatic theorem proving
@@SonnyTo PROLOG...
@@Telemahk I was thinking of coq
A constructor is the foundation used to create a system. Changing its properties allows the creation/construction of different systems.
Happiest Birthday Prof. Sean Carroll sir. 🥳 🖤
I feel kinda trolled. How come that physics has become such a ludicrous wordplay? These people are really striving to make us not understand what they're doing.
Is constructor theory supposed to work without experimentation? If so, how? If not, what advantages does it present over just continuing on with current experimentation?
Another amazing interview, and even more amazing guest. Very much appreciate Chiara's openness to seeking the truth of things, rather than the answers expected/desired. The scientific community continues to lead the way in in aspects of the great human traits. This pod continues to restore the hope I had for the future and the human race that I had as a child.
Maybe constructor theory is a key to interstellar drive.
@@frankdelahue9761 One could only dream! Certainly possible! Bright future ahead, if we keep our focus as a whole.
I think Constructor theory might be the best way of understanding consciousness. Instead of taking the initial states of the brain and using the dynamical laws and boundary conditions of its biology to “emerge” consciousness. It’s not a counter factual that consciousness emerges biology not the other way round (self replicating systems). In the realm of “cans/factuals” consciousness could be like entropy and have a macrocosmic and microcosmic state and human biology and biology at large could be explorations of degrees of freedom in different phases and like gravity consciousness could be multidimensional and could have the ability to create interactions and complex “clumping” that create the brains through which certain microcosmic aspects of consciousness can be seen. So by studying the factual/counter factuals of consciousness outside the boundaries of the consciousness that we know (human minds) maybe we might have a deeper understanding of our own consciousness.
As a software engineer, I always tend to think as the universe in term of code.
For example, the first time I heard about the relational quantum mechanics interpretation, the first thing I did was trying to figure out how would a universe coded in that way would look like. (Memory layout, pointers for relationship, etc)
I am able to quickly identify computational advantages for one interpretation over another.
I don't have a strong opinion on the constructor theory for now, I need learn more and digest everything. But I am really interested in learning more.
Folding ideas.
I also always feel I get these weird insights as a software engineer when I learn about physics and mathematics. Mostly software really got me to break down concepts to just named properties and relationships. What makes this number mean one thing and this other number mean another thing? The name you gave it (sort of) but really its how and where it gets used. What it combines with. What decisions result in differing outcomes based on its value. Etc. All that abstract thinking gets really useful after awhile.
So the universe is a computer simulation? ( an object oriented one? ) 🤯🤯🤯🤯
Amazing. Is there a good resource for listening to someone talk about the nuts and bolts of how to actually apply constructors? Or is the kind of thing I need a PhD to understand?
Thanks so much. I read the book and tbh didn't get the point. Your questions to Chiara made things much clearer (although it's still a mystery to me. The Kepler example was a good one ...)
So I just got a message from youtube that said this was uploaded an hour ago, yet when I click on it it says it was uploaded last week? Timetravel!?
Happy birthday sean carroll in advance 💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞 with love and respect in advance
L and R
I think this is the first episode of Mindscape that I was unable to follow at all... If constructor theory does not give you dynamical laws but instead provides an "explanation" for them, does it have predictive power? How useful are "explanations" without predictions?
57:02 "at the level of predictions and statements we're doing in constructive theory..." Not sure where you assumed there are no predictions Axis...
@@andanssas 35:10 for full context, he asks her to explain how constructor theory would formulate Kepler's law and she says: "Now, you wouldn't quite get the quantitative predictions about how a particular features of the orbit of a particular planet would be, but you would narrow down the set of allowed dynamical laws and initial conditions"
I think @Axis is right here. And this has its roots in Deutsche's philosophy of science, he doesn't seem to think predictions are really that important.
I would love to be proven wrong on this as I think it makes constructor theory a little silly
Hope you are doing great professor :)
Have a nice day everybody.
THANK YOU FOR THIS!!! I'm super excited for this one. Love Chiara's (and David Deutsch's) work.
Wow! Coup! Great guest! (next David Deutsch?)
Thanks to you both. I'm beginning to see what's going on with constructor theory. When I first heard the term a couple of years back, my instant question was, 'Construction of what?' It seems (please correct me if wrong!) to be construction of equivalence classes of explanations for particular categories of events? I'm also unsure as to whether 'possible' means 'logically possible', or 'physically possible - in some universe?' - in which case you may need constraints on the range pf possible universes! So would that be a 'metaconstructor' - constraints on universes - or is the class of constructors 'flat' - no 'meta-constructors'? I hope so, or it seems an infinite regress lurks ...
Constructor is a term that came from a concept from John Von Neuman, as an alternative to a universal Turing machine in the physical world. She explained this in another video
I have Sean's book and Chiara's book, this is my dream podcast.
Is it more philosophy than science?
Closer to the always inevitable convergence of the two, IMO. Much of this area of science is provable, and even the lack of what is provable is a proof of sorts, as the parameters of the experiment are known to be accurate within the sigma level required to constitute as proof. I am far from a Physicist however, so take my opinion for what you feel it to be worth.
I have always been a proponent of the value of Philosophy and truly believe that when we are at the very cusp of enlightenment as approached through the lens of traditional Science, the two disciplines will be all but indistinguishable...but think this is firmly in the realm of science, based on what she has outlined.
48:31 "a movement of swords"
Once heard it can never be unheard
9:30 easier to convince people of a solution than a problem
As always, MINDSCAPE (Sean) - great interview - great guest - great subject. I especially appreciate Sean's indicated interest in the subject.
Started getting really interesting to me around ruclips.net/video/IpqjrbxfPJQ/видео.html
Theory for information and thermodynamics, a common set of principals
Hello Professor
As you know, the Nobel committee announced The Physics Nobel Laureates. And now I hope you have a plan for interview with *Professor Parisi* (the Nobel Laureate).
Thank you so much
Thank you both Chiara and Sean, who knows what answers we're going to find? You both seem hopeful, a terrible thing for a scientist. Peace
Chiara has very good and interresting papers with Sir Vlako Vedral which were published in physical Review Lettres
I hope you have a plan for Physics Nobel Laureate (interview, explanations and ...)
Thank you
Oh, I'm so happy to see this. I've been going you would talk to them so I could get a bit more in the weeds than most interviews or lectures do.
Science
Great guest and interview! Thank you for this!
Yes, i understand what they are talking about
Fascinating conversation, insight, and dialogue!
Too abstract for the non-physist.
High-level fringe science - competitor to Steven Wolfram's "Physics project" - Deepak Chopra of Contemporary Science.
The people want an interview with Joscha Bach with questions that dig deep into each one of Bach's responses/ideas...
Who better than Sean to do that...
Wow! Struggled to follow a lot of this but have an intuitive sense that there may be a game changer here.
Initial conditions plus dynamical law evolution may be the wrong paradigm....
There's a nice summary of those ideas in this week's episode of PBS space time, if you're interested
Level Up! ^.^
out of box are BEST SHOWS
E=Mc2 innit
🤓👍🌈🕳️
Sean, I would like to suggest that you downsize your introductions. Keep them under a minute, so the listener can dive quickly into the discussion with the guest. 'Like' if you agree. Comments welcomed below.