Re:Constructor Theory
by cturner on Sunday May 03, 2015 @07:40AM
(#9480931)
I have been working at a design for a science-themed roguelike which is at base a sophisticated crafting system. The building block of this world is [vectors by which a thing can be converted to another thing]. In my model, engineering and cooking and chemistry are exactly the same thing.
The kettle example here sought to be whimsicle, but struck me as an expression of the same idea. This constructor thing appears to be a mechanism for compressing lots of different ideas into a single notation, from which you can run equations. If I understand it correctly, then the kettle would be a good kitchen-table analogy for that complex idea. Another would be - consider how much better suited arabic numbers are than Roman for reasoning about equations.
[update] I'm glad for the criticism article - has given context and momentum to create a proof of concept. Using water, kettle and power.
Re:Constructor Theory
by FrankenPC on Sunday May 03, 2015 @05:16AM
(#9480599)
That is pretty amusing. I'm pretty sure we can file this concept under Information Theory.
From the perspective of a programmer who's watched the industry grow from bare metal assembly to advanced languages like C# and Java, I've noticed a reoccurring pattern. Sometimes, people who can no longer find anything truly unique to capitalize on simply make shit up and throw it against the wall to see if it sticks.
Comparable to Constructor Theory, there was this idea floating around called the Vidic (Virtual Information Domain. Youtube it). This one proposed that there was a massive subspace storage system housing all meta-knowledge about everything in the universe. It's great sci-fi and maybe even coffee table philosophy. But it's terrible science.
Re:Constructor Theory
by seanmcdirmid on Sunday May 03, 2015 @05:49AM
(#9480667)
> Sometimes, people who can no longer find anything truly unique to capitalize on simply make shit up and throw it against the wall to see if it sticks.
99% of all crackpot theories are just that, 1% of the time they are instead paradigm shifts undergoing community backlash. Skepticism is a winning strategy, which is why it is so common, but you can never say for sure unless your crap filters are really precise.
Re:Constructor Theory
by ingenter on Sunday May 03, 2015 @07:16AM
(#9480878)
I've seriously read some "crackpot" theories just to be sure that they're really wrong, and not just a community backlash.
Most of the time, they provide no useful model. When they do, they are demonstrably wrong.
For example, there was a guy who had his "theory of gravity" which failed to produce elliptical orbits (IIRC, non-circular orbits were highly unstable).
Other guy tried to explain fusion by drawing electron orbits (not orbitals) of around a nucleus.
IMO, skepticism is the way to go with new theories.
- No useful model? GTFO.
- Model does not fit a lot of experiments? GTFO.
- Model is more narrow and complex than existing theories? GTFO.
- Model does not have measurable effects with current technology? Well, you have to wait or build it yourself.
- Model fits experiments, had successful predictions before experiments, and explains more/unifies other theories? Good, go grab a cookie^W Nobel Prize.
Re:Constructor Theory
by seanmcdirmid on Sunday May 03, 2015 @07:32AM
(#9480913)
I mean, you are mostly right, but almost all paradigm shifts go through crackpot-accusation phases where experimental results are either ignored, misinterpreted, or in progress (relativity wasn't validated by an experiment until 1920). The problem is even more profound in computer science, where many sub fields aren't really experimental sciences, and is definitely problematic here, which seems to be more science philosophy...the theory seems sound, the question is mainly about its usefulness (does thinking about possibility and impossibility in physical systems add anything over state transitions?).
How do you tell the difference between a crackpot and an out of the box thinker? Sometimes it's obvious (I've squared the circle!), but often times it is ambiguous (probably a crackpot, probably not a genius). In this case, I would argue that it is the latter.
Re:Constructor Theory
by kwhitefoot on Monday May 04, 2015 @05:17AM
(#9485099)
I see this: 'advanced languages like C# and Java' all the time.
What do you mean by it? There isn't anything particularly new in either of them and there wasn't when they were created either. And many things that were idiomatic and useful in other languages are missing (no Pascal style subtypes for instance which mean that I have to litter my code with contracts).
Re:Constructor Theory
by FrankenPC on Monday May 04, 2015 @08:53PM
(#9490291)
If you don't see the difference between the bare metal assembly of the late 70's and a modern compiled OO language, I doubt we could even have a meaningful conversation.
Re:Constructor Theory
by krick on Sunday May 03, 2015 @11:39AM
(#9481684)
Some moments of this essay are, uh, questionable, but the general impression is exactly the same as I had when reading other works of Deutsch. The illusion of saying something clever, when in reality he says nothing at all.
The kettle example here sought to be whimsicle, but struck me as an expression of the same idea. This constructor thing appears to be a mechanism for compressing lots of different ideas into a single notation, from which you can run equations. If I understand it correctly, then the kettle would be a good kitchen-table analogy for that complex idea. Another would be - consider how much better suited arabic numbers are than Roman for reasoning about equations.
[update] I'm glad for the criticism article - has given context and momentum to create a proof of concept. Using water, kettle and power.
From the perspective of a programmer who's watched the industry grow from bare metal assembly to advanced languages like C# and Java, I've noticed a reoccurring pattern. Sometimes, people who can no longer find anything truly unique to capitalize on simply make shit up and throw it against the wall to see if it sticks.
Comparable to Constructor Theory, there was this idea floating around called the Vidic (Virtual Information Domain. Youtube it). This one proposed that there was a massive subspace storage system housing all meta-knowledge about everything in the universe. It's great sci-fi and maybe even coffee table philosophy. But it's terrible science.
99% of all crackpot theories are just that, 1% of the time they are instead paradigm shifts undergoing community backlash. Skepticism is a winning strategy, which is why it is so common, but you can never say for sure unless your crap filters are really precise.
Most of the time, they provide no useful model. When they do, they are demonstrably wrong.
For example, there was a guy who had his "theory of gravity" which failed to produce elliptical orbits (IIRC, non-circular orbits were highly unstable).
Other guy tried to explain fusion by drawing electron orbits (not orbitals) of around a nucleus.
IMO, skepticism is the way to go with new theories.
- No useful model? GTFO.
- Model does not fit a lot of experiments? GTFO.
- Model is more narrow and complex than existing theories? GTFO.
- Model does not have measurable effects with current technology? Well, you have to wait or build it yourself.
- Model fits experiments, had successful predictions before experiments, and explains more/unifies other theories? Good, go grab a cookie^W Nobel Prize.
How do you tell the difference between a crackpot and an out of the box thinker? Sometimes it's obvious (I've squared the circle!), but often times it is ambiguous (probably a crackpot, probably not a genius). In this case, I would argue that it is the latter.
What do you mean by it? There isn't anything particularly new in either of them and there wasn't when they were created either. And many things that were idiomatic and useful in other languages are missing (no Pascal style subtypes for instance which mean that I have to litter my code with contracts).