Re:Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life
by contravariant on Thursday July 16, 2015 @07:11PM
(#9900429)
I think there's also a (again silent) assumption that a constructor can be constructed, which is again non-trivial, and actually seems to be false. And if it is false then that seems like a major flaw, at least I don't really see how a non-constructable constructor is more convenient than the physical laws it is supposed to represent.
I also suspect you'll encounter something like the halting problem when trying to figure out which constructors aren't constructable. At worst you'll encounter constructors where this question is unanswerable (e.g. can you construct a constructor, which constructs all constructable constructors that can't construct themselves?).
But where it sounds like this is going is: If you don't know it's impossible, then it must be possible to build a constructor for it. That assumes that everything that we don't currently know is impossible must be possible. That's... quite an assumption.
Worse, that assumption is swept under the rug rather than explicitly stated.
Or I could be misjudging their position...