0
$\begingroup$

Please direct me to the appropriate area if this is not it.

A few months ago I came across a theory published by a younger woman and an older man, both somewhat well known in relativistic and quantum physics. The man I think is best known in information theory as well. She works with him for some university research program.

The website of theory suggests to look at certain physical models as sets of transforms on a continuum (or something with similar language), as opposed to functions as we currently model it. The theory has some applications in quantum information theory but also alluded to a more general application.

It was very compelling, but I can’t seem to find it again for the life of me.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

It’s constructor theory. It’s by David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto.

Instead of describing the world in terms of trajectories, initial conditions and dynamical laws, in constructor theory laws are about which physical transformations are possible and which are impossible, and why.

http://constructortheory.org/

Of course I spend months searching for this and find it as soon as I ask.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Do be careful about theories you find on the internet. "Constructor theory" is optimized to look flashy and deep on a first skim to people who haven't studied any physics -- when you start digging in to what it actually says, you'll find there's no substance. $\endgroup$
    – knzhou
    Commented Jan 28, 2020 at 6:38
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I try to take these things as physics philosophy novels. I wonder how seriously the authors (smart folks in their fields) view their poetry as factual? $\endgroup$
    – user
    Commented Jun 29, 2020 at 8:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @knzhou: Deutsch is hardly a fringe figure. He has made major contributions across the field, and is in a senior position working on this theory at one of the most prestigious institutions in the world. Don't you think the converse is more likely, that these people have recognised something as important that you have not? $\endgroup$
    – CriglCragl
    Commented Jun 12, 2021 at 8:06
  • $\begingroup$ @CriglCragl I did consider that possibility, which is why I read the papers, and was disappointed to find nothing in them. They’re packed with complicated verbiage, but they’re not deep. $\endgroup$
    – knzhou
    Commented Jun 12, 2021 at 17:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For example, one of the earlier papers “proves” that life exists with the following syllogism: 1) Life exists if there is a constructor for life, 2) Assume there is a constructor for life, 3) Therefore life exists. Of course, the emptiness of this argument is hidden with 50 pages of totally irrelevant rambling, but it could be used in identical form to “prove” the existence of unicorns, because it employs no actual properties of life or laws of physics. $\endgroup$
    – knzhou
    Commented Jun 12, 2021 at 17:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.