I don't yet understand the Deutsch speak! How do you define task and constructor in normal computationalism?
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
A task is the abstract specification of a transformation, and a constructor is that which can cause a transformation that meets that specification. If the laws impose no limit on how accurately or reliably a transformation can be performed, then a constructor for it can be built
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @EvanOLeary
I a constructor a function that is computable by the available resources?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
A constructor is the limit converged to by a sequence of substrates all of which imperfectly perform a transformation. A task is closer to a function but can have many outputs for 1 input. Computation: Abstract->A Measurement: Concrete->A Preparation: A->C Transformation: C->C
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @EvanOLeary
Does that imply that a constructor is an approximate specification of a combination of operators (what's a substrate?), or is it the continuous limit of a series of discrete operators, or something else? (What does it mean to perform a transformation imperfectly?)
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
A constructor is an abstract object to which physical objects can instantiate approximations. A substrate is a physical system that can undergo transformations. The notion of convergence upon an accuracy depends on the subsidiary theory. I think convergence on a reliability...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EvanOLeary
So constructor theory is a theory about the languages that DD uses to describe reality?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
The single language, the algebra of tasks, that they use to describe physical reality (e.g. even states can be thought of as just tasks with no proper subtasks and which equal their transposes). But I do think it would be interesting to apply it to abstract objects
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EvanOLeary
I still find it weird and unusual... does anybody adopt it outside of DD's circles? Is it a replacement for mathematical constructivism or an alternative or an extension?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Evan O'Leary Retweeted David Deutsch
Does it seem to you different from "physics from the perspective of computer science" in a bad way? And not that I know of, but DD does contact other research labs I hearhttps://twitter.com/DavidDeutschOxf/status/961932159442407426 …
Evan O'Leary added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No, it is just that I have not heard anybody but him use his terminology, and I also heard nobody shout that he is an evil charlatan. This means that either 100% of the people outside of his lab don't understand him (unlikely), or that he is solid but perhaps a little obscure.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Yeah, what he said here https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_deutsch-constructor-theory … (ctrl+f "The stereotype") appears to have happened
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EvanOLeary @Plinz
(the stereotype didn't happen, what he says usually happens happened)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.