David Deutsch’s Constructor Theory (constructortheory.org)

What makes it amazing to you?

I think in the long run they will appear complimentary. Particularly since the Ruliad is meant to represent the space of all possible entanglements.

How come? If constructor theory is promising, then Wolfram's theory should be just as promising. Both are unproven and the ideas are not extremely different.

Not to be all depressing like Marvin the Paranoid Android, but I happen to think "life" is overrated. ;) There are so many billions of other extremely interesting cellular automata rules besides "life" too, so don't stop once you get bored with life! ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAA67a2-Klk

The really interesting and efficient and deeply physics-related cellular automata rules are reversible (which the Game of Life isn't).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing

Reversible computing is any model of computation where the computational process, to some extent, is time-reversible. In a model of computation that uses deterministic transitions from one state of the abstract machine to another, a necessary condition for reversibility is that the relation of the mapping from states to their successors must be one-to-one. Reversible computing is a form of unconventional computing.

Due to the unitarity of quantum mechanics, quantum circuits are reversible, as long as they do not "collapse" the quantum states they operate on.

Yes

Teach Yourself David Deutsch’s Constructor Theory in 21 Days

I don't understand anything about this, or even basic physics, but I clicked on one of the videos on the page and the speaker used the terms "reversible dynamics" and "quantum" so I think you might be right?

Timestamp is 00:00-02:15 in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go2EO9l_L3o

From one of the talks linked at the bottom, titled:

  "Interview with Maria Violaris. A short introduction to Constructor Theory’s application to irreversibility in homogeneisation machines."

Sorry for poor punctuation, I copy-pasted from YouTube's transcript:

    [INTERVIEWER] what does it mean that the dynamical laws of physics are time reversible and
    specifically what does this mean in the context of quantum physics?

    [RESEARCHER] yeah so the the dynamical laws of physics being reversible is something that we
    see not just with quantum physics but also with normal classical physics with
    classical mechanics and electromagnetism. there's this property that when we
    look at the dynamical laws they don't distinguish between a process happening
    forward in time and the process happening backwards in time. so if we look at
    any system around us and we zoom into what's happening to the particles, and
    then if you played a video of them interacting forwards in time and you reversed
    it, the dynamical laws let us allow these interactions to happen both ways and
    times. 

    ...

    [RESEARCHER] the way that happens in quantum theory specifically is that, any interaction
    that's allowed within quantum theory, the reverse interaction is also allowed
    within quantum theory. so any process that happens, that we use quantum
    mechanics to describe, then we can also use those equations to describe the
    reverse process happening. so that's how we see this -- this reversibility is a
    property inherent in the laws of quantum mechanics

I haven't read TFA but David Deutsch is usually pretty keen on falsifiability. I learned most of what I know about Popper from reading "The Fabric of Reality".

Potentially:

"This argument provides the indispensable theoretical basis for recently proposed tests of non-classicality in gravity, based on witnessing gravitationally-induced entanglement in quantum probes."

Does it make predictions ? It looks like a logical fundation for physics. In computer science, it's the equivalent of inventing a new programming language instead of solving actual problems.

My understanding is that this is more of an approach than a single rigorous theory. Modern theories typically define operators that are applied to a current state to derive a future state; constructor theory skips all of that and says that some start -> finish pairs are allowed and some forbidden. Conservation of energy is very much of this model: it doesn't say why or how it's conserved, but from it you can figure out things like the velocity an object gains as it moves through a gravitational potential.

> That's programming language work for physical theory

Well, that would be insanely valuable since it would open up theoretical physics to machine-approaches (AI/ML). I know many are disgusted by this, but I'd love to see a PhysicalTheory-fold equivalent of Alpha-fold chew throw all modern theoretical physics and rank all theories on a possiblity-probability score or sh like that, since the amount of stuff a human would have to go through is already too much...

Becoming one of the most famous public intellectuals of all time?

Becoming a selfish meme? ;)

They publish a number of papers in peer-reviewed journals. It seems like this is more about how you raise money for theoretical work and less about peer-review.

If I were to give a software analogy, I would say Deutsch's proposal is like trying to describe physics by specifying it in terms of the data types that the "code" of the physical equations satisfy. Instead of saying the "underlying implementation code" is what is fundamental in physics, he is suggesting that the types are fundamental. And the way to figure out what the code is doing is to figure out the types because the types are what ultimately constrain the code. His view would be something like every possible set of implementation code that satisfies the types is in fact instantiated in the multiverse. Therefore figuring out the fundamental layer of physics means figuring out the types because they are what define the multiverse.