Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life
1–10 of 42 posts
Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life
#2Some reading that disagrees with Constructor Theory: http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/05/constructor-theory-deutsch...
Looking forward to reading comments that disagree with this disagreement.
Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life
#3Well... it may solve the riddle of life, but that article sure doesn't explain how at all. This is a criticism of the article, not the theory, as my point is that the article is not describing this well enough to be critical of a theory that I still don't have any idea about.
Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life
#4Well... it may solve the riddle of life, but that article sure doesn't explain how at all. This is a criticism of the article, not the theory, as my point is that the article is not describing this well enough to be critical of a theory that I still don't have any idea about.
I wasn't left that much the wiser after reading this either. In short, I think "constructor", "recipe", "knowledge" are some pretty heady concepts which could use a lot more explanation.
I think what it's trying to say is that constructors are resilient (i.e. long lived, through virtue of replication) 'structures' expressed in matter capable of stably holding and repeatably acting on digital information. And once you have a basic constructor, assemblages of these can provide successively higher levels of organizational power. Their digitally error-corrected resilience differentiates them from flash-in-the-pan analog chemistry, and once you have that longevity of structure you can start to have life. I think.
I don't know. I mean, yes, intuitively, life as an emergent property of recursive layers of self-organizing structures makes more sense than life as the continuation of a random walk through chemistry, but whatever constructor theory is, it's not deeply explained here. What are its implications? How does it actually compare to alternative theories?
Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life
#5This article begs the question on "Biological replication and self‑reproduction are in fact such stupendously well‑orchestrated physical transformations that one must explain how they are possible under the simple, no‑design laws of physics such as ours. This additional explanation, which was not included in the theory of evolution, is essential for that theory to properly explain how living things arise without intentional design – to close the explanatory gap."
From my point of view, chemistry more or less explains how cells work, and we don't need a quasi-platonic explanation of how the universe is designed to allow for a grass-eating goat machine to explain this at all.
Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life
#6This...seems like nonsensical pseudoscience.
Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life
#7I can't follow the article.
I'll assume it means this:
//Old theory
u = new Universe();
//TODO: populate...
//New theory
r1 = Replicator.getInstance();
r2 = Replicator.getInstance();
r3 = Replicator.getInstance();
u = new Universe(r1,r2,r3);
Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life
#8This article begs the question on "Biological replication and self‑reproduction are in fact such stupendously well‑orchestrated physical transformations that one must explain how they are possible under the simple, no‑design laws of physics such as ours. This additional explanation, which was not included in the theory of evolution, is essential for that theory to properly explain how living things arise without inte…
Explaining how a cell works is not the same as explaining how cells first came to exist. Once a cell exists, given certain conditions, it can replicate itself - we can explain each step in the process with reference to laws of chemistry. However, a different question is: How did this process get started? That's the question this article is addressing.
Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life
#9Carl Sagan once said: "If you want an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe".
As I understand it from this article, it is saying: "Once you invent the universe, then an apple pie will exist... given enough time." ?
Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life
#10This...seems like nonsensical pseudoscience.
After reading the article I was left with the distinct impression that "constructor" is a name for something they suppose must exist to solve their problems and that the mere act of giving it a technical sounding name allows them to say they've solved the problem of the origin of life, since now they may say "constructor theory solves that problem".