Ben - I agree. From a quick reading, constructor theory isn't offering a new
analytic frame, for the notion of general laws (Thirdness) operating as causal
of individual instances (Secondness) - is basic Peircean analysis. Furthermore,
the notion of the evolutionary capacity of these general laws - i.e., to
evolve/change as laws, is also basic Peirce.
So, I'm not sure of the novelty of constructor theory - other than, possibly,
the dominant biological view of neoDarwinism rejects that the general laws
have, in themselves and not randomly, the capacity for evolution.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin Udell
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce & Constructor Theory
Clark, list,
It's quite possible that I'm wrong-headed about it, but Is this inversion by
the idea of constructors a difference that makes a difference? What is it
beyond rephrasing?
Peirce found plenty of modalism in the ordinary language or thinking of
physics. If something is conditionally necessary or fated in the sense of a
physical law, how does it help to express it _more_ modally for any reason
besides perhaps increased clarity? I mean, how does it result in new
predictions or help somebody do physics? If you have a bunch of physical
structures constraining possibilities in the same way, that's called a law.
Peirce saw generals, laws, etc., as governing individuals, not vice versa to
any significant extent. Why shouldn't Peirce have thought of the idea of
constructors as an effort to rephrase modal realism in approximately nominalist
terms?
Best. Ben
On 8/12/2015 12:59 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
Someone just introduced me to Constructor Theory. This is a new theory of
information which attempts to express all physics in terms of a difference
between possible and impossible physical transformation. The idea is more or
less to take the success of Shannon in the classical realm and apply it to the
quantum realm. David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto at Oxford have been the main
people working on it.
The big difference from traditional formulations of physics is that it
inverts the usual conclusions. Instead of the laws of physics telling you what
is possible or not, you get the laws from basic considerations of what’s
possible or not given a given physical structure. Those of you who are familiar
with thermodynamics might know that you can derive the laws of thermodynamics
in a very similar way - while I don’t know their history I wonder if that’s the
genesis for this approach.
Upon reading it, the theory sounds very Peircean. I was curious if anyone
here has done any reading along those lines.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
There’s also a recent writeup at Medium with a more populist description.
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/deeper-than-quantum-mechanics-david-deutschs-new-theory-of-reality-9b8281bc793a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
