3 ms·

This...seems like nonsensical pseudoscience.

• wbhart 11y ago
  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".
  • Nevermark 11y ago
    And its not even an original mistake. Our ancestors also used words (like "god") to answer (i.e. stop asking) questions about the origin of life. But I for one look forward to worshiping the Great Constructor.
    • cronjobber 11y ago
      Nice theory. Fly in the ointment: Our ancestors didn't stop asking, quite obviously, given that we ended up here.
      • Nevermark 11y ago
        Actually a lot of ancestors did stop asking. I think that is established fact, not theory, as even today it is easy to find people who disbelieve even basic science when it contradicts a religious view. But fortunately, as you point out, not everyone stops asking questions.
  • jfoutz 11y ago
    I think it's a little more subtle. A constructor is like a program. In this case, the rules of the language are physics itself. We're familiar with writing simple programs in C. We can imagine programs, like the halting problem solver. It turns out that program can't exist, but you kind of have to think about it for a while to understand why. A constructor (as i understand it) is sort of hand rolled assembly (matter) running right on physics. Perhaps there are space unicorns on the dark side of the moon. We can imagine that. It's not really clear if physics actually allows that though. My gut says no, but the rules of the game, much like the rules of the language may allow such a collection of matter to exist. I mean, quines are pretty weird. I wouldn't have thought that was even possible.