4 ms·

Previous conception: We accept that the laws of physics must be compatible with the observation X (in the article's case, life), but they do not explain why X e

Previous conception: We accept that the laws of physics must be compatible with the observation X (in the article's case, life), but they do not explain why X exists. Constructor Theory: All things not explicitly forbidden by the laws of physics can exist. The answer to "Why does life exist?" is: "because the laws of physics do not explicitly prevent it." Seems like an interesting take. I'm not convinced that it's at all useful, but it's not obviously flawed or vacuous. Sidenote: I've never felt that the existence of life was as mystifying a physical problem as the existence of black holes, or expanding space time, or stars. Why people are mystified by life but blithely accept the existence of distant fusion reactors the size of our solar system is beyond me.

white-flame 11y ago
"The laws of physics do not explicitly prevent space unicorns living on the far side of the moon." Yeah, I don't see this as all that useful, either. It also still doesn't in any way advance discovering what process brought things into being, it only accepts that it happened, which everybody already accepted.
- dangerlibrary 11y ago
  We kind of already understand the physical processes that brought things into being, though. A mix of random chance and physical laws happened to create the right environment for hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and nitrogen to exist in the same place at stable temperatures for a couple billion years, and we got life. The question is "can we accept the fact that this process took place without being designed." Constructor theory says, in short: "Yep. We can also accept the existence of space unicorns, for a physically possible definition thereof. Probably not on the far side of the moon though, since we've been there and would've seen them."
  - qq66 11y ago
    >" A mix of random chance and physical laws happened to create the right environment for hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and nitrogen to exist in the same place at stable temperatures for a couple billion years, and we got life." That sentence just skipped over the most important part of the whole question! :)
    - dangerlibrary 11y ago
      I don't think either constructor theory or any alternative theory addresses anything I skipped. Either you accept that the initial state that lead to life was constructed, or you accept that it was not constructed and are faced with the problem that constructor theory intends to address. These theories attempt to explain why the initial state for the universe was conducive to life/stars/black holes/whatever - everything I described is long after the fact.
      - qq66 11y ago
        Oh, I don't think "constructor theory" answers any interesting questions. I just think that there is a very interesting question about how we get from primordial soup to self-replicating cells that we don't have a good answer for yet.

white-flame 11y ago

"The laws of physics do not explicitly prevent space unicorns living on the far side of the moon." Yeah, I don't see this as all that useful, either. It also still doesn't in any way advance discovering what process brought things into being, it only accepts that it happened, which everybody already accepted.

dangerlibrary 11y ago
We kind of already understand the physical processes that brought things into being, though. A mix of random chance and physical laws happened to create the right environment for hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and nitrogen to exist in the same place at stable temperatures for a couple billion years, and we got life. The question is "can we accept the fact that this process took place without being designed." Constructor theory says, in short: "Yep. We can also accept the existence of space unicorns, for a physically possible definition thereof. Probably not on the far side of the moon though, since we've been there and would've seen them."
- qq66 11y ago
  >" A mix of random chance and physical laws happened to create the right environment for hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and nitrogen to exist in the same place at stable temperatures for a couple billion years, and we got life." That sentence just skipped over the most important part of the whole question! :)
  - dangerlibrary 11y ago
    I don't think either constructor theory or any alternative theory addresses anything I skipped. Either you accept that the initial state that lead to life was constructed, or you accept that it was not constructed and are faced with the problem that constructor theory intends to address. These theories attempt to explain why the initial state for the universe was conducive to life/stars/black holes/whatever - everything I described is long after the fact.
    - qq66 11y ago
      Oh, I don't think "constructor theory" answers any interesting questions. I just think that there is a very interesting question about how we get from primordial soup to self-replicating cells that we don't have a good answer for yet.