Specify 10 things she said that are relevant, to anything. No, 5 things would be enough to support your claim of rock-solid proposals. She reminds me of Richard Nixon who could talk and talk and talk and in the end have said absolutely nothing. What is Constructor Theory and what are real world implications/applications of practicing such a theory? A machine which can create a copy of itself? Define "copy". We already have the tech to build self-replicating machines (depending on the def of "replication"). The recipe for cloning a human already exists in the DNA - we don't need a machine to do it. We problems which are much more relevant and much more solvable that wasting neurotic ideation on metaphysics. We don't need to know what, if anything, is on the other side of a Black Hole. Nor is an Equation Of State Of The Universe at all important. The first sentence in the video description above reads: "The theory of the universal quantum computer has brought us rapid technological developments, together with remarkable improvements in how we understand quantum theory."What tech developments and/or quantum theory improvements at all, much less remarkable ones, are we talking about? Name some. Name anything real that has resulted from universal quantum computer theory.

@@jrice135 I absolutely agree with you in regard to there being no tangible benefits from "universal quantum computer theory". I can however point out many massive tech leaps that have some from in the last five years that are already in use because of greater understanding of computation. The universal constructor is a well defined thought experiment in computer science where the notion of "copy" is well defined. I assume this is what Chiara was referring to. She should have made it clear though. It's a completely theoretical "machine" that we don't have anything like the tech to build. The idea is that the machine needs a "description" of ('blueprint' or program for) itself, a universal constructor mechanism that can read any description and construct the machine (sans description) encoded in that description, and a universal copy machine that can make copies of any description. Note that you can separate out the copy machine because all it needs to copy are the instructions, not the actual machine. So the definition of copy only relates to the universal constructor being able to copy the instructions (code) to build itself.

​@@jrice135 DNA cloning a human and a "perfect copy" in this sense are totally different. DNA isn't a universal blueprint that is copied this way. It isn't even meant to behave this way because it recombines. This is why in the real world things evolve. You need to have things like error correction in the universal constructor as soon as you want to talk about the real world and not a thought experiment.

@@columbasaint465 can you clarify "(sans description)" I am french and even me I am not sure. Are you just stating the obvious that such a machine has never been described/detailed. Or does that mean that the universal constructor should be able to build the copy from a "3d picture" of the thing ? Can you elaborate, it may be essential ?

@@lcdvasrm Sorry for butchering your language. "Sans description" just means without the description. The 3D picture would have to be encoded with all the instructions to build the universal constructor so I would imagine it is possible. I think you might be having trouble still with understanding that the universal constructor is actually three separate parts. The "universal constructor" part of the whole universal constructor is not copying anything. It's only building the copy of itself and does not "know" anything about whether it is building a copy of itself or something new entirely. It is solely the "copy" part of the whole universal constructor that does any copying and it only copies the blueprint/code/description. It can be thought of as a separate machine if you want to. It's nothing more than a photocopier. The term "Universal Constructor" is both used to describe a whole machine with three separate mechanisms but when you treat all three mechanisms of the whole as separate machines; one is named the universal constructor, the other the universal copier and the third the blueprint/code/description.

His name is Joscha Bach :) and he is a living legend

@@diehenne Thank you !!! I didn't know how to find him.

great to see you here.. :) the audience had some very very interesting questions..

Unfortunately, the first definition that Euclid and others used is prohibitive for expressing the visualization of a point. We need a better geometry to use for expressing our observations within the Scientific Method.

Wtf. I think you dont understand what she says.

@@capitanmission If you have some arguments please explain me, otherwise I do not understand why you are commenting

@@supermarcoa The use of space for mathematical operations is a problem for any theory. Gauss pointed this out in 1929 and it was 40 years old in his mind. See the last paragraph for his conclusion on where it would lead. I call his problem with Geometry "Gauss's Gordian Space Knot". He searched his life for its resolution. See his friends and former student Weber's attempt to resolve the issue. 14. Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 27 January 1829 …There is another topic, one which for me is almost 40 years old, that I have thought about from time to time in isolated free hours, I mean the first principles of geometry; I don’t know if I have ever spoken to you about this. Also in this I have further consolidated many things, and my conviction that we cannot completely establish geometry a prioir has become stronger. In the meantime it will likely be quite a while before I get around to preparing my very extensive investigations on this for publication; perhaps this will never happen in my lifetime since I fear the cry of the Boetians if I were to voice my views. It is strange, however, that except for the well known gaps in Euclid’s geometry which till now one has tried in vain to fill, and never will fill, there are other defects in the subject that to my knowledge no one has touched, and to resolve these is by no means easy (but possible). Such is the definition of a plane as a surface for which the line joining any two of its points lies wholly in it. This definition contains more than is necessary for the description of the surface, and tacitly involves a theorem which must be proved first …. Reconstructing the geometrical theory is necessary for any progress on this subject. Points and lines and their use of them are delusional endures. If you are interested I can disclose this to you. RichardAlsenz@gmail.com. Your approach may have possibilities. Good lucK in an area which Gauss was upon. "According to his frequently expressed view, Gauss considered the three dimensions of space as specific peculiarities of the human soul; people, which are unable to comprehend this, he designated in his humorous mood by the name Bœotians. We could imagine ourselves, he said, as beings which are conscious of but two dimensions; higher beings might look at us in a like manner, and continuing jokingly, he said that he had laid aside certain problems which, when in a higher state of being, he hoped to investigate geometrically.:?)

@@RichardAlsenz The inclusion of the spacetime is one of the biggest success of modern physics. It allows Einstein to explain effects such as the orbit of mercury (which newton theory cannot explain), deflection of light rays, gravitational redshift, and a tons of other thing including the big bang. Most notably the introduction of the geometry in physics, as a field, can predict the existence of incredible objects such as black holes, which nowadays can be observed. If you want to dismiss the notion of space in physics is better you can explain at least the observables that general relativity can do with a better accuracy. In the literature of the last 50 years it's plenty of proposals which try to overcome the General relativity spacetime, in particular to make it compatible with quantum mechanics, but no proposal have been able so far to explain better than general relativity our universe. Everybody knows that general relativity have to be modified or generalized to include a description of the microscopical effects, but nobody has come out with a legit theory so far, nor supergravity, nor string theory, nor loop quantum gravity, nor this intents the girl is speaking here. If they will have some observable effect they can test I'm going to take into consideration, until that point it is one of the thousands of intents which have no scientific verification. Most probably, based on the foggy ideas in this video, we will not have any improvement with respect to actual knowledge. It's also suspicious that having no physical results there are so many video on the tube on that subject. In any case it's ok that people go on searching for better physical models. If they start from more solid premises they may have more chances of succeed (and less chances to waste the public money given for research).

That's what I got out of it, that or "I don't like the current model here's my crayola version, gimme grant"

We appear to be entering a time where people say it is not possible to create the conditions to prove a theory, so let's not get hung up on that (String Theory, Multiverse, etc). I have no idea what constructor theory is supposed to be even though I've been following several of these videos.

@@jondrew55 No idea about what "Constructor theory" is, I am afraid it sounds to me to "object oriented programming". Computers are great tools but I don't worship them, impossible to replace human vision that is able to condense huge amount of truth inside EQUATIONS.

I wondered if 'things that can't be contructed' might correspond to things that would not have a route through multirullial or branchial space. Just a long shot thought. I am sure they have thought this already though. Smart people.

@@seancharles1595 there isn't always the cross pollination there could be between realms. The Wolfram project aims to

Simultaneity connects to our Universe. How?

Come on people. No actual application is offered as example of utility. Can anyone give me an actual example use of this Constructor Theory being used to solve any real problem. Not theoretically but applied. I can handle the math Bring it on.

would/wouldn't they be smaller & still smaller, ... 🙀 fractally equivalent miniaturization, ☕🤯🧟

The task depicted of an elephant being printed is considered to be a possible task that is allowed by physics. To answer your question, there is nothing symbolic about that task because it is a task that we could direct a universal computer to carry out.

Oh, that's a fascinating question!

@@LioraFarkovitz Thank you. I suspect this would be quite important as there is a possibility that information has to be understood in terms of consciousness. Perhaps, after all, it is consciousness that gives "meaning" to information, and not the other way around. Or at least we should consider that possibility, I think. For example, in one country Red traffic lights mean stop. But in the hypothetical tiny country of Moogabuto, Red traffic lights mean go. One day in NYC there are two people, a new yorker and citizen of Moogabuto. They both see the same traffic light. It is Red. For the new yorker it means "stop". But for the Moogabutoian it means "go". It is not the color of the light that gives it meaning... but the consciousness receiving it that does. Therefore a theory of fundamentals would probably need to account for this when assessing the question: what is Information? Anyway, the first stop I would want to make on the road to understanding Constuctor Theory is what I asked above. I don't know if it fits well as a question for Constructor Theory, of course, so I'm hoping I can learn more about it by hearing a response to my question. Thanks!

@@vbywrde I work with content on, or in, "things", whether that is text, code, or a/v input. That would make sense to me, that the content itself is interpreted by the recipient of it; that's always equal to true unless it's numeric calculations. Plus we know that once joined, it's never separated, and we also know just observing data, impact its action. Well, I can explain some of this, but I am not an advanced scientist at all. I would only be listening to it and trying to put it in simpler terms enjoyed by all.

@@LioraFarkovitz Thanks for your reply! I'm not a scientist, or mathematician, honestly. But I am a programmer, and I do a lot of work in the area of abstraction and generalization of logical constructs, so in a way this effort is something I can relate to... the effort to abstract principals upon which reality can be analyzed in order to derive a more coherent understanding is just the kind of thing I am interested in. So this project attracted my attention. But I'm far from an expert, and feel I can at this point only dimly grasp the significance of what I'm listening to. I've run the video repeatedly to gain better insight. It's truly fascinating!

@@vbywrde I'm kind of surprised how I am somehow able to intuit quantum anything at all. But whenever I hear it, I just seem to get it, even if I don't know any equations. It just feels like it makes sense... I said to someone that as a Kabbalist for over thirty years that that spiritual study "feels like" a poetic description of quantum physics. When I understood the 1 to infinity concept - rifling endlessly through possible solutions to problems... it makes weird sense to me. Like you would energetically, through common frequency, attract all the potential solutions to your soul quandary on Earth... and while you never know what exploration is the "right" one, you do seem to get closer and closer to a narrative that gives purpose and meaning to your soul journey - and this is math. It sure is nice to talk to someone that can discuss the abstract like this. Thanks!

Agreed

all of the paper preprints are available through the constructor theory website as far as I can see: constructortheory.org/research/ as far as preventing possible distortion/inflation around the work so far and speculative hype, incentives for researchers at the individual level are all toward getting their work out there and in front of as many people as possible. it is not reasonable to expect researchers in their prime years to be responsible for how the 'lay community' at large understand their work, on top of their primary day-to-day research, secondary teaching and admin duties and personal responsibilities. we sorely need to re-establish the norm of the 'client' in the fact-checking process being responsible for doing their own research rather than putting the onus entirely on the 'server' or 'source' (in this case the researchers themselves). also, I think the request for detailed youtube video breakdowns of all the components of the theory may be asking a little too much for a theory which doesn't have a single foundational pedagogical text written on it yet and which is really only entering its embryonic stage. the kind of people interested in the theory right now should be more than able to dig into the meat of the papers already written themselves without needing to be handheld - at a certain point simplified explanations and pop science is just that - pop. there's much more harmful snake oil going around these days than a speculative new theory which essentially seems to boil down to introducing counterfactuals into foundational physics as first class elements of our theories in order to constrain the size of the admissible solution space.

@@paulcassidy4559 Thanks for your super-responsive reply. I agree researcher can't control misrepresentations of their work. However, they are out there Evangelizing what they are doing without concrete examples, or even prototypes such as they are working with. I think there should be a balance between substantiation and evangelism, and I'm not getting it. Deutsch et.al. are engaging in debate and hand-waving about constructor theory, which *is* exciting, and will be irresistible for snake-oil salesmen. I'll check out those documents before saying anything more.

It's already started

I don't understand the philosophical point you're trying to make. Contradictions occur everywhere in nature, they also can occur nowhere; what defines contradiction is how the problem is framed. If there are no limits, then conflict will never occur, but also nothing useful will be derived.

Virus self-replicate but don't completely conform to standard definitions of 'life'. Also, isn't it a bit reductive and unfair to presenter and participants (excellent Q&A!) to say it's all about 'life'? UQC was the topic billed, + Category and (Integrated?) Information Theory rank also as core elements.

@@ylegoff It's "reductive" and "unfair" only if you want it to be. I don't. I just realized that this whole discussion was a quest for understanding something greater but without saying it, just like Bergson was discussing about the "élan vital", religions talk about "God", the Chinese use the word "Chi", others call it "Gaia", and so on. I bet it's safe to call it just "life" in the 2020s, before it changes name again

@@ThomasGodartHmm. I didn't think of the Bergson angle. It's food for thought. And to be fair, he was anything but reductive.

@@ThomasGodart my sense is that the main importance of the terms that you refer to isn't in their common referent which you identify (although that fact is definitely important), but rather the sociolinguistic sediment ('chat history'?) which has built up around them over time within their respective cultural contexts and how that relates to material changes within those societies.

I'm with you.

Who is "we"?

@@Deepfake820 the Boomer.

@@chrisdelaplante5515 Who is going to stop what happening and how exactly? The predictions for AI aren't looking good

unfortunately it is evaluation, humans have gone as far as biology can take us the next step for evolution is a longer life span that unfortunately means transforming to a new state of being thus being a machine.

THERE MUST BE A CANT . WE CAN CHANGE IT TO EVENTUALLY BUT WHY ?

You can prove that pi is irrational, meaning, it can't be represented as the ratio of two integers. Its infinite, non-repeating representation as a decimal is just a reflection of that.

@@josephpchajek2685 interesting description of the priority inversion of wisdom/rationality over love. If you _need_ to know (too much) you're in danger of violating your integrity by prioritizing your models over reality and thereby becoming untruthful (and if your model is coherent, the ground truths might have a disconnect with reality). The abstract tower of babel once more. Love for truth in the end is more important than wisdom/knowledge/structure itself. It gains and constructs it.

@@josephpchajek2685 nice, but love surely comes from appreciating and accepting the direction at hand in the grand holistic scale, rather than the ideal of it? very true your point on observation, but applying that logic to a workable direction, takes understanding of the way things move and interact, or you might miss read the observation, which was my point

@@josephpchajek2685 ah jeez. look, the loving kindness 'everything is energy' blabla stuff is great and all at the level of making people happier on a day to day basis, less stressed, more generous, warm, open, etc. I genuinely do think all that is great and something we're sorely lacking in the world we live in. but when you go around espousing the kind of stuff you are and consciously refusing to disambiguate your use of terms such as 'consciousness', 'observation' from their proper scientific definitions, ultimately all you're succeeding in doing is raising the noise floor in society and perpetuating confusion. again, no problem with the sentiment, I think it's great and we're really crying out for some kind of framework for better social-emotional regulation, but doing it by deliberately muddying the waters around hard scientific facts ain't the way to go about it I don't think.

THATS RIGHT .

THATS WRONG

I also wondered this

@@newenglandbarbell4647 same

why would them be encodable? Idk, but my intuition tells me that cans and cants are embedded in very high levels of supervinience, then it would be very tough to write them by rewrite-rules, let alone first order graph rewrite-rules

@@vesperide598 That's interesting. I suppose to be a theory of physics it will need some mathematical expression to be usable. She speaks of being able to express the discrete set of possibilities and impossibilities and deriving the rest. It seems intuitive to attempt this as a set of rewrites in a category (theory). If not that then some other form mathematical mechanics. Otherwise, the theory is one of philosophy and not physics.

Yup. My first [or second] thought too... these have so much in common.

Something you should avoid until you have the actual fundamentals down. Not saying that facecitiously well toward you anyway hahaha but before you go looking at new theories that might be just as this theorizer says wrong... memorize what's right.... there are constants for a reason as ever changing as they may be. It's hard enough to find the grasp we have now without people saying WOAH WOAH we need to remodel EVERYTHING.

I don't understand the controversy, It seem to me that is self evident that she Chiara Marletto is correct. A universal computer is not a Mac, or a linux box, is an abstraction. An approach to designing a minimal universal computer device. The device is super simple and can't interact with the *wide* outside world, it interacts with its tape. A Mac is far more sofisticated than a Turin machine, it's also weaker in some aspect (the T.M has infinite tape, so it can do stuff like compute forever).

@@jaimeduncan6167 yes, but the consensus is that everything that can be done by a modern computer can be done by a universal Turing machine, actually any computing device has an equivalent Turing machine. Thats why she changes computations to transformations in the beginning... But if there are transformations that cant be computed it seems strange to me, but she says there are... Things that a VonNeuman machine (which is not a computer according to Chiara) can do that a universal Turing machine (computing device) cant

Did you find it?

@@ancestralrocha7709 -- Unfortunately no :( - I had not much hints where to even start looking for that mentioned paper. 1950 might not be the exact publication date.

@@mechadense I didnt find it too but there is a 2020 paper that maybe will help to find it "John von Neumann’s 1950s Change to Philosopher of Computation" I still have to read it though

Why? A serious question. I'm not half as as smart as David & Chiara but even I can imagine a better successor to humanity.

@@sedalia9356 Any "successor" to humanity will be derived from humanity itself-- whether this successor be instantiated in silicone or continue on in carbon-based forms. This successor, then, will have much to be thankful for in humans for solving the problems that allowed them to exist.

@@sirbalafort2620 Resist anthropomorphization. We are grossly inefficient at goal attainment. 10,000 years of civilization and artificially maintained imbalances in resource exploitation and distribution continue to create unnecessary misery. Machines are orders of magnitude more efficient because they are not crippled by psychosis.

Thousands of oriental languages are near extinction

real talk in this comment! nice

Reference this copy and paste from my files: Consider the following: * There are 3 basic options for life itself, which reduce down to 2, which reduce down to only 1: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We die trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. c. We die not trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. * 3 reduced down to 2: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We don't. And note, two out of the three options above, we die. * 2 reduced down to 1: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We truly don't have any conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. (And note, these two appear to be mutually exclusive. Only one way would be really true.) And then ask yourself the following questions: 1. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies form? The current narrative is that matter, via gravity, attracts other matter. The electric universe model also includes universal plasma currents. 2. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies become spiral shaped in a cause and effect state of existence? At least one way would be orbital velocity of matter with at least gravity acting upon that matter, would cause a spiral shaped effect. The electric universe model also includes energy input into the galaxy, which spiral towards the galactic center, which then gets thrust out from the center, at about 90 degrees from the input. 3. Ask yourself: What does that mean for a solar system that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy? Most probably that solar system would be getting pulled toward the galactic gravitational center. 4. Ask yourself: What does that mean for species that exist on a planet, that exists in a solar system, that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy, in an apparent cause and effect state of existence? Most probably that if those species don't get off of that planet, and out of that solar system, and probably out of that galaxy too, (if it's even actually possible to do for various reasons), then they are all going to die one day from something and go extinct with probably no conscious entities left from that planet to care that they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less whatever they did and or didn't do with their time of existence. 5. Ask yourself: For those who might make it out of this galaxy, (here again, assuming it could actually be done for various reasons), where to go to next, how long to get there, how to safely land, and then, what's next? Hopefully they didn't land in another spiral shaped galaxy or a galaxy that would become spiral shaped one day, otherwise, they would have to galaxy hop through the universe to stay alive, otherwise, they still die one day from something with no conscious entities being left from the original planet to care they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less that they made it out of their own galaxy. They failed to consciously survive throughout all of future eternity. 6. Ask yourself: What exactly matters throughout all of future eternity and to whom does it exactly and eternally matter to? Either at least one species truly consciously survives throughout all of future eternity somehow, someway, somewhere, in some state of existence, even if only by a continuous succession of ever evolving species, for life itself to have continued meaning and purpose to, OR none do and life itself is all ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things. Our true destiny currently appears to be: 1. We are ALL going to die one day from something. 2. We are ALL going to forget everything we ever knew and experienced. 3. We are ALL going to be forgotten one day in future eternity as if we never ever existed at all in the first place. Eternal Death 'IS' Eternal Peace. Currently: Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, AND Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. (OSICA) * (Note: This includes the rich, powerful, and those who believe in the right to life and the sanctity of human life. God does not actually exist and Nature is not biased other than as Nature. Nature does what Nature does in a cause and effect kind of way. Truth is still truth and reality is still reality, regardless of whatever we believe that reality to be. And denying future reality will not make future reality any less real in a cause and effect state of existence.) ** Hence also though, legalizing suicide (or at least make suicide not illegal) so as to let people leave this life on their own terms if they wish to do so. Many people and species are going to die in the 6th mass extinction event that has already started, at least some, horrible deaths. Many will wish they could die, and all will, eventually. And the 6th mass extinction event will not be the last mass extinction event for this Earth. But if suicide were legal (or at least not illegal), at least some people would not have the added guilt of breaking societies' law before doing so. Just trying to plan ahead here. Giving people an 'out' if they wish to take it. Added Note: As this is a search for the real absolute truth concerning the future, please feel free to copy and paste this elsewhere to further the analysis and discussion.

Do my gravity test for my TOE idea and 'if' true, potentially have the literal TOE of this entire universe: Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) (An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.

Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.

'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows: Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction. Then: 1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe. (And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have). And also how possibly mathematical constants exist in this universe as well.

The mathematics for the TOE doesn't even exist yet as far as I am currently aware. It goes beyond any quantum field theory formulas that I am currently aware of. The outline though is basically as follows: The formula has at least 3 levels to it: 1. The Internal Photon Level: The 3 interacting forces, (which might even be just a singular force with 3 different modalities), all interacting at basically 90 degrees to each other and all simultaneously pulsating and swirling. A complex part of the formula but I believe to be totally doable. 2. The External Photon Level: For each pulsating, swirling photon, all the pulsating, swirling photons interacting with it. An exponential part of the formula that I am not even sure modern day super computers could adequately handle. 3. The Inter-dimensional Photon Level: For each modality within each photon would have an energy frequency associated with it. The energy frequencies could be seen as being in their own space time dimension. (For me, 'space' is energy itself of which is the 'gem' photon and 'time' is the flow of energy; 'temperature' is the interaction of energy), so one would be dealing with way more than just 3 spatial dimensions and way more than just 1 time dimension (as there would many different energy frequencies with many different flows of energy). Whenever like resonate energy frequencies resonated with each other, they would affect each other, kind of like 'spooky action at a distance'. Anytime energy frequencies overlapped, there would be a temporary spike of some sort in each space time dimension. In addition, if in reality the 'gem' photon is just a singular force with 3 different modalities, it's possible that energy could 'slip' between modalities which would also affect the results. A very complex part of the formula on top of all the complexity that came before it. 4. Any time any energy moved in the system, the entire formula would have to be recalculated due to potential ripple effects. 5. In addition, I am operating in a realm where one plus one does not always equal two, and often does not. Like I said above, I don't even believe the mathematics exists yet for what I am trying to do, but at a minimum, the formula would contain the above levels the way I currently see it to be. And I never said it would be easy.

Controversial. It could be the other way around. Principles themselves could be used to create boundary conditions of degrees.

@@abhijithcpreej How can you apply a principle to something that has no fixed position in spacetime? Surely you have to first measure it's position before you can apply any principle equation? At least that seems to be the case with sub-atomic particles.

A cell is a machine, but not a Turing machine. It isn't Turing complete or universal.

@Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis oy..now air bubbles are round so of course all of the Lake surfaces are round.....duh. 😆

@Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis see what happens is...the Lake....pushes the water Up in the center, and this of course makes the surface of the water on the Lake round...like the curve on a marble...like glass, and round. Muwaahaahaahaha! 😆

@Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis I mean if you push down on the water it squoooshes out of the Lake....but if you pull up on the water, you can make it stay there and have that nice round surface you guys like.

@Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis they must use the Curve of the gravity thing to smash 200ft sections of Plate Glass completely Flat, lol. Or maybe they use Curved Laser beams to Quality control the Flatness!!!! Bah!!!!

Except dark energy. It increases into the future, is 70% if the Universe and growing, And doesn't follow Conservation of Energy rules. (It does what it wants.)

@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 20th Century Physics is a shocking demonstration on how fossil fuels are dangerously hypnotic to humans.

TIME DOESNT FLOW FROM PAST TO FUTURE !! LOL... THATS A SIMPLE WAY OF THINKING !! LMAO

@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 EXACTLY

Hume begs to differ :)

"But if you try sometimes," you can get what you can't.

The quote is from Hedwig and the Angry Inch, in the movie it is the title of his thesis, I thought of it at the beginning of this presentation when it went into philosophy. For those less aware, its a nerdy pun on a song title.

@@josephpchajek2685 including the universe?

@@josephpchajek2685 What do you mean? What about a beaker or a flask? Chemists have used them to isolate chemicals and study their reactions. In accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, they are able to predict the gain or loss of heat with a high degree of precision and standardization. But that is "completely wrong"?

@@josephpchajek2685 The last I checked double-blind placebo-controlled studies work remarkably well, to the extent we spend billions of dollars on them. That's how we developed the various COVID vaccines for example. But you're saying all of that is a waste of time and money?

​@@josephpchajek2685 I watched both. How does either establish: 1) That thermodynamics is "completely wrong"? 2) That controlled, double-blind studies are useless; 3) That the COVID vaccines are to be distrusted?

@@josephpchajek2685 There is some basis to that in cosmology, particularly in the current conception of an expanding universe, in which energy conservation does appear to be violated. Nevertheless, in most everything else this principle works remarkably well. It has applied with virtually perfect reliability in such applications as chemistry and engine design. So instead of "completely wrong," would you agree with "open to question" or "not absolute"?

GR describes the largest, QM describes the smallest. GR's depiction of what SHOULD be going on when things are small is wrong. Likewise QM's depiction of what should be occuring when shit gets big is ALSO wrong. Hence the inability to combine the theories. It's not a problem of abstraction, its more a problem of same-level-abstraction conflict, so constructor theory abstracts to a higher level in order to solve the conflict between the theories.

Dark energy. (Continuous, but i don't know how to frame "instant").

@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 I was thinking of inflation theory in which the universe expanded to about 36m light years in just a few seconds, so relatively instant.

@@rustybolts8953 then dark energy would be slower than that. Of course, that assumes time is constant, and is the same now as it was in the early universe. (As a rate). Inflation as a pressure difference, or a temperature difference. If the Universe was at extreme temperature, then moved to an area of lower pressure (like bonding forces broke down between energy states)... The the speed of inflation would be proportional to the temperature of the early Universe. And would have expanded rather quickly. (Being trillions of degrees). The question might be: how do you pack so much energy into such a small volume, without causing a black hole to form? Then again, if there was no "space" yet, then there would be no place for a black hole TO form. Since no Universe existed outside of it. Pre-inflation speculation is too mind bending. Now i need a cup of tea. ;-)

While driving a Mini on drugs.

It ain't the object what does stuff, it's the field.

An FPGA engineer here. George Boole was a unitarian like Muslims.

Let us know when you have it creating FPGA chips out of sand and other raw ingredients.

@@DavidLindes Malaysia has its own electronic fabrication labs

@@ishmaelabraham4884 and?

Program it my guy research your company and then be like bruh... can you call darpa or alexa or w.e siri get them to help you?

could you elaborate a little on that please? sounds interesting!

It's perfect physicist-writing-on-30-chalkboards-for-1000-hours-and-then-yelling-EUREKA! hair

you cant create matter out of nothing. you can only transform

I don’t truly know how Chiara thinks about this, but what her talk got me thinking about was stuff like.... if a machine uses an API to send off an order for a replacement of itself, and (somehow) pays someone to accept the delivery and plug the devices in (using human labor as a “raw material”), does that count? Or does it need to be able to do the mining, smelting, chemical purification, and/or whatever other tasks directly by itself? Not that this would have to look anything like computers or robots as we know them today, but....

I had a somewhat similar issue that was resolved while watching the Q and A so I think I can help. The problem to my thinking stemmed from this example you point out, and the name "constructor theory"... I found myself asking "wait, why is 'construction', some physical thing, MORE abstract or general than information theory. Surely math and information is more abstract and fundamental" It was somewhat irritating because the absolute bottom should be true or false right? And after combining trues and falses, these states of things, then at some point it's complex enough for a constructor. Just think of the atoms of the universal constructor as the 1s and 0s, and it's very simple to see how a constructor is a subset of the set of all information, not the other way around. This is the issue with this example, because what she goes on to say is how constructors themselves are the end product, like a computer, of the theoy, and what is really at hand is what's possible and what's not possible. Its kinda like saying the fact that you can't have a square circle is more fundamental than a true or false bit of whether or not a circle is square. While she uses the reconcilliation of quantum mechanics and gravity as her example, I think a better example might be the incomputability of quantum mechanical end results by classical computers without resorting to brute forcing probabilities. Or better, it's like a classical computer can store the end result state of some collapsed superposition, but not the superposition and interact superpositions before collapsing. A normal computer works just fine if you just resolve the answer of the question at one step before moving on to the next... first add A to B, then add the answer C to D. The problem is that the quantum computer operates by operating on what is possible itself. This is at the heart, and from this is abstracted a constructor that is capable of creating any possible state, whereas a classical computer can only work on this virtual array of states, theoretically a quantum computer could hold within it's virtual states a valid universe. The classical computer could only store one instance, it would be a dead tape. So this has implication on AI and consciousness as much as unifying relativity and quantum mechanics, which we are currently only looking at as an information problem instead of a reality problem. My main criticism is that she doesn't explicitly make this case very well even though she thinks her examples do this, from an information theory / programming / engineering point of view, this raises a lot of "wait that doesn't follow" reactions because we've set information theory at the center and ground level of everything. What she really has to show first is that (and I hate to use "constructors" because like she even says, this isn't the base layer) constructors are more fundamental. Instead of constructors, it needs to be something that essentially refers to a kind of objectivism, like the Pauli exclusion principle is essentially "A=A, A!=B". We think of the fact that only two electrons can occupy the same energy state when one is spin up and one is spin down, as an engineering fact and not something more fundamental than 1s and 0s, because in information theory we can posit all sorts of different systems with different unit elements that interact / combine in different ways, and therefore we assume that information is more fundamental... but what if it wasn't? What if we understood the real nature of what was and wasn't possible and could find that information was just a trick we use within virtual space to create a useful fantasy, when we could really be simulating what's possible using quantum computers with this deeper understanding. Anyway, I'm still trying to wrap my head around stuff despite the examples and wording she's using, but that's as far as I've figured out myself. TL;DR, the the underlying problem was that she was claiming information theory is not fundamental, and is suggesting ... idk possibility theory? is more fundamental from which you would get both turing computers and constructors, and now I'm having to look through everything to see if she does explicitly substantiate that claim in more ways than this example.that bugs us. Edit: I should also say I'm only an hour in so if I've got it wrong then I'll modify or delete this :P but this is what I have gotten from the Q and As

No

@@johnnycharisma162 LOL THATS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS !!