constructor theory is probably extremely useful in quantum computing. it’s a good way to reason about the type of phenomenon they are working with. but without the substrate of computational equipment and the human ingenuity and engineering that went into it and instead using it at a replacement for reductionism and then further abstracting it to apply to all of the sciences including physics, well, it’s a tall order. emergence is real and also counterfactuals are important just as always remembering it is humans and their cognitive structures that are creating these descriptions and machines for our own usage as explanatory devices for ourselves about the world around us. but will it kill reductionism? well what does reductionism generalize to?

constructor theory is probably extremely useful in quantum computing.

it’s a good way to reason about the type of phenomenon they are working with.

but without the substrate of computational equipment and the human ingenuity and engineering that went into it and instead using it at a replacement for reductionism and then further abstracting it to apply to all of the sciences including physics, well, it’s a tall order.

emergence is real and also counterfactuals are important just as always remembering it is humans and their cognitive structures that are creating these descriptions and machines for our own usage as explanatory devices for ourselves about the world around us.

but will it kill reductionism? well what does reductionism generalize to?

[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]