When reading the Aeon article about constructor theory, I came across this comment: Matthew, I think, is not understanding constructor theory as a new mode of explanation, one that does not rely on the dynamical laws and the initial conditions (what Deutsch and Marletto call 'the prevailing conception of physics'). As I understand Matthew, he is asking, 'why can't we just note that life exists and is allowed to exists according to the dynamical laws and initial conditions and then move on?'
The problem is that neo-Darwinian evolution belongs to the realm of fundamental physics, but the prevailing conception reduces it to a parochial fact. That is, fundamental physics is current unable to deal with neo-Darwinism as a fundamental theory. Here I'll explain why. First of all, why does neo-Darwinism belong to physics? Because the laws of physics permit evolution by natural selection to occur. If the laws of physics had been different in the right way, then evolution by natural selection would have been impossible. Neo-Darwinism is contingent on the laws of physics. So neo-Darwinism is part of physics. But the prevailing conception of physics, which explains the world in terms of dynamical laws and initial conditions, does not deal well with neo-Darwinism. Within the prevailing conception, neo-Darwinism is a parochial idea. Life exists in much the same way as, say, a dust cloud in space, which was also brought about by the dynamical equations and the initial conditions. But neo-Darwinism is universal: the existence of objects that appear to be designed is explained in terms of neo-Darwinian evolution. The resolution that constructor theory proposes is: throw out this idea that the equations of motion are fundamental and replace them with an explanation of what tasks are possible, what tasks are impossible, and why. Within this new framework (well, 'framework' is really the wrong word: constructor theory is a new kind of explanation and a new theory of physics with its own laws, but I digress), the laws of motion take a backseat; they are not fundamental. In fact, it is expected that the equations of motion will emerge from constructor theory, and not the other way around. Moreover, constructor theory naturally incorporates Neo-Darwinism. A replicator is a constructor with the task of copying itself, and what is being copied is the information in the replicator, and information is not understood outside of constructor theory. So the conflict, as mentioned earlier, between fundamental physics and neo-Darwinism disappears when we introduce constructor theory. Now, I can imagine a further objection: 'yeah, okay, but was resolving this conflict worth the trouble of throwing out the prevailing conception of physics for?' YES IT WAS! Constructor theory is not just a way of making biology appear unproblematic to physicists; it allows us to solve more problems! Constructor theory is a new theory, which will hopefully replace the prevailing conception as the new most-fundamental mode of explanation in physics, and in doing so absorb neo-Darwinism into fundamental physics in the process.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |