An Open Letter to The Father of Quantum Computing, David Deutsch.
There is a compelling trend to push back on folk that are using AI to help them generate messaging in forms they aren’t too familiar with, so in this post I’m not using AI. Because, although I’m 99% sure to be dismissed, I’m 100% not keen to be dismissed out of hand.
So, in this article you’ll get what you’ll get and you wont get upset. The raw thoughts that have led me to this very keen interest in writing an open letter to the father of quantum computing, which is certainly to be the matter of this article. It doubles up as something of an origin story for a fun project, because an outcome of that fun project has delivered a very unexpected result.
Given that I am a little mouse, such declarations give little to the narrative resonance of this story, so I’ll jump direct into the raw telling and the full intent I have with this keenly worded letter. It has already been penned, as we might say, in the form of an email. As such, this next bit is pretty easy.
Hi David,
I came across your work in 2018 after I had a thought that did not feel like it should be unique. Constructor Theory explained the thought, which was a relationship between system dynamics and the stratification of system sets due to what is probable vs highly improbable being something like a selection bias. To overcome such stratification one would have to use energy to break into a higher operating set.
The thought sat with me until seven months ago I started working on a project where I was attempting to bridge subjective, intersubjective and objective reality via the conscious use of ‘constructors’ to best explain that ‘objective observation’ for the capture of usable information to support verifiable agreements. This project is ongoing and I thank you for the formalism you have brought to the language and concepts available.
Only recently I became aware of your audiobooks, so only recently did I get the chance to listen through some of your explanations. It was a very natural and intuitive set of explanations and I returned to those 2018 thought experiments to think forward from first principles.
What I came to, which I’m now quite interested to share, is a very simple arrangement of causal set theory with the use of an information geometric explanation, measured volumetrically, and also directionally as a type of emergent path dependent branching mechanism for the many universes, and especially the one we happen to be emergent within ourselves.
Part 1 and 1.1 in the paper published here is pretty much ‘everything’ there is to this mathematically. It is all presented as 100% stood on the shoulders of giants, with a ‘sliver’ of elevation that comes only from this constructor-theoretic thought experiment progression I went through. Everything else in the paper is just my attempt to flesh out more of the explanation and, to generally have fun with the explanatory power of the idea.
In listening to your two books only in the last three weeks, I feel like 99% of the story is due to Constructor Theory. But, as you would already know, by definition this is all that was ever going to be possible. ‘Knowledge’ is important, but it is actually important only in a local context. It is then important in terms of the branching and coherence of that local context. The causal set selection requires both probable and improbable states, so the intuition you expressed re Easter Island is quite profound. If one does not decohere from a terminal path, then one will not become part of the branch that succeeds past the anchoring of such terminal paths.
Cheers,
Steven
So, that is it — the open letter and the fun stuff that started back in 2018 and got an unexpected spike in an unexpected direction as I’ve been attempting to work through on the ‘emergent constructs’ within the Objective Observer Initiative. As I mentioned to someone recently, I’m 99% likely to be 99% wrong about all this stuff. However, the odds of being 1% correct for 1% for this stuff would still result in some pretty epic and impactful movements in the precise needle that gives us pointers on the common pools of scientific progress.
I for one like those odds.
I would love to not be dismissed out of hand. I’d love for a few learned folk to take a look and just let me know; is this what is solving for our possible vs non possible coherent transformations over spacetime?
