pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.07352 · v1 · pith:OIH6C7BInew · submitted 2026-06-05 · 🪐 quant-ph

Tests of constructor theory

Chiara Marletto , David Deutsch , Vlatko Vedral This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 21:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords constructor theoryquantum informationtask possibilityuniversal constructorexperimental testsphysical principlesdynamical laws
0
0 comments X

The pith

Constructor theory's principles add novel constraints on possible tasks that yield experimental predictions beyond current dynamical laws.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Constructor theory introduces physical principles expressed as statements about which tasks are possible or impossible for physical systems called constructors. These principles determine the full repertoire of a universal constructor capable of performing every physically allowed task. The paper establishes that the principles carry content supplementing existing dynamical laws and therefore generate new, testable predictions. It reviews concrete experimental proposals designed to probe those predictions and explores what confirmation or refutation would mean for quantum theory and any successor frameworks.

Core claim

The principles of constructor theory have novel physical content that supplements current dynamical laws, leading to new predictions for experimental tests. In this paper, we review the main experimental proposals to test the principles of constructor theory and discuss their implications for existing theories of physics and for their successors.

What carries the argument

Constructor-theory principles stated as constraints on the possibility or impossibility of tasks performed by constructors.

If this is right

  • The principles fix the complete set of tasks a universal constructor can perform.
  • Specific experiments can distinguish constructor theory from quantum theory alone.
  • Confirmation would require adjustments to any future theory that replaces current dynamical laws.
  • The tests bear directly on what counts as a possible physical transformation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Success of the tests would tighten the link between information-theoretic constraints and physical possibility.
  • The same principles might later be applied to derive limits on computation or measurement that current theory leaves open.
  • Experimental designs reviewed here could be adapted to other extensions of quantum information that also emphasize task possibility.

Load-bearing premise

The principles supply physical content that cannot already be derived from existing dynamical laws and that the proposed experiments can isolate this extra content.

What would settle it

Perform one of the reviewed experiments; if the measured outcome on task possibility matches standard quantum predictions but contradicts the constructor-theory constraint, the claim of novel content is refuted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.07352 by Chiara Marletto, David Deutsch, Vlatko Vedral.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Information media and superinformation media: quantum systems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hybrid systems comprise a quantum probe Q (e.g. a qubit) and another ‘mystery’ system M whose laws are partially unknown and may not be quantum-mechanical. These hybrid systems are characterised by a hybrid scale (not micro or macro, but a mixture of those) and by unspecified hybrid dynamics (not clas￾sical, not quantum, but possibly more general ones). Typically, hybrid systems are studied using ad hoc as… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The entanglement-based witness of non-classicality. If M can entangle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temporal witness of non-classicality. If [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The quantum homogeniser used to model the constructor-based irre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The logic of self-reproduction with the replication-vehicle logic. An [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Constructor theory is a proposal to extend quantum information theory beyond both quantum theory and computation, to cover more general machines than programmable computers -- called constructors. It consists of newly conjectured physical principles that can be expressed as constraints on what tasks are possible, what are impossible, and why. These principles also determine the repertoire of the universal constructor, which is a programmable machine that can perform all physically possible tasks. The principles of constructor theory have novel physical content that supplements current dynamical laws, leading to new predictions for experimental tests. In this paper, we review the main experimental proposals to test the principles of constructor theory and discuss their implications for existing theories of physics and for their successors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review summarizing existing proposals for experimental tests of the principles of constructor theory. These principles are presented as conjectured constraints on possible and impossible tasks performable by constructors (general machines), determining the repertoire of a universal constructor, and asserted to supply novel physical content that supplements dynamical laws and yields new testable predictions.

Significance. If the reviewed experimental proposals can be implemented and the principles prove to have content independent of existing dynamical laws, the review could help consolidate and guide tests in quantum foundations. The paper does not derive new results, present original data, or include machine-checked proofs or parameter-free derivations, but compiles prior proposals and discusses implications.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central assertion that 'the principles of constructor theory have novel physical content that supplements current dynamical laws, leading to new predictions' is stated as a premise without a specific section or example within the review demonstrating a concrete prediction that cannot be derived from standard quantum theory or other existing frameworks; this is load-bearing for the paper's framing of the tests' significance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the recommendation of minor revision. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central assertion that 'the principles of constructor theory have novel physical content that supplements current dynamical laws, leading to new predictions' is stated as a premise without a specific section or example within the review demonstrating a concrete prediction that cannot be derived from standard quantum theory or other existing frameworks; this is load-bearing for the paper's framing of the tests' significance.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract states the claim without an immediate, self-contained example. While the body of the review summarizes proposals from the literature in which such distinctions are argued to arise (particularly in the sections on thermodynamics and information), the manuscript does not itself derive or exhibit a concrete, side-by-side comparison. To address this directly, we will add a short, explicit example in the revised introduction (or a new short subsection) that contrasts one specific prediction with what follows from standard quantum theory alone. This will make the framing more robust without altering the review character of the paper. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Review paper; no derivation chain present

full rationale

This is a review summarizing prior experimental proposals for constructor theory principles. No equations, derivations, or new predictions are introduced in the manuscript that could reduce to self-definitions, fitted inputs, or self-citation chains. The abstract and framing refer to principles from earlier work, but the paper itself performs no load-bearing derivation or uniqueness argument that would qualify as circular under the specified criteria. The content is self-contained as a literature review against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted from the full text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5629 in / 980 out tokens · 23442 ms · 2026-06-27T21:43:53.879921+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Constructor-Theoretic Optical Time: Delay, Phase, and Fisher Distinguishability as Physical Tasks

    physics.optics 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The authors reformulate optical time using constructor theory, interpreting Fisher information as a distinguishability resource and the Cramer-Rao bound as a statement of task impossibility for delay estimation under ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Deutsch, Constructor Theory, Synthese 190, 4331–4359 (2013)

    D. Deutsch, Constructor Theory, Synthese 190, 4331–4359 (2013)

    2013

  2. [2]

    Deutsch and C

    D. Deutsch and C. Marletto, Proc. R. Soc. A 471, 20140540 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    Marletto and A

    C. Marletto and A. Ekert, Issues of Control and Causation in Quantum Information Theory, Thesis, Bodleian Library (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Marletto, Constructor Theory of Thermodynamics, arXiv:1608.02625 (2018)

    C. Marletto, Constructor Theory of Thermodynamics, arXiv:1608.02625 (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Marletto, J

    C. Marletto, J. Phys. Commun. 6, 055012 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Violaris and C

    M. Violaris and C. C. Marletto, New J. Phys. 24, 113030 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Marletto, Constructor Theory of Life, Proc

    C. Marletto, Constructor Theory of Life, Proc. R. Soc. A 471, 20141288 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Marletto, Proc

    C. Marletto, Proc. R. Soc. A 472, 20150883 (2016)

    2016

  9. [9]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 29 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 41 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. D 102, 086012 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Nature 547, 156–158 (2017)

    2017

  13. [13]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 240402 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    Marletto, V

    C. Marletto, V. Vedral, L. T. Knoll, F. Piacentini, E. Bernardi, E. Re- bufello, A. Avella, M. Gramegna, I. P. Degiovanni, and M. Genovese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 080401 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    D. N. Page, W. K. Wootters, Physical Review D 27, 2885?2892 (1983)

    1983

  16. [16]

    Deutsch and C

    D. Deutsch and C. Marletto, Constructor Theory of Time, arXiv:2505.08692 (2025). 32

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Chiribella and R

    G. Chiribella and R. W. Spekkens (eds.),Quantum Theory: Informational Foundations and Foils(Springer, 2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    Chiribella, Int

    G. Chiribella, Int. J. Softw. Inform. 8, 209–223 (2014)

    2014

  19. [19]

    Hardy, Reformulating and Reconstructing Quantum Theory, arXiv:1104.2066 (2011)

    L. Hardy, Reformulating and Reconstructing Quantum Theory, arXiv:1104.2066 (2011)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2066

  20. [20]

    G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 34, 470–491 (1986)

    1986

  21. [21]

    Kofler and ˇC

    J. Kofler and ˇC. Brukner, The Conditions for Quantum Violation of Macro- scopic Realism, arXiv:0706.0668 (2007)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    Penrose,Shadows of the Mind(Oxford University Press, 1994)

    R. Penrose,Shadows of the Mind(Oxford University Press, 1994)

    1994

  23. [23]

    On Unorthodox Qubits, with an Application to the Closed Timelike Curve Problem,

    S. Kuypers, “On Unorthodox Qubits, with an Application to the Closed Timelike Curve Problem,” arXiv:2205.02797 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    H.-T. Elze, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 442, 012007 (2013)

    2013

  25. [25]

    von Neumann and A

    J. von Neumann and A. W. Burks,Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata (University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL, 1966)

    1966

  26. [26]

    Deutsch, The Universal Constructor, in preparation

    D. Deutsch, The Universal Constructor, in preparation

  27. [27]

    Deutsch, Stud

    D. Deutsch, Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 55, 24–33 (2016)

    2016

  28. [28]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 015006 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Plesnik and M

    S. Plesnik and M. Violaris, New J. Phys. 26, 103019 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    DeWitt,The Global Approach to Quantum Field Theory(Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2003)

    B. DeWitt,The Global Approach to Quantum Field Theory(Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2003)

    2003

  31. [31]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. D 98, 046001 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroˇ s, M. Paternos- tro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 240401 (2017)

    2017

  33. [33]

    Feynman, inReport of the Chapel Hill Conference(1957)

    R. Feynman, inReport of the Chapel Hill Conference(1957)

    1957

  34. [34]

    von Neumann,The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1932)

    J. von Neumann,The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1932)

    1932

  35. [35]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  36. [36]

    J. S. Bell,Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics(Cambridge University Press, 1987)

    1987

  37. [37]

    Bhole, J

    G. Bhole, J. Jones, V. Vedral, and C. Marletto, J. Phys. Commun. 4, 025013 (2020). 33

    2020

  38. [38]

    Di Pietra and C

    G. Di Pietra and C. Marletto, Temporal Witnesses of Non-Classicality and Conservation Laws, arXiv:2205.00198 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Di Pietra, V

    G. Di Pietra, V. Vedral, and C. Marletto, Sci. Rep. 14, 20094 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Bondi, Eur

    H. Bondi, Eur. J. Phys. 7, 14 (1986)

    1986

  41. [41]

    Goold et al., J

    J. Goold et al., J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    2025 Algebraic identifiability of partial differential equation models.Nonlinearity38, 025022

    M. Lostaglio, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 114001 (2019). DOI: 10.1088/1361- 6633/ab46e5

    work page doi:10.1088/1361- 2019

  43. [43]

    Lieb and J

    E. Lieb and J. Yngvason, Phys. Rep. 310, 1–96 (1999)

    1999

  44. [44]

    H. A. Buchdahl,The Concepts of Classical Thermodynamics(Cambridge University Press, 1966)

    1966

  45. [45]

    Irreversibility and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,

    J. B. Uffink, “Irreversibility and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” inEntropy, edited by A. Greven, G. Keller, and G. Warnecke (Princeton University Press, 2003), pp. 121–146

    2003

  46. [46]

    Chiribella and C

    G. Chiribella and C. M. Scandolo, New J. Phys. 19, 123043 (2017)

    2017

  47. [47]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  48. [48]

    Ziman, P

    M. Ziman, P. Stelmachoviˇ c, V. Buˇ zek, M. Hillery, V. Scarani, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042105 (2002)

    2002

  49. [49]

    Deutsch, Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions, Proc

    D. Deutsch, Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions, Proc. R. Soc. A (1999)

    1999

  50. [50]

    Wallace,The Emergent Multiverse(Oxford University Press, 2014)

    D. Wallace,The Emergent Multiverse(Oxford University Press, 2014)

    2014

  51. [51]

    Masanes, T

    L. Masanes, T. D. Galley, and M. P. M¨ uller, Nat. Commun. 10, 1361 (2019)

    2019

  52. [52]

    T. D. Galley and L. Masanes, Quantum 2, 104 (2018)

    2018

  53. [53]

    Barrett, Information Processing in Generalised Probabilistic Theories, arXiv:quant-ph/0508211 (2005)

    J. Barrett, Information Processing in Generalised Probabilistic Theories, arXiv:quant-ph/0508211 (2005)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  54. [54]

    Coecke, T

    B. Coecke, T. Fritz, and R. Spekkens, Inf. Comput. 250, 59–86 (2016)

    2016

  55. [55]

    Theodoris, Ling Xiao, Anant Chopra, Mark D

    A. Sharma et al., Nature 622, 321–328 (2023). doi:10.1038/s41586-023- 06600-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023- 2023

  56. [56]

    Musings on Constructor Theory and the Fine-Tuning Problem,

    C. Marletto, “Musings on Constructor Theory and the Fine-Tuning Problem,” available at https://dd70th.weebly.com/chiara-C.Marletto.html (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    Gisin, Phys

    N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A 143, 1–2 (1990)

    1990

  58. [58]

    Aaronson, Is Quantum Mechanics an Island in Theoryspace?, arXiv:quant-ph/0401062

    S. Aaronson, Is Quantum Mechanics an Island in Theoryspace?, arXiv:quant-ph/0401062. 34

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    van Dam, Implausible Consequences of Superstrong Nonlocality, arXiv:quant-ph/0501159

    W. van Dam, Implausible Consequences of Superstrong Nonlocality, arXiv:quant-ph/0501159

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    Maruyama, F

    K. Maruyama, F. Nori, and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1 (2009)

    2009

  61. [61]

    Carath´ eodory, Math

    C. Carath´ eodory, Math. Ann. 67, 355–386 (1909). 35

    1909