I'm always ticked off when I hear the hype around constructor theory. While information theory has had profound impacts in physics, constructor theory has always seemed to me to accomplish nothing but add fancy words. Yet it has done very well trading on the past prestige of its proponents, and promoting itself through popular talks where no real scientists are present to question them.
For example, constructor theory "explains" why life exists. Their argument is as follows (condensing 20 pages of vague equation-free words into a few sentences): first assume that there exists a constructor for life. Such a constructor is defined to be an object that can create new life. This leads to the creation of more life. Therefore life exists.
I was so shocked by this that I reread their paper three times before concluding their argument really was that vacuous. Their physics-related stuff is similar: assume the desired conclusion, then pretend you've derived it by adding the vague term "constructor" everywhere. (To derive F = ma... assume F is a constructor for ma!) It's so content-free I literally can't find anything specific to criticize. But they keep getting press by making more and more outrageous claims.
The fact that tens of thousands of curious people around the world have been duped into thinking that it is on par with ideas that actually have content proves the absolute bankruptcy of science communication. It is also a warning to avoid blind trust in past credentials.
The first sentence of the Wikipedia article is "Constructor theory is a proposal for a new mode of explanation in fundamental physics".
Well, if it's a "new mode of explanation", then the baseline expectation is that it doesn't add anything to all existing explanations of physics. The point of it would be to somehow allow explanations of things that were unexplainable before...
I mean, if you have a new way of explaining things, you have to derive all of the things we already know are true.
Edit:
The "Outline" at the bottom of the page doesn't sound like a profound new way of understanding the universe; it makes my bs meter twitch, but I don't see anything that provides a definitive reason to consider it all null.
You’re completely correct: new modes of explanation can be extremely useful, and you can’t judge from the Wikipedia article alone because it can’t get to the meat! That’s why I had to read the papers. Turns out, the meat just isn’t there, it doesn’t exist. There aren’t any ideas beyond the vague popsci outline, which by itself does no good.
“It is also a warning to avoid blind trust in past credentials.”
Indeed. A thing is initially more interesting if the author has past contributions of worth, but historical performance should never lead to blind faith about claims. Always remember Linus Pauling’s irrational infatuation with vitamin C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructor_theory