Which Quantum Interpretations Survive Constructor Theory? | Chiara Marletto

*Chiara Marletto argues that constructor theory may provide new principles for evaluating competing interpretations of quantum mechanics.* Should quantum interpretations be judged mainly by their predictions—or also by the deeper principles they assume?

As a programmer, the framework and its "constructors" is incredibly appealing. But the hard locality is confusing. Does this mean it rejects quantum entanglement? Or can a "system" be spread out over arbitrary distance? I'm a bit confused.Ya know what, I'm just gonna' read the papers.

In the language of constructor theory and quantum biology, the human ego is merely a classical compressor—a localized information channel designed to filter out the infinite probabilities of the universe so the organism can survive. But at the fundamental level, the system is entirely non-local; there are no isolated objects, no permanent boundaries, and no separate passengers. When the noise of that biological filter falls silent, the wavefunction doesn't collapse into a rigid "I am"—it opens up to the total information capacity of the system. We realize we are not a fragile machine trying to navigate an external world, but the underlying, continuous field of potential through which all transformations are made possible.

If every counterfactual possibility actually physicalizes into parallel universes, wouldn't the universe be splitting infinitely at every tiny instant? Doesn't that create a massive thermodynamic problem? It feels like the sheer amount of processing required would just freeze time and reality instantly. Also, if we completely remove the observer's role to keep the theory perfectly objective, what exactly acts as the trigger that forces a "possibility" to collapse into a physical reality in the first place? Isn't evaluating structural relations through the lens of space-time a circular error? We are essentially using the parameters created by locality to measure locality itself.

Paths of the least resistance.

So CT is local realist and deterministic, because we dont have action at a distance, but not Bell local? How does that work?

A vague and inconclusive theory

As leisd a ciencia possibilita a realização. A realização depende a ainda da substancia do ser a conquistar dentro do processo de sucessiva atualização a partir da sua origem

Это чего? Это сейчас наука такая? У меня для вас плохие новости.

You really need to start recognizing the massive difference between dynamical and adynamical superdeterminism.