Unfortunately this seems like a rather weak tool for addressing the issue, we have had conceptually similar tools (though not attempt has really been made to fo

Unfortunately this seems like a rather weak tool for addressing the issue, we have had conceptually similar tools (though not attempt has really been made to formalize them) for a long time, and many border on the anthropic principle. The reason for the weakness is that there is no guidance for how one is to go about testing whether some constructor actively violates a physical law. In addition this doesn't at all help us delimit the space of all possible constructors. Fundamentally the issue is that constructor theory seems to require us to write down every possible constructor and gives us no way to validate whether they will work, not particularly useful from a theoretical perspective since it is essentially equivalent to having to do an exhaustive search of the space. True, but tautological and rather useless since it doesn't provide any insight into the relative importance of initial conditions (or previous history) and the fundamental forces in delimiting what is possible in any given universe. We want to be able to describe the probabilities of any particular configuration of matter coming to be at some point in time in the universe as a function of the initial conditions and the forces that govern it (statmech can sort of do this for simple systems). This simply assigns probability 1 to everything and leaves as an exercises for the reader how to check whether such assignments are consistent with the laws of nature.