Editing Openai/69627843-9c08-8013-83cb-fe3ebf14df3d (section)

=== Assistant: The conjecture in one clean paragraph ===
===== The conjecture in one clean paragraph =====

Feme Conjecture: The “laws of physics” are not free-floating mathematical truths; they are repeatedly enforced counterfactual constraints on what transformations can occur. In any framework that takes counterfactuals seriously (constructor theory / information-first physics), the repeated enforcement of constraints implies a persisting physical instantiator that remains through the transformations it enables—i.e., a constructor. A feme is the name for that missing constructor: the physically instantiated structure that enacts the universe’s update rule(s). If the feme can be copied with variation, then law-space can undergo selection, making the “laws” evolvable rather than immutable.

==== The exact change you’re proposing (what flips in physics) ====

===== Current physics (implicit stance) =====
* Laws are primitive: we write equations/rules and treat them as given.
* Dynamics are law-driven: the state evolves according to those laws.
* Causation lives in states/fields: not in the laws themselves.

===== Feme reframe (explicit stance) =====
* Laws must be instantiated: “what’s possible/impossible” is enforced by something physical.
* Dynamics are constructor-driven: the state evolves because a persisting instantiator repeatedly constrains/updates it.
* Causation includes the law-instantiator: the “law layer” becomes part of ontology, not just description.

So the change is: laws move from “Platonic description” → “physical mechanism.”

==== Core implications (best summary) ====
# The “constructor gap” becomes a concrete target Physics currently specifies constraints (symmetries, conservation laws, equations of motion) but doesn’t identify a thing that enforces them. The feme is that thing. The gap is not “we lack a ToE,” but “we lack the instantiator of whatever ToE is.”
# Laws become, in principle, fallible and context-bound If laws are instantiated, then—like all instantiated information structures—they can have domains of validity, failure modes, and sensitivity to substrate/environment. This doesn’t mean laws obviously change day-to-day; it means immutability is no longer an axiom.
# Fine-tuning gets a non-anthropic route If there is a replicator-like law-instantiator, then different law-realizations could be “tried,” with selection for stable, knowledge-supporting regimes. Fine-tuning becomes analogous to why DNA is specific: not chance, not miracle, but selection over an enormous space of possibilities.
# Law vs state stops being a hard boundary The feme sits at the seam between “rules” and “initial conditions.” That reframes foundational questions: you no longer ask only “what are the laws?” but “what is the state of the law-instantiator, and how does it couple to the rest of reality?”
# A new empirical program becomes thinkable Instead of searching for “a prettier equation,” you look for signatures of instantiation: - error-correction-like structure at fundamental scales - redundancy/robustness constraints that look engineered by selection - possible spatial/epochal variance in constants (if allowed) - “law-carrying degrees of freedom” that behave like a substrate rather than an excitation

==== The tightest “implications sentence” you can use publicly ====

: If laws are enforced counterfactual constraints, then there must exist a physical enforcer; identifying that enforcer (the feme) turns laws from immutable descriptions into instantiated, potentially evolvable structures, reframing fine-tuning and the foundations of physics as problems about the dynamics and selection of law-instantiators rather than only about equations.

That’s the conjecture + the change + the consequences in one go.