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

=== Assistant: My final bet: 70%. ===
My final bet: ~70%.

That’s the clean number I’d put money on.

===== Why that high (and not 50%) =====

Because once you accept all three of these at the same time—
# Counterfactual constraints are real causal features of the world (not just descriptions),
# Repeated enforcement of constraints requires a persisting constructor (constructor theory),
# Physics does not currently supply that constructor for its own laws,

—then the pressure to introduce something that plays the feme role is very strong. Historically, when physics has an indispensable role that can’t be eliminated, it eventually gets instantiated.

===== Why not higher than ~70% =====

Because physics has one remaining escape hatch:
* it may be possible to reformulate “law” as a state-dependent constraint or self-consistency condition that dissolves the need for a distinct constructor-object.

That route is nontrivial and hasn’t been demonstrated—but it’s plausible enough that I wouldn’t bet 90%.

===== Why I think it hasn’t been found yet =====
* It wouldn’t be a particle, field excitation, or symmetry you can probe locally.
* It lives at the law/state boundary, where physics historically advances last.
* It requires abandoning Platonic intuitions about laws—something physics has only just begun to do via constructor theory and information-first approaches.

===== Final line =====

If I had to put real money down:

: There is a genuine law-instantiating structure in reality, and physics will eventually be forced to acknowledge it.

Whether it’s called a feme or not is secondary. The role is too real to remain unnamed forever.