03/08/2026
⊙ Constitutional Physics: from canonical record to computational experiment
Dot Theory and website began as a set of questions about representation. It developed into Constitutional Physics: a multi-volume programme concerned with how scientific objects, assumptions, calculations, limitations and unresolved residuals remain recoverable as they move between people, documents and computational systems.
Together with Marcel Krüger, Johann Pascher and members of the Information Physics Institute, I am now developing a bounded AI-assisted experiment.
The question is simple:
Can two independently constituted scientific frameworks be reconstructed and compared without one being silently translated into, assimilated by or judged through the terms of the other?
Each paper reconstructed separately and in its own language. Only after those reconstructions are locked does the relational process ask:
What is shared?
What is compatible but not identical?
Where does disagreement remain?
Where is comparison not yet admissible?
What is the furthest conclusion supported by the record?
The experiment does not ask either source author to endorse the other framework. It does not test the ultimate truth of either theory.
It tests whether provenance, scope, disagreement and evidential limits can survive computational reconstruction and independent review.
A method-positive result may therefore be agreement.
It may also be a faithfully recovered disagreement.
⊙
The Dot Theory website is becoming the public documentary and navigational environment for this work: the constitutional record, lexicon, experimental successors and developing publication trail.
This is what I mean by constitutional science:
not a constitution imposed upon science, but a recoverable account of the conditions under which scientific objects and conclusions become admissible for communication, comparison, computation and consequence.
The work remains developmental and capable of failure.
That is part of the point.
Explore the programme:
www.dottheory.co.uk
Stefaan Vossen ⊙
Five-dimensional chess played between ideas, not personas.