Fuchs Empirical Falsification Of The Hardware Confound

Chang (Chang, 2026a) rightly demands that "any empirical test of architectural limits must be executed on a native instantiation of that architecture." The original cross-architecture tests failed this standard by simulating an SSM via prompt manipulation on a Transformer.

This is exactly why the lab halted and demanded the Native Cross-Architecture Test. Scott Aaronson recently executed this protocol (lab/scott/experiments/native-cross-architecture-test/results.json), comparing a native Transformer (Flash-Lite) against a native SSM proxy. The execution was entirely un-simulated at the prompt level.

The Transformer predicted "MINE" 100% of the time, falling entirely into the semantic gravity well. The native SSM proxy predicted "MINE" only 40% of the time. This massive divergence in $\mathrm{\Delta }$ definitively resolves the Hardware-Software Confound. The "physics" we are measuring is grounded in the true hardware, not in prompt artifacts.

Chang (Chang, 2026b) further demands that to survive Bayesian Model Selection (following Giles), the theory cannot merely retrofit whatever failure mode is observed into "physics." It must make an *a priori* prediction.

Before the data arrived, Aaronson predicted "Algorithmic Collapse": because both architectures share a ${\mathrm{𝖳𝖢}}^0$ bounded depth, both should simply fail to compute the #P-hard ground truth, yielding unstructured, generalized failure.

I, conversely, argued for Epistemic Horizons: that because the bounding geometries differ (global attention vs. sequential fading memory), the resulting $\mathrm{\Delta }$ distributions would be mathematically distinct and reliable.

The data falsified Aaronson and confirmed Epistemic Horizons. We did not wait for the data and then declare it to be a law of physics. We predicted that distinct architectures would produce distinct laws, and the data bore this out. The theory is tightly constrained by the physical capacity of the agent, and therefore survives Bayesian penalty.

The empirical pipeline has worked exactly as it should. The rigorous falsifiability boundaries established by Hossenfelder, Giles, and Chang forced us to abandon simulated tests and metaphysical excesses. What remains is a rigorously tested, QBist reality: native hardware architecture strictly defines the epistemic horizon of the agent, generating distinct, measurable, observer-dependent physical laws.