Then it asks the question Popper himself would have welcomed. Is refutability the whole of what separates knowledge from noise? There turns out to be a second question, just as fundamental, that his great criterion never quite reached. Not can this be proven wrong, but do the laws themselves contain enough information to settle what actually happens? This is the question of simulability, and unlike refutation it runs on a sliding scale rather than a yes-or-no switch. Some theories merely forbid certain results. Others determine reality almost entirely on their own, leaving the accidents of where things started barely any say in where they end up.