Constructor Theory Q's

Hi DD, hope you're progressing well with your theory. Actually I had a
couple of questions for whenever you next pop your head in.

2. In your recent Essays on CT, something that repeatedly came up in
various contexts was this idea of 'fruitfulness'. I was wondering...what
extent is fruitfulness or something like it, a component of a 'good'
explanation? Or...what extent do you think it should be? Should it be
for science but not philosophy, neither or both?

2. As I understand it CT...in a given iteration...will produce a set of
possible/impossible transformations from information provided to it by
subsidary theories (i.e. speed of light). This information would
contribute to knowledge and discovery in various ways, possibly
resulting in discovery of new laws, new principles and so on, which
would increasingly feed back into subsidiary laws, presumably altering
them, unifying them, even replacing them. Now..I can see the potential
in this, but what I also see is that the arranagement of CT and
subsidiary theories are too 'open' to be able to resolve issues like,
say, avoiding circularity (among many other items). Therefore, you'll
presumably be seeking to formalize into methodological rules the
management/elimination of such potential pitfalls. This would be
particularly the case if you see a longer term objective in terms of
automation/A.I. which on the face of it, does look like a major
possibility arising from the way you have set up the idea. OK...so to my
question. Firstly...if what I've said above is dramatically wrong, then
I guess you won't be able to answer the question because it won't make
any sense. If so apologies for that. On the other hand, if you do
recognize some of this from your idea....my question is......about your
algebra. Do you think your algebra will have to be different from what
we normally think of it, in that it would have to natively embody that
methodological behaviour within itself?