I agree with all of this. Nevertheless, you haven’t answered my question (why think that there being a fact about the constitution of a thing implies that such a constitution is empirically testable?) or the main thrust of the objection. It seems a lot will turn on what you think facts are. What are facts, according to you? Are there facts about what happens in regions of the universe we could never (by our own scientifically informed lights) test? Do they count as empirical, in that case?