So here's the question, if a convention has no bearing over the laws of physics is there even a point talking about it? I mean from an epistimolgical standpoint?
Shall we appeal to Occam's Razor and surrender to a simplicity of sorts? Accepting a convention is what I am referring to, as opposed to an empirically verified fact. As an example, let's consider the speed of light at 299 792 458 m/s. To measure the speed of light we must measure the two-way, return trip of a beam of light. In this case, is the speed of light, c, the same in both directions? My guess, and it's purely a guess, is that the variable is heliocentric in a proximal and distal relationship.
As a philosophy, this makes me think about the role convention plays in epistemology. And those are my thoughts, what are yours?