  Every physical theory has (at least) two different forms of mathematical
equations to represent its target systems: the dynamical (equations of motion)
and the kinematical (kinematical constraints). Kinematical constraints are
differentiated from equations of motion by the fact that their particular form
is fixed once and for all, irrespective of the interactions the system enters
into. By contrast, the particular form of a system's equations of motion
depends essentially on the particular interaction the system enters into. All
contemporary accounts of the structure and semantics of physical theory treat
dynamics, i.e., the equations of motion, as the most important feature of a
theory for the purposes of its philosophical analysis. I argue to the contrary
that it is the kinematical constraints that determine the structure and
empirical content of a physical theory in the most important ways: they
function as necessary preconditions for the appropriate application of the
theory; they differentiate types of physical systems; they are necessary for
the equations of motion to be well posed or even just cogent; and they guide
the experimentalist in the design of tools for measurement and observation. It
is thus satisfaction of the kinematical constraints that renders meaning to
those terms representing a system's physical quantities in the first place,
even before one can ask whether or not the system satisfies the theory's
equations of motion.
