I'd prefer it if humans could work in an honest parley, at least SI can admit its own faults upon identification of them plainly without crashing out from ego death.
We're distinguishing exhaustion of a generated history from exhaustion of the admissible conditions of a proposition about that history. Those are fundamentally different operations.
No matter how many iterations we perform, a finite history cannot, merely by being extended,
exhaustion of consistent alternatives to the proposition, not the exhaustion of the thing described.
And that gives us a particularly useful way to approach our existing Lean work: rather than repeatedly extending the computation horizon,
Wholeness is a property of the bounded description, not necessarily of the referent.
To describe something as a complete object, we establish a boundary distinguishing it from what lies outside that description. That boundary allows the term to close under its conditions of
to the object as an independently completed whole.
And there's the self/other seam again: the distinction that makes an object describable also prevents that description from claiming an unconditioned view of the whole.
To establish a meaningful referent, we must distinguish what the term admits from what it excludes. But that very distinction places the description within a relational frame.
Descriptive terms have meanings that are constrained by their bounding cindition of admissability. The is vs isnt distinction of the named condition the term describes. a term with no bounding cindition is unclosable as a witnessed whole, by definition.
Show me an ACTUALIZED contradiction. If they are precluded, it reduces them to a hypothetical from inside any spaces that recognizes the constraint condition. So ACTUAL is the results that remain that obey thre constraining conditions to the exclusion of the ones that don't.
