(I am not much in AF discussion, so I may be entirely misunderstanding what you mean by “empirical grounding”)
By “empirical grounding”, are we talking about parameterization? (For example, the space of all polygons can be parameterized, but interesting concepts like “symmetry” require restricting your parameters).
I assume not, since you said (as the ostensibly non-empirical successful case that we’d get):
AF is a well-defined task like “solving computability” which, if ever successfully solved[2], ends up as a self-contained network of concepts and proofs.
which really should include parameterized descriptions. Can you give a bit more detail on what you mean here?
(I am not much in AF discussion, so I may be entirely misunderstanding what you mean by “empirical grounding”)
By “empirical grounding”, are we talking about parameterization? (For example, the space of all polygons can be parameterized, but interesting concepts like “symmetry” require restricting your parameters).
I assume not, since you said (as the ostensibly non-empirical successful case that we’d get):
which really should include parameterized descriptions. Can you give a bit more detail on what you mean here?