Non sequitur? I did not expect that statement to prove “there is a clean theory of bounded agency.” It’s a terse illustration of why correspondence principles aren’t physics-magic. I am trying to explain why I believe we are disagreeing on priors here. It appeared to me that you believe elegant grand unified theories only appear in physics a priori.
If what I said was non-sequitur then I (still) do not understand what you are trying to say.
If what I said was non-sequitur then I (still) do not understand what you are trying to say.
My apologies then, I don’t know how to (compactly) improve your understanding other than to point at my priors more vigorously.
[Bowing out.]