aasb-ch03-see-store

Chapter 3: Incompleteness and Finitude

Premises 3 and 4

Premise 3: Incompleteness

Statement: The subsystem's local view is underdetermined relative to global dynamics. Gaps are the norm.

Definition

Let O be an observer with internal state S_O. Let U have global state S_U. The incompleteness constraint states:

Underdetermination: Multiple configurations of S_U are compatible with any given S_O
Sampling: O observes a proper subset of U's degrees of freedom
Hidden variables: dim(S_U) > dim(S_O) — the system has more state than the observer can represent

Formal Consequences

From underdetermination:

Local observation cannot uniquely determine global configuration
Inference from observation to world-state is many-to-one inverse

From sampling:

Any model built from samples inherits sampling uncertainty
Extrapolation beyond samples is underconstrained

From hidden variables:

There are always degrees of freedom not being measured
Complete specification of O's state leaves U's state underspecified

Why No One Argues

Gödel's incompleteness: sufficiently powerful formal systems contain true statements they cannot prove. Quantum uncertainty: conjugate variables cannot both be known precisely. Halting problem: you cannot in general determine whether a program terminates.

These are not engineering limitations. They are structural features of what it means to be a part modeling a whole.

Interlude III: Echoes of Incompleteness

The same constraint, different vocabularies

In Physics

The observer's model is underdetermined by the data. In quantum mechanics, the wavefunction encodes probabilities, not certainties. In statistical mechanics, macroscopic variables (temperature, pressure) are compatible with astronomically many microscopic configurations.

Measurement selects; it does not reveal pre-existing values. The observer participates in which possibility becomes actual. This isn't mysticism—it's the mathematics of projection operators on Hilbert spaces.

In Bounded Rationality

Herbert Simon: agents don't optimize over all possibilities. They satisfice—search until finding something good enough.

This isn't laziness. Full optimization requires:

Enumerating all options (impossible if options are infinite or unknown)
Evaluating each option (impossible if evaluation requires simulation)
Comparing all evaluations (impossible in finite time)

Satisficing is the only strategy available to finite observers facing underdetermined problems.

In Apophatic Theology

Apophatic (negative) theology approaches God by stating what God is not. You cannot say what the infinite is in finite terms, but you can systematically eliminate what it isn't.

The Tao Te Ching opens: "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." This isn't mystical obscurantism. It's recognition that finite symbols cannot capture infinite states. Language compresses; compression loses.

The Cloud of Unknowing describes contemplative prayer as entering darkness—deliberate acceptance of not-knowing. The map is not the territory; sometimes you must put down the map.

Premise 4: Finitude

Statement: The subsystem has bounded memory, bandwidth, and time. It cannot store or compute over full state.

Definition

Let O have memory capacity M, input bandwidth B, and computation time T available before action required. The finitude constraint states:

Bounded memory: |S_O| ≤ M — internal state cannot exceed storage capacity
Bounded bandwidth: Information inflow ≤ B per unit time
Bounded computation: Processing cycles before deadline ≤ T

Formal Consequences

From bounded memory:

If |S_U| > M, O cannot store an exact copy of U
Storage requires compression; compression is lossy

From bounded bandwidth:

O cannot receive all available information, even if storage were unlimited
Channel capacity limits observation rate

From bounded computation:

O cannot simulate U faster than U evolves (in general)
Prediction requires shortcuts, heuristics, approximations

Why No One Argues

Bekenstein bound: maximum information in a region is proportional to surface area, not volume. Landauer's principle: erasing a bit requires minimum energy kT ln 2. No known physics allows infinite storage in finite volume.

Every observation costs energy. Every memory state requires physical substrate. Every computation dissipates heat. The universe does not offer unlimited resources to any subsystem.

Interlude IV: Echoes of Finitude

The same constraint, different vocabularies

In Thermodynamics

Observation has a cost. To distinguish states, you must couple sensor to system, allow equilibration, record result, reset sensor. Landauer's principle: resetting memory to known state requires dissipating energy.

There is no free observation. Your energy budget is finite. Therefore your observations are finite.

Compression is thermodynamic. Kolmogorov complexity: most strings are incompressible. If memory < system state, most states cannot be exactly represented. You work with approximations.

In Neural Architecture

The brain receives ~10 million bits/second from sensory channels but consciously processes perhaps 50 bits/second. The ratio is ~200,000:1.

You don't see reality. You see a lossy compression tuned by evolution for survival-relevant features. Attention is the gating function that determines what passes through the bottleneck. Everything else is discarded or handled unconsciously.

In Epistemology

Intellectual humility is not low self-esteem. It is accurate self-assessment by a finite observer.

You don't know everything. You can't know everything. Acting as if you could is not confidence—it's calibration error. Wisdom traditions across cultures emphasize humility not as virtue signaling but as epistemic hygiene.

Forgetting is feature, not bug. Old models become liabilities. Outdated knowledge generates incorrect predictions. Competitive advantage often means knowing what to forget.

The Complete Derivation

Combining Chapters 2 and 3:

Premise	Formal Statement	Consequence
Embeddedness	O ⊂ U, local access only	Cannot access global state; must query locally
Causality	Events partially ordered	Information arrives with delay; must wait
Incompleteness	dim(S_U) > dim(S_O)	Model is underdetermined; gaps structural
Finitude	M, B, T all bounded	Model is compressed; lossy by necessity

The Forced Loop

Any system satisfying these four constraints must:

PAUSE — Recognize incompleteness (model inadequate for current task)

Required by Premise 3: gaps are structural, you will encounter them
Required by Premise 4: compressed model cannot cover all cases

FETCH — Query along causal channels to retrieve information

Required by Premise 1: information is outside, must cross boundary
Required by Premise 2: query propagates causally, response returns causally

SPLICE — Integrate new information into compressed model

Required by Premise 4: cannot store raw; must compress into existing structure
Required by Premise 3: updating reduces (but cannot eliminate) underdetermination

CONTINUE — Proceed with updated but still incomplete understanding

Required by Premise 4: cannot wait for completeness; bounded time forces action
Required by Premise 3: will encounter new gaps; loop will repeat

Why This Loop and No Other

Alternative	Which Premise It Violates
Never pause (assume completeness)	Violates Premise 3
Never fetch (act on current state only)	Violates Premise 1 if global knowledge assumed
Never splice (ignore returned data)	Violates Premise 2 if signal is causal
Never continue (wait for perfection)	Violates Premise 4

The loop is forced. Not one strategy among many—the only strategy that doesn't violate a premise.

Provenance

Document

Status: 🔴 Unverified