I do not accept the thesis that reality can, in principle, be fully exhausted by a final formal model.
This is not a position of “I do not know yet,” but a position concerning the logical untenability of the very idea of a model’s finality.
The Experience of Encountering the Idea of Complete Explainability
For me, it has always been natural to see the limit of formalization as a normal feature of thinking.
That is why discovering that many people sincerely believe in the complete explainability of reality through a scheme came as a profound shock.
The Key Grounds of My Position
-
A final formal model is problematic in principle.
Every system rests on axioms and frameworks that cannot be derived entirely from within that system itself. -
Formalism is not a “zero” position.
Formalism is a separate hypothesis about the world, not a neutral starting point. -
Formalizability must not be assumed by default.
If it is asserted that “everything can be formalized,” this requires independent justification. -
Reducing reality to form is an additional assumption.
The success of formal methods in particular tasks does not prove that reality is identical to a formal scheme. -
The non-formalizable is given in observation and experience.
Experience reveals a remainder that is not exhausted by symbolic fixation.
The Main Thesis
We observe a reality that cannot be fully formalized.
Formalization is a useful tool of description, but it is neither the foundation of being nor a universal criterion for what “really exists.”
The Openness of Reality
The proposition that “everything can, in principle, eventually be formalized” does not convince me in the slightest.
I proceed from the understanding that openness, incompleteness, and an irreducible remainder are not temporary defects of knowledge but structural features of reality and thinking.
