Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18525289 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- <p>This paper demonstrates that <strong>measurement classes are structurally unclosable</strong>, even within domains where representational closure has been achieved by exhaustion. It shows that uncertainty at the level of <em>which measurements are admissible or relevant</em> cannot itself be eliminated without violating admissibility or standing.</p> <p>The central result is that while individual measurement outcomes and formal theories may be closed, <strong>the space of possible measurement classes remains open</strong>. Any attempt to close this space requires privileging a measurement basis without justification, importing illicit dynamics, or collapsing contingency into necessity.</p> <p>This work clarifies a frequent confusion in foundational science: closure of a theory does not imply closure of measurement. Measurement-class openness is shown to be a permanent feature of inquiry, not a defect of instrumentation or methodology.</p> <p>The paper establishes a hard boundary between <strong>the closure of representational structures</strong> and <strong>the openness of empirical access</strong>, preserving both maximal closure claims and genuine empirical novelty. No procedures, constructions, or operational protocols are disclosed.</p> <p><strong>Keywords:</strong> measurement uncertainty, admissibility, closure limits, foundations of measurement, epistemic boundaries, contingency</p>