OBJ-005: “Circularity (you define the fix)“
Target claim(s)
“Sin as decoherence” + “grace as control input” type pairings, or any paired definitions that look like they were invented together.
The objection (steelman)
“You defined a problem (sin) and then defined a solution (grace) that fits it. That’s circular. You can always do that with any narrative.”
Why it seems compelling
If “grace” is defined as “whatever solves it,” the framework becomes unfalsifiable by definition.
Reply (logic-first)
- Distinguish definitional loops (bad) from dynamical feedback (normal in real systems).
- The non-circular core must be a separate constraint (e.g., instability/decay condition) that independently implies the need for an external stabilizing input.
- Then “grace” is a label for that typed role; the label can be rejected without changing the math.
What would change my mind
- If no independent stability/decay constraint can be stated, and “grace” remains “whatever fixes sin,” the operator must be redefined or removed.