When will people wake up to SRH? It seems a fundamental logical blind spot.

Consider this article by Donald Hoffman,

https://iai.tv/articles/donald-hoffman-spacetime-is-not-fundamental-auid-2281

Help with this puzzle [of why we experience in space and time] comes from an unexpected source: evolution by natural selection. Darwin informs us that our senses evolved to keep us alive until we raise kids. But what if selection did more? Could it shape our senses to report truths about objective reality?

Yes, it could. But the probability that it does is zero. This is the startling verdict of evolutionary game theory, a mathematical formulation of Darwin’s insight. Yes, our senses guide adaptive behavior. No, they are not a window on reality.

Then what are they? An adaptive fiction.

Armed with SRH we know that there must be limit to this evolutionary "theory".

He is saying that natural selection theory can explain why we see in space and time, as a useful encoding of the world for processing the survival problem.

That is our understanding of the world is making Space-Time a progressively obsolete idea. Yet we still actually experience the world in Space and Time. So we can understand that itself using Neo-Darwinian theory.

Lets say the general struggle here is to produce an Understanding of the world. We might have some function U(x) which is true when x is understood. And we are looking for a U such that for everything we can say we understand it: that is U(x) is true.

∀x∃U : U(x)

Then the obvious application of Self-Reference

U(U)

Can we understand the theory of understanding?

In the example above Understanding has led to theories on sensing in Space-Time through Natural Selection Theory, and Physics has led to theories that go beyond Space-Time. But in all this discussion the process of Understanding is taken as a given.

Senses and the World may be explained by Understanding, but we are progressing with Understanding itself assumed.

Replace "Understanding" with the word "Reason" and you have Kant now. He realised that all rational human endeavour was pinned upon the faculty of Reason itself. Senses, Memory and many other faculties were faulty (interesting similarity between those words) from the perspective of Reason that could investigate them and see errors. But what if Reason itself was faulty.

Well Kant didn't see SRH either. Hegel almost did. Brilliantly pointing out that U(U) is a problem. If U() is not reliable then how can U(U) tell us anything reliable.

But Hegel doesn't see SRH either. Cos the problem in U(U) or Understanding the faculty of Understanding with Understanding itself goes beyond the question of whether it is reliable.

As Hegel points out we must assume that U() works. Cos if it doesn't then how would we know? We only have Reason with which to reason. If Reason doesn't work we would never know. And that which you can never know is nothing itself. So Hegel starts Phenomenologically with "what he has" and realises that you can't retrospectively fit a theory, or fundamental principle to add reinforcement to Reason itself.

But SRH says that applying Reason to itself is already doomed.

If Reason is your foundation, then seeking to Reason about the foundation leads to a contradiction in a hugely general way (that is still not formulated, and perhaps can't be because that itself would be a contradiction, but we saw a possible escape clause if we allow of exception, which when negated become rules). That is SRH.

In the simplest way we use a ladder to climb above the ground. Once above the ground we can't then move the ladder without undermining our position.

In the above Understanding is our ladder. Once we have used Understanding to get somewhere, we can't then retrospectively investigate Understanding.

SRH is the general application of this to any function F()