... "are like" whatever they "are like" --- we can't explain the distinctive impression they present to the system. We can't explain that because that distinctive impression is not independently characterizable. Thus we have no idea what we're expected to explain. Nor do we need to describe or explain the distinctive character of that impression. It need only be distinctive enough that the...

...for every recursive structure, right? If one describes kinds more precisely, one might hope to generalize about the kind A => C[A].  I think that this kind has a very characterizable set of inhabitants (container data structures)!  Most type systems cannot express such constructors as I understand it. Why?  Is there a trap to including such a concept in a static type system...

... is necessary for every recursive structure, right? If one describes kinds more precisely, one might hope to generalize about the kind A => C[A]. I think that this kind has a very characterizable set of inhabitants (container data structures)! Most type systems cannot express such constructors as I understand it. Why? Is there a trap to including such a concept in a static type system ...

...What Is going on). In certain more or less obvious respects, EPT and most of the concEPTs it contains was plaited together in such a way as to make it characterizable as an explanatory philosophical thesis that contains some perversely pert "S_EPT_IC-humored sem_antics". However these sem_antics are inextricably combined with a serious rational and science-aligned meaning. Especially ...