Formal verification demonstrates that observational invariance dictates decidability in axiomatic systems, indicating how implicit selection breaks theoretical determinacy.
We develop an abstract closure audit calculus for theories of systems. The calculus formalizes a simple meta-question: when does a theory determine facts from observations alone, and when does it silently outsource determinacy to an implicit chooser? The core construction is an observational semantics : → → inducing an observational equivalence and a quotient of world-types := /. A property of worlds is auditable (in the strongest sense) precisely when it factors through ; equivalently, it is invariant under . This yields the central audit theorem: decidability on world-types implies invariance, and its sharp contrapositive: any non-invariant predicate is not decidable from world-types (no free bits). The mathematical existence of selector/quotient presentations is distinct from their internal realizability; the substantive closure question concerns realizability, not mere classification. We then analyze the role of selection. Classically, a selector may be presented as a section of the quotient map : → ; in the mechanized development, selectors are equivalently represented as canonical-representative endomaps on (world-selectors). We prove these two presentations are canonically equivalent. Classical choice ensures selectors exist, but closure audits distinguish mere existence from internal (effective/definable) selection. We formalize two principled forms of internal symmetry-breaking: (i) canonicalization (gauge-fixing), a map :→ that collapses each observational equivalence class to a unique representative, and (ii) effective presentation (bounded cover), where an enumeration of worlds hits every world-type within a known bound, enabling total bounded-search selection without choice. Finally, we provide a bridge to Paper 26: any theory that internalizes a representability condition of the appropriate form induces an instance of the minimal self-reference interface , and thus inherits diagonal fixed points (-1) and diagonal barriers in the relevant scope. The entire development is mechanized in Lean 4 (without custom axioms beyond Lean/mathlib; classical choice is used only where explicitly stated), as the Closure library living alongside SelfReference and NemS in the nems-lean artifact. This overview presents the core NEMS theorem engine and selected applications; stronger domain-specific derivation and ontological syn...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nova Spivack (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: