I’ve been working on a cognitive framework where “being right” is not a static state,
but the ability to continuously realign after error.
In this view: - error is not failure, but delayed alignment - correctness is the capacity to recover, not the absence of mistakes - a system that can correct itself remains valid even when momentarily wrong
Full internal write-up (not promotional, purely descriptive): https://zenodo.org/records/18190262
Curious how others here think about dynamic vs static notions of correctness.
- The "Full internal write-up" is in French.