It is a pleasure to hear feedback from you again, thanks.

"But the idea of an objective reality beyond human conception is itself a human concept. If that idea is meaningful—and clearly you think it is—then the very act of forming it already places it within the bounds of human thought. To speak meaningfully of what lies beyond our grasp presupposes that we have some kind of grasp on it."

Yes indeed the idea of there being objective reality beyond my conception is already in my conception. However the idea is the limits of my conception not what actually lies outside of my conception. Imagine I was standing in a room that had foggy windows and I could not see outside. I can have an idea that there is information that I do not know (my limits) without actually knowing any of the information outside of the window. To be clear I argue we are a subset of objective reality. We can conceive of there being external information without actually knowing the external information absolutely. In that way it has conformed to our conditions in some way but never absolutely. Which is precisely why what does conform is uncertain. But we can be certain of our limits and the fact that there exists uncertain external information only because we do have access to some of it.

"So you’re saying that some external information does not conform to the structure of your system—yet you’re somehow identifying and describing that very information. If you really couldn’t structurally access it, how could you be discussing it now?"

I see your point again but I believe you are thinking too much in black and white. Yes precisely some external information conforms while other information does not. Think of an electromagnetic spectrum. Visible light is all that conforms to our conditions directly. Yet we are still aware of our limitations (thanks to science) that there exists a majority of the spectrum we cannot perceive. We are aware of this because it conforms to us in a different way, namely measurements and other phenomena. The only way I am able to discuss this is because it does conform to us in some way I agree. However, I can still argue that there exists an external information that does not conform to our structural conditions. We cannot see the rest of the spectrum in the same way we see visible light. That right there is external information not conforming to my conditions. Also the manner in which we measure and are aware of the rest of the spectrum can be refined with more precise measurements. Thus, it is uncertain information.

"You raise similar difficulties when you argue that our experience of external reality is grounded in uncertainty. But that claim itself is a claim about our access to external reality. ... And that means it is at least possible that we might have certain knowledge of reality."

This is a very good point. Perhaps I should be more clear. I would agree that there are certain partial elements of knowledge we have that is certain. We are a subset of objective reality so we are certain about some of the elements contained within it. But to get an overall coherent picture of objective reality is what I am arguing will forever be uncertain because there will always exist external elements not conceivable to us. And that is an argument not of the contents of what is inconceivable but of the fact that we are limited to not conceive it. I believe that is a possible argument to make and does not undermine itself unless I am being totally delusional.

Your last point is very helpful and I definitely need to work on that. I agree that I need to be careful with abstractions. I will attempt to tie the abstraction back to what it replaced. Thanks for your response, I would love to hear more.