Perhaps this not-overly-mathematical philosopher is missing something. But if I were to seek a “complete explanation” of something (the logical possibility of which I doubt, just because it appears that we can always ask for more explanatory context), then I would require of the explanation of the “stick adjusters”, for instance, some explanation of where they came from, at least. That is, the set they comprise might be “self-explanatory”, in some technical (Pickwickian?) sense, but without an explanation for the existence of that overall set we appear to have a gaping hole in any normal sense of a “complete explanation”.
Perhaps this not-overly-mathematical philosopher is missing something. But if I were to seek a “complete explanation” of something (the logical possibility of which I doubt, just because it appears that we can always ask for more explanatory context), then I would require of the explanation of the “stick adjusters”, for instance, some explanation of where they came from, at least. That is, the set they comprise might be “self-explanatory”, in some technical (Pickwickian?) sense, but without an explanation for the existence of that overall set we appear to have a gaping hole in any normal sense of a “complete explanation”.