[ukj]

The notion of a "proof" is only meaningful in a formal context.

Logic, mathematics, computer science, proof theory... same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory

We are eternally stuck interpreting all of our theories in the context of their meta-theoretic assumptions.

[tr352]

Not sure we’re talking about the same thing here. I was replying to your claim that nothing in philosophy (apart from mathematics) can be formalized. The role of logic is not to solve the metaphysical problem of infinite regress.

[ukj]

Logic itself is a formalism.

Subject to all the constraints of formal language theory/linguistics.

It fails to address the symbol-grounding problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem