Logical necessity.
Logical necessity isn't purely conceptual?
You can compare two pages to figure out which page contains more information.
There is absolutely no reason to demand "perfect knowledge" of a "known maximum".
The differences between what one knows and what another knows is inconsequential because it's all contained in what "we" know, as far as epistemology is concerned. "More" depends on the standard, which necessitates a maximum. Take this for example, when visiting an E.R. or a private physician, and one is experiencing pain, they're typically asked to gauge their pain on a scale from one to 10 (stupid, I know.) They relate these instances of pain with respect to what they experience as the worst and mildest pain they've ever felt. Each degree bears an implicit relation to its minimum and maximum. Even when discussing it qualitatively, each comparative bears an implicit reference to its superlative. For "less," it's "least," and for "more," it's "most." So even when you state that one page bears more information than another, this always bears the implicit reference on the maximum information that can be put on that page. Like numbers on a scale.
I'm unable to detect your point of contention.
The point is that we don't know the extent of that which we don't know. Any discoveries may "add" to our knowledge and "reduce" our ignorance, but that'll be contained in everything we know.
Do you remember how this conversation started?
Do you remember every single word you've written?
Do you remember every song you've ever sung?
Do you remember what you were doing exactly 800,000 seconds ago?
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
Tell me what I'm thinking at this particular moment.
"Tell me what I'm thinking at this particular moment" is what you were thinking at that particular moment.
It's apparent. This conversation would be impossible without it.
I would entertain a devil's advocate stance, but fair enough.