Indeed, that is my point.  "Bottom" is the representation of a computation which cannot be computed.  It does not have a semantic in anything less than the first infinite ordinal.  It should be treated as essentially unique.  It exists as a syntactic construct, but it cannot be given an interpretation in Haskell.

In particular, we cannot compare "distinct" (or even indistinct) bottoms, because of the halting problem.  There is no consistent logic in which (forall x, x = x) does not hold.  Treating bottom the same way we treat 1, "abc", (Just 10), and the other (in principle) comparable values introduces contradiction to Haskell, as a logic.  (That is why bottom has the syntactic symbol _|_, the syntax for /the/ unique contradiction)

Denotational semantics is nice, but it goes way out of the realm of realistic computation to deal with infinite ordinals just to have a complete semantic.  (We can't run computations even up to the first infinite ordinal in real life)

I would rather have an incomplete semantic, and have all the incomplete parts collapsed into something we call "bottom".  We can then be smart and stay within a total fragment of the language (where bottom is guaranteed to not occur).  Or we may have to move into the non-total fragment of the language for performance reasons.  That's fine, but we shouldn't treat things like 'seq' as if they produce values.  'seq', 'unsafeCoerce', and many others are literally compiler magic, and as such, should be used with extreme care not warranted when dealing with "regular" values.

I have used the phrase "proto-value" for describing these magical objects.  I just wish the documentation made the distinction between a "proto-value" and a real value more clear.