 More generally, we might say that the facts constitutive of the semantic domain cannot be characterised or explained in non-semantic terms, that is, without employing the notions of meaning or understanding; the facts constitutive of rule-following cannot be characterised or explained without employing the notion of rule-following. Some philosophers who embrace non-reductionism also defend the view according to which semantic facts do not supervene on anything; they are metaphysically fundamental. Boghossian relies on the finitude problem to argue that, if meaning facts are determinate, then they cannot supervene on non-semantic facts (Boghossian 2015). However, the denial of supervenience is not essential to non-reductionism (cf. Child 2019b): at the core of the position is the idea that any attempt to account for meaning in more basic terms is hopeless or philosophically confused.