The semantics are difficult here, apologies. I can&#x27;t tell if we are agreeing :)<p>Why do things have to be in any state, even a &quot;non-specific intermediate&quot; one? The original observation seems to have devolved into an argument on the fundamental nature of language expressing &quot;state&quot;. State here implying some sort of formalism, like sets.<p>Can&#x27;t we just assert that language doesn&#x27;t assign or derive from a formal state? Rather, the  use of language is highly correlated with outcomes&#x2F;observations, but not intrinsically meaningful.