I&#x27;m enjoying this too much :)<p>Let us say &quot;the sky is blue&quot;. With formalism, you&#x27;d argue that blue is a state, and the sky is a thing, and they have a relationship.<p>I&#x27;d argue that language does not actually assign strict identities&#x2F;state. There isn&#x27;t some platonic &quot;blue&quot; or &quot;heap&quot;. Rather &quot;sky&quot; is a word highly correlated with a set of observations, as is &quot;blue&quot;. When we combine the words into the sentence above, we end up with a sequence that results in a useful outcome from our perspective, so we say it.<p>The original link shows how people really try to assign boundaries, as if one &quot;thing&quot; really &quot;is blue&quot; and another isn&#x27;t. And then it becomes self contradictory, and people invent yet more explanations. I just question the base assumption that we need to assign logic&#x2F;boundaries&#x2F;formalism to language.