Words are pointers to concept-space
Words are pointers to nebulously defined areas in concept-space. (Probably need to expand on this)
Another idea is that we can consider the areas of concept-space to be paintbrushes.^[ rationality, from a to z#^36679b]
One reason why legal interpretations of old text can be difficult to make: originalism and textualism.
↑ 10 References
However, even if there is ambiguity or uncertainty in a given section of concept-space, we should still seek to keep that words are pointers to concept-space stable. This allows us to avoid the fallacy of compression.
This is a disagreement between Concept-spaces, about definitions of words (since definitions are clouds in concept-space and words are pointers to concept-space). This type of argument likely does not have any possible external validation, and runs the risk of going on forever.
Confusing two different ideas (likely referenced by the same words are pointers to concept-space) assuming characteristics from one idea as carrying over to the other.
Since words are pointers to concept-space, we can see that definitions are areas of that concept-space.
This is a disagreement between Concept-spaces, about definitions of words (since definitions are clouds in concept-space and words are pointers to concept-space). This type of argument likely does not have any possible external validation, and runs the risk of going on forever.
(One can get into Deductive thinking here, since words are pointers to concept-space and if one believes that the concept-space for “thoughts” and the set of all things I think are the exact same, or something like that. If we realize we are only thinking deductively, then it likely will serve us to focus on outcomes not definitions.)