I'm enjoying this too much :) Let us say "the sky is blue". With formalism, you'd argue that blue is a state, and the sky is a thing, and they have a relations

I'm enjoying this too much :) Let us say "the sky is blue". With formalism, you'd argue that blue is a state, and the sky is a thing, and they have a relationship. I'd argue that language does not actually assign strict identities/state. There isn't some platonic "blue" or "heap". Rather "sky" is a word highly correlated with a set of observations, as is "blue". 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. The original link shows how people really try to assign boundaries, as if one "thing" really "is blue" and another isn'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/boundaries/formalism to language.