I doubt very seriously I’m confusing or conflating anything. On the other hand y

I doubt very seriously I’m confusing or conflating anything. On the other hand you might interpret what I’m saying as ambiguous and not grasp my meaning.

All language consists of measurements. A number has no unambiguous meaning without a context, and few if any terms have unambiguous meaning without context. So context equals correspondence.

In other words if a word is ambiguous in meaning then it’s context is insufficient to provide ambiuity.

This is the reason we demand operational language in testifiable truth – because if you cannot state what you mean in operational terms you cannot reduce it to unambiguous identity.

The purpose of grammar is to continuously recursively disambiguate disorder into order, or more correctly ambiguity into identity.

The function of all existence relies on the same process of continuous recursive disambiguation of entropy into negative entropy that captures time energy and information in its organization and produces additional new opportunities for capture of more energy and more persistence (time) that can be put to new use (capital).

So the entire universe works by the same simple principle at all scales and the simplicity of that principle emerges in in all contexts at all scales because it must for reasons too complex to explain here.

So, it’s not the words that have meaning so much as the words phrases sentences narratives reduced to operational prose that produce unambiguity.

As for reasoning it consists of the primitives the brain is capable of doing which is just wayfinding between episodes where episode consists of a memory and it’s associations in the most general terms.

Reply addressees: @BrownCanard @compliantcitiz1