This seems extremely natural and totally intuitive. Nothing hard or counter-intuitive about it.

Think about "points" -- and the idea that the objective of natural language is to "make a point."

Now -- what is a point?

Start intuitive and holistic. Think

• Bullet point
• Power Point
• Point in Cartesian (N-dimensional) space

The argument is -- the objective in human speech is to make points -- which means to definitively locate a point in an n-dimensional space where the dimensionality is not restricted to quantitative values. Red and green can be values. Beautiful can be a value. Good or bad can be a value. Over there can be a value.

So -- this theory of semantics says that when a person clearly makes a point in natural human language, they assert enough dimensional specificity to firmly/unambiguously locate a point in the N-dimensional space.

It's not actually a single point in that space -- it's an enclosed bounded range in N dimensions.

It's in an "envelope" -- it's a bounded range in n-dimensions, where some of the dimensions are qualitative and some maybe quantitative. But there might be meaning for a single point as "central" to that bounded range -- maybe that one single point finds the "optimal" or "most centered" balance in all those dimensions, thus somehow most ideally representing that (composite) point.

It's approximate -- not precisely defined. It has an "acceptable error error tolerance." It has a range for interpretation -- and the potential for further refinement and a higher degree of precision, if that is what we want or need.

(no need to get hung up in fuzzy logic, or the theory of metaphors or various competing theories of category formation. this is easy)

Sat, Apr 17, 2021