Sometimes however the weight of a body changes & we
can't account for it || the change at
all.
But we still nevertheless don't say that weighing it had
lost its point “because now the body really doesn't have
any one weight”.
Rather we say that the body had changed somehow that this was the cause of
the change of weight but that hitherto we are
not || have not found this cause.
That is, we shall || will go on playing the game of weighing
& || we try to find an
explanation for the exceptional behaviour.
We talk of || use the formal expression
“the weight of a || this body” to designate
something inherent in the body something which could only be
demolished by destroying part of the body.
The same body – the same weight.
(And this is a grammatical
proposition)
Green.
Supposing what in fact is the rule became the exception.
Under certain peculiar circumstances indeed a
body weighed kept on weighing the same.
Say iron in the presence of mercury.
¤ A piece of cheese on the other hand though keeping its
size, calories, etc., weighed
different
weights at different times unaccountably.
Would we still …
On the one hand it seems that if there
wasn't the behaviour of
toothache …
“So & so has excellent teeth, he never had to go to the
dentist, never complained about toothache; but as toothache is a private
experience we can't know whether he hasn't had terrible
toothache all his life”.
¥
What is an assumption that e.g. ‘A
has toothache’?
Is it
the saying the words “A has
toothache”?
Or doesn't it consist in doing
something with
these words?
⍈ How does
one assume such & such to be the case?