Sometimes however the weight ˇof a body changes & we can't account for
the change at all
it
. 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 th hitherto we
have not
are not
found this cause. That is, we
will
shall
go on playing the game of weighing &
we
tr
try to find an explanation for the exceptional behaviour.
  Supposing however what way the
exc.
rule
became the
rule
exception
& the
rule
exception
became the
exc.
rule
.
We
use the ˇformal expression
talk of
“the weight of
this
a
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 gramm. prop.)
     Green.
  Supposing what in fact is the rule became the exception. Under certain peculiar circc. indeed a body weighd kept on weighing the same. Say iron in the presence of mercury. Most ◇◇◇ 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 t.
  “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 t.”? Or doesn't it consist in doing something with these words? How does one assume such & such to be the case?