some of those equivalences in the first paragraph felt like they stretched far enough that they exited the domain of the type being described. But, it does seem approximately true that the way we say “the sky is blue” is only an approximation of a much more complex histogram of photon frequencies detectable from angles received from away from the surface of earth during daylight when the air is relatively uniform in composition. or whatever the actual precise query is that will mean the same thing even to a robot who has to infill the concept of “blue” in response to the query.
About domain of type: I see the reality as infinitely complex system and causal links are as much a part of this system as objects and events and actors and laws of physics and other entities and phenomenons, named and separated from the background by human’s attention. The sky is one of these objects, it doesn’t exist by itself in reality, except that in the imagination of people (as well as money, states, gods etc.), unlike living objects (subjects?) and phenomenons which do exist independently of our attention to them. While this concept of sky is useful—it is used. If people will not need it, it will disappear from existence. And for me the speaking of the truth of the some qualities of such concept is a not-correct way of looking at things.
some of those equivalences in the first paragraph felt like they stretched far enough that they exited the domain of the type being described. But, it does seem approximately true that the way we say “the sky is blue” is only an approximation of a much more complex histogram of photon frequencies detectable from angles received from away from the surface of earth during daylight when the air is relatively uniform in composition. or whatever the actual precise query is that will mean the same thing even to a robot who has to infill the concept of “blue” in response to the query.
About domain of type: I see the reality as infinitely complex system and causal links are as much a part of this system as objects and events and actors and laws of physics and other entities and phenomenons, named and separated from the background by human’s attention. The sky is one of these objects, it doesn’t exist by itself in reality, except that in the imagination of people (as well as money, states, gods etc.), unlike living objects (subjects?) and phenomenons which do exist independently of our attention to them. While this concept of sky is useful—it is used. If people will not need it, it will disappear from existence. And for me the speaking of the truth of the some qualities of such concept is a not-correct way of looking at things.
Agreed. “Sky is blue” is quite a good model of reality, useful for some purposes, but it’s not the truth.
The problem with the truth is that many most terrific wars in the history of humankind were ignited by different concept of the truth.
And people who think they know the truth are the most intolerant as we can see here.