> On Jan 17, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > That's worth thinking about, but first I was curious at other people's > thoughts between #1 and #2.
I prefer interpretation #2. The person being communicated to is the resolver; what is necessary is that e has knowledge sufficient to determine the number being communicated. > If we find in favor of #2, there's a secondary question: whether we take > twg's word that e had set a definition for tau ahead of time, so that D. > Margaux's 'tau+1' communication uniquely defined a value when it was made. So > it's basically a "what standard of evidence do we accept?" case rather than a > "what constitutes communication". It is not clear to me that twg said that e had determined a value for “rau” in advance of the communication. In eir initial message, e communicated that the value was “rau,” a word in eir own language, but I don’t think e said that “rau” had a fixed determinate value at that point. And later messages indicate that “rau” had a Humpty Dumpty/Alice in Wonderland quality to it, where it came to mean different things according to what twg was inclined at any given time. So that’s why I think rau and rau+1 actually didn’t communicate any value at the times they were communicated.
