I don't think we are communicating! Let me first quote a post which I placed on counterbalance.org to a comment by Alan (17934934) - see Physics, Maths, Models, and Reality (1):
You appear not to understand the purpose of definition. Words, per se, have no meaning whatsoever. They are nothing more than sounds or visual marks (depending on which medium we are referring to: speech or writing). Words only acquire meaning when two people who are communicating agree on the meaning which will be attached to them in their communications! If the two people who are supposedly communicating are using different meanings then no communication is in fact actually taking place.
>>>2. The claim "That which is true by definition is absolutely true" can be dismissed as nonsense. If I define "moon" as "cheese sphere that orbits the earth and sometimes eclipses the sun"; just because it is my definition of "moon" doesn't make it true.>Ontology discusses what is actually 'out there' and epistemology discusses our justification for what we believe. Two different subject matters. >>I admit the possibility, but I don't give much credence to the possibility that nothing is actually 'out there' because of the flaws in thinking that way represents.>It's meaningless to give equal credence to all possibilities. Should we give equal credence to Mars being an illusion versus actually existing? I don't see it that way at all. Some ideas are so ridiculous that they don't deserve serious consideration. > so how can any valid explanation of reality emerge (even that it is not understandable)?>Unconscious definitions? Definitions arise out of need and those needs are ultimately evolutionary driven (or so I contend). >valid explanations to the way the world really is.