[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Case]

[Case]
> I know nothing about reality directly all I know is my definition of it.

[Craig]
In the interest of clarity, I think we should all adhere to the
philosophical "use/mention distinction".
1) foot has 5 toes
2) 'foot' has 4 letters
In 1) the word 'foot' is used (to refer to a foot); in 2) the word 'foot' is
mentioned (hence, the convention of enclosing it in single quotes).  Reality
does not have a definition (unless in the sense that my television set has
high definition). 'Reality' may have a definition; whether it does or not is
a substantial philosophical thesis which must be argued for.

[Case]
I don't think I said anything about reality having a definition. I said
nothing about reality at all. I said I have a definition OF it. I have the
definition. The question should be is it just a definition or is it OF
something. I like this view for the moment. I have asked for example, for an
argument of why Kant's assert of "things in themselves" should be rejected.
Is that in the spirit you had in mind?

As for formalization of notation and definition, perhaps you should take up
Hamish as a second language; we have an instructor about ever eager for new
pupils.