The

the

strong idea that there's literally no way to translate between these, that they are different languages, different language games, that there's literally nothing you can do to understand the old paradime other than live it. And then kind of the weak idea, which i think is mostly what we see gabriel here telling us, which is just that there's a difficulty in communication. It can be overcome with enough diligence, with enough, you know, deep thought, ah, but it can sometimes be missed because on the surface it seems that they're not really talking about different things, but deep down, you are. And so a lot of people, when they're questioning coon's notion of is in commensurability true or not? They're worried about this stronger claim because it seems to lead to a, well,

what what

gabriel calls it is anti realism. And he calls it the idea that science can never figure out what the world is like because we live in a sort of manufactured, conceptual or representational world that dictates reality to us. It's a little bit of a weird way of putting it, to be honest, a that the problems would be more about relativism

than

anti realism, that

we

can't ever know the truth because there is no one singular truth, or at least that one singular truth is outside the realm of human possibility, and so we all can be equally correct, even if we disagree with each other. That's more usually, the worry about this incommensurability ijus. Don't know if that, that argument really lends itself towards the computer science issu hear, because i don't think anyone's going to say, like, ye, systems and languages view of things are contradictory. Well, isn't that waddler's claim? Isn't that like, in his kind of a in his playful teasing, saying that some programming languages are invented and others are discovered. And you can just tell, isn't that kind of and not just waddler? Once again, i don't want a direct shade at a particular person. This is just an idea that pervades in our world, isn't the idea that some aspects of programming are discovered as a result of universal truths, perhaps because some aspects of programming emerge from the mathematical parts of logic, and that math this kind of a universal thing. Just, you know, ignore certain work in the 19 thirties, that that because there's this aspect of computers that comes from the universe, as supposed to, that comes from our culture, that there is a part of it that is not relative, that there is a part of it that does have a real truth that we are trying to get closer to. Because my, my sense is that, no, pretty much all of the programming is relative, and that that there is no universal truth, and that relativism in computer science is real. Is that? Is that also your sense? Or do you feel differently? I may be a clarification.