the next paragraph is kind of like that but making a sort of novel point so maybe they’re necessary? I’d try to focus them on saying things you haven’t yet said
I agree that those three paragraphs are bloated. My issue is this—I don’t yet know which of those three branches is true (natural abstractions exist all the time vs. NAs can exist but only if you put them there vs. NAs do not, in general, exist, and they break immediately) but whichever it is, I think a better theory of semantics would help tell us which one it is, and then also be a necessary prerequisite to the obvious resulting plan.
the next paragraph is kind of like that but making a sort of novel point so maybe they’re necessary? I’d try to focus them on saying things you haven’t yet said
I agree that those three paragraphs are bloated. My issue is this—I don’t yet know which of those three branches is true (natural abstractions exist all the time vs. NAs can exist but only if you put them there vs. NAs do not, in general, exist, and they break immediately) but whichever it is, I think a better theory of semantics would help tell us which one it is, and then also be a necessary prerequisite to the obvious resulting plan.