Nonsense and Absurdity

[Jarhyn]

One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED

Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.

Gobbledygook

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"

Philosophical gobbledygook.

An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.

I can't make modal logic any easier for you to understand than that.

At some point it's up to you to read with charity to the writer, and if you can't do as much, it just means you are liable to engage in shitty behavior.

An extant absurdity (for instance, a computer with a bizarre configuration) is not made non-existent by it's mere absurdity.

This is trivially true. So, if you're talking about your own statement, you hit the nail on the head.

Accusing others saying sensible, true, and in fact reasonable things of "gobbledygook" is in fact an argument from idiocy.

It is not entirely my job to simplify things if you cannot hold enough abstractions at a time to parse them.

 

[steve_bank]

One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED

Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.

Gobbledygook

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"

Philosophical gobbledygook.

An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.

I can't make modal logic any easier for you to understand than that.

At some point it's up to you to read with charity to the writer, and if you can't do as much, it just means you are liable to engage in shitty behavior.

An extant absurdity (for instance, a computer with a bizarre configuration) is not made non-existent by it's mere absurdity.

This is trivially true. So, if you're talking about your own statement, you hit the nail on the head.

Accusing others saying sensible, true, and in fact reasonable things of "gobbledygook" is in fact an argument from idiocy.

It is not entirely my job to simplify things if you cannot hold enough abstractions at a time to parse them.

That is what Christians who speak in tongues say. You figure out what I mean.

Your invocation of modal logic to cover your butt fails. Modal logic does require logical connections, as opposed to non sequitur nonsense.

Is yiur primary source of information the Internet?

From past threads as I understand it modal logic is an attempt to turn imprecise subjective probabilities into a formal logic It can be used to assert an alleged ` true conclusion based on relative assumptions.

Modal logic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jarhyn]

One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED

Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.

Gobbledygook

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"

Philosophical gobbledygook.

An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.

I can't make modal logic any easier for you to understand than that.

At some point it's up to you to read with charity to the writer, and if you can't do as much, it just means you are liable to engage in shitty behavior.

An extant absurdity (for instance, a computer with a bizarre configuration) is not made non-existent by it's mere absurdity.

This is trivially true. So, if you're talking about your own statement, you hit the nail on the head.

Accusing others saying sensible, true, and in fact reasonable things of "gobbledygook" is in fact an argument from idiocy.

It is not entirely my job to simplify things if you cannot hold enough abstractions at a time to parse them.

That is what Christians who speak in tongues say. You figure out what I mean.

Your invocation of modal logic to cover your butt fails. Modal logic does require logical connections, as opposed to non sequitur nonsense.

Is yiur primary source of information the Internet?

From past threads as I understand it modal logic is an attempt to turn imprecise subjective probabilities into a formal logic It can be used to assert an alleged ` true conclusion based on relative assumptions.

Modal logic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What part of "absurdity does not imply nonsense" is hard to grasp here?

If I'm going with the definitions in the OP, which I do, then I provided an example of an extant "absurdity". A couple, in fact.

You provided some examples of nonsensical absurdities, but you didn't make any effective arguments about why you dislike this structure of usage and intent. You just used it to scream like child when they see the needle at the doctor's office.

Or perhaps you just want to say "No True scotsman Absurdity!

The ambiguity of intent behind "absurdity" when used as you do is, quite frankly, ridiculous: because the word doesn't imply anything owing to the impossibility of clarity beyond perhaps being bizarre and without original purpose, it's just a vague insult without core or substance.

 

[fromderinside]

One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED

Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.

Since they are demonstrably not material they are, at best subjective objects which, as steve_bank points out, are not objective.

Puleez try to demonstrate that something not objective is an object. Puleez (from don't throw me into the briar patch).

 

[Jarhyn]

subjective objects

Nonsense.

 

[steve_bank]

One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED

Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.

Gobbledygook

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"

Philosophical gobbledygook.

An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.

I can't make modal logic any easier for you to understand than that.

At some point it's up to you to read with charity to the writer, and if you can't do as much, it just means you are liable to engage in shitty behavior.

An extant absurdity (for instance, a computer with a bizarre configuration) is not made non-existent by it's mere absurdity.

This is trivially true. So, if you're talking about your own statement, you hit the nail on the head.

Accusing others saying sensible, true, and in fact reasonable things of "gobbledygook" is in fact an argument from idiocy.

It is not entirely my job to simplify things if you cannot hold enough abstractions at a time to parse them.

That is what Christians who speak in tongues say. You figure out what I mean.

Your invocation of modal logic to cover your butt fails. Modal logic does require logical connections, as opposed to non sequitur nonsense.

Is yiur primary source of information the Internet?

From past threads as I understand it modal logic is an attempt to turn imprecise subjective probabilities into a formal logic It can be used to assert an alleged ` true conclusion based on relative assumptions.

Modal logic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What part of "absurdity does not imply nonsense" is hard to grasp here?

If I'm going with the definitions in the OP, which I do, then I provided an example of an extant "absurdity". A couple, in fact.

You provided some examples of nonsensical absurdities, but you didn't make any effective arguments about why you dislike this structure of usage and intent. You just used it to scream like child when they see the needle at the doctor's office.

Or perhaps you just want to say "No True scotsman Absurdity!

The ambiguity of intent behind "absurdity" when used as you do is, quite frankly, ridiculous: because the word doesn't imply anything owing to the impossibility of clarity beyond perhaps being bizarre and without original purpose, it's just a vague insult without core or substance.

It is hard for me to type while laughing so hard.

Yes, I posted dictionary definitions of absurd and nonsense and siad that is my common usage, and also said people can and do conflate the two.


Can an absurdity be nonsense or vice versa? If that is what you are getting at you could have made the OP a lot more simple and understandable.


If and only if the two definitions are mutually exclusive then the answer is no. Nothing new to that. Defining red and blue as wavelengths means something can not be both blue and red.

However I can imagine a statement containing both absurdities and nonsense. It all depends on how you parse the staement.

 

[Jarhyn]

One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED

Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.

Gobbledygook

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"

Philosophical gobbledygook.

An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.

I can't make modal logic any easier for you to understand than that.

At some point it's up to you to read with charity to the writer, and if you can't do as much, it just means you are liable to engage in shitty behavior.

An extant absurdity (for instance, a computer with a bizarre configuration) is not made non-existent by it's mere absurdity.

This is trivially true. So, if you're talking about your own statement, you hit the nail on the head.

Accusing others saying sensible, true, and in fact reasonable things of "gobbledygook" is in fact an argument from idiocy.

It is not entirely my job to simplify things if you cannot hold enough abstractions at a time to parse them.

That is what Christians who speak in tongues say. You figure out what I mean.

Your invocation of modal logic to cover your butt fails. Modal logic does require logical connections, as opposed to non sequitur nonsense.

Is yiur primary source of information the Internet?

From past threads as I understand it modal logic is an attempt to turn imprecise subjective probabilities into a formal logic It can be used to assert an alleged ` true conclusion based on relative assumptions.

Modal logic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What part of "absurdity does not imply nonsense" is hard to grasp here?

If I'm going with the definitions in the OP, which I do, then I provided an example of an extant "absurdity". A couple, in fact.

You provided some examples of nonsensical absurdities, but you didn't make any effective arguments about why you dislike this structure of usage and intent. You just used it to scream like child when they see the needle at the doctor's office.

Or perhaps you just want to say "No True scotsman Absurdity!

The ambiguity of intent behind "absurdity" when used as you do is, quite frankly, ridiculous: because the word doesn't imply anything owing to the impossibility of clarity beyond perhaps being bizarre and without original purpose, it's just a vague insult without core or substance.

It is hard for me to type while laughing so hard.

Yes, I posted dictionary definitions of absurd and nonsense and siad that is my common usage, and also said people can and do conflate the two.


Can an absurdity be nonsense or vice versa? If that is what you are getting at you could have made the OP a lot more simple and understandable.


If and only if the two definitions are mutually exclusive then the answer is no. Nothing new to that. Defining red and blue as wavelengths means something can not be both blue and red.

However I can imagine a statement containing both absurdities and nonsense. It all depends on how you parse the staement.

My point has been that in an argument, saying some thing is merely an absurdity is not actually making any kind of useful claim.

To say something is absurd when there are "less absurd explanations", that is an acceptable thing; it is a good argument, and it's name is "Occam's Razor".

Believe it or not, syntax errors can be detected and even described: "Parse the blueberry tank" fails at the type boundary where common understandings of "tank" lack an apparent operation "parse".

My point is that it is an ambiguous parse, and claims of "absurdity!" in general, warrant a request for clarification of meaning. Oftentimes, that clarification will boil down to "Argument from Incredulity" or even "argument from ignorance" rather than an application of Occam's Razor or an exposed and meaningful parse/syntax error.

 

[fromderinside]

One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED

Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.

Gobbledygook

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"

Philosophical gobbledygook.

An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.

I can't make modal logic any easier for you to understand than that.

At some point it's up to you to read with charity to the writer, and if you can't do as much, it just means you are liable to engage in shitty behavior.

An extant absurdity (for instance, a computer with a bizarre configuration) is not made non-existent by it's mere absurdity.

This is trivially true. So, if you're talking about your own statement, you hit the nail on the head.

Accusing others saying sensible, true, and in fact reasonable things of "gobbledygook" is in fact an argument from idiocy.

It is not entirely my job to simplify things if you cannot hold enough abstractions at a time to parse them.

That is what Christians who speak in tongues say. You figure out what I mean.

Your invocation of modal logic to cover your butt fails. Modal logic does require logical connections, as opposed to non sequitur nonsense.

Is yiur primary source of information the Internet?

From past threads as I understand it modal logic is an attempt to turn imprecise subjective probabilities into a formal logic It can be used to assert an alleged ` true conclusion based on relative assumptions.

Modal logic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What part of "absurdity does not imply nonsense" is hard to grasp here?

If I'm going with the definitions in the OP, which I do, then I provided an example of an extant "absurdity". A couple, in fact.

You provided some examples of nonsensical absurdities, but you didn't make any effective arguments about why you dislike this structure of usage and intent. You just used it to scream like child when they see the needle at the doctor's office.

Or perhaps you just want to say "No True scotsman Absurdity!

The ambiguity of intent behind "absurdity" when used as you do is, quite frankly, ridiculous: because the word doesn't imply anything owing to the impossibility of clarity beyond perhaps being bizarre and without original purpose, it's just a vague insult without core or substance.

It is hard for me to type while laughing so hard.

Yes, I posted dictionary definitions of absurd and nonsense and siad that is my common usage, and also said people can and do conflate the two.


Can an absurdity be nonsense or vice versa? If that is what you are getting at you could have made the OP a lot more simple and understandable.


If and only if the two definitions are mutually exclusive then the answer is no. Nothing new to that. Defining red and blue as wavelengths means something can not be both blue and red.

However I can imagine a statement containing both absurdities and nonsense. It all depends on how you parse the staement.

My point has been that in an argument, saying some thing is merely an absurdity is not actually making any kind of useful claim.

To say something is absurd when there are "less absurd explanations", that is an acceptable thing; it is a good argument, and it's name is "Occam's Razor".

Believe it or not, syntax errors can be detected and even described: "Parse the blueberry tank" fails at the type boundary where common understandings of "tank" lack an apparent operation "parse".

My point is that it is an ambiguous parse, and claims of "absurdity!" in general, warrant a request for clarification of meaning. Oftentimes, that clarification will boil down to "Argument from Incredulity" or even "argument from ignorance" rather than an application of Occam's Razor or an exposed and meaningful parse/syntax error.

Thank you However modal logic is quite removed from reality which is the essential reason we consider logic at all. Not interested in fancy bowties on fancy parlor distractions.

Your point is dull if you get the drift.

 

[steve_bank]

"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.

 

[steve_bank]

"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.

You present your self as a master logician, yet simple obvious logic escapes you and sends you on convoluted lengthy responses.

My guess is you lack real world experience. Logic is not just a philosophical exercise in made up examples. Logic is an esential part in and dynamic in daily life and communications. You have to be able to function outside of simple syllogisms
and formal logi. It is not uncommon to see or hear something that makes no logical sense to you, but in reality does make sense.

From my experience I can see a situation where 'praise the blueberry tank' makes sense.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.

...

From my experience I can see a situation where 'praise the blueberry tank' makes sense.

Yes, logic is an essential part of every day life. Which is why it pays to be able to tell the difference between a sensible statement that is false and and a nonsensical statement that cannot be parsed.

If you could elucidate on what operation of parsing (generally, the conversion of some Markhov chain) into a series of related concepts that contains either some fact, or some request for information or action.

"Parse the blueberry tank" succeeds at producing a subject, but fails at it's noun's relationship to the subject, and fails altogether if there is not an immediately relevant tank of blueberries.

Requests, either as command or question, need immediate context to be anything but nonsense in the first place.

Even assuming context it is nonsense. It might be easily correctable to some operation on some thing that is not strictly a tank itself, such as to "parse the code for the blueberry tank" or "parse the instructions on the label of the blueberry tank" even "parse 'the blueberry tank'" (meta) or "parse The Blueberry Tank" (some contextual proper noun).

On its own, it is nonsense.

"The earth is flat", while utterly and completely false, is a well formed statement.

 

[fromderinside]

"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.

You present your self as a master logician, yet simple obvious logic escapes you and sends you on convoluted lengthy responses.

My guess is you lack real world experience. Logic is not just a philosophical exercise in made up examples. Logic is an esential part in and dynamic in daily life and communications. You have to be able to function outside of simple syllogisms
and formal logi. It is not uncommon to see or hear something that makes no logical sense to you, but in reality does make sense.

From my experience I can see a situation where 'praise the blueberry tank' makes sense.

Ah. One who's worked at Cannary.

 

[steve_bank]

"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.

You present your self as a master logician, yet simple obvious logic escapes you and sends you on convoluted lengthy responses.

My guess is you lack real world experience. Logic is not just a philosophical exercise in made up examples. Logic is an esential part in and dynamic in daily life and communications. You have to be able to function outside of simple syllogisms
and formal logi. It is not uncommon to see or hear something that makes no logical sense to you, but in reality does make sense.

From my experience I can see a situation where 'praise the blueberry tank' makes sense.

Ah. One who's worked at Cannary.

I did my share of good old manual labor. It kept me from becoming an aloof philosophizer intellectual.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.

You present your self as a master logician, yet simple obvious logic escapes you and sends you on convoluted lengthy responses.

My guess is you lack real world experience. Logic is not just a philosophical exercise in made up examples. Logic is an esential part in and dynamic in daily life and communications. You have to be able to function outside of simple syllogisms
and formal logi. It is not uncommon to see or hear something that makes no logical sense to you, but in reality does make sense.

From my experience I can see a situation where 'praise the blueberry tank' makes sense.

Ah. One who's worked at Cannary.

I did my share of good old manual labor. It kept me from becoming an aloof philosophizer intellectual.

And I spent my share of years in the army working for my living. ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯

 

[steve_bank]

"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.

You present your self as a master logician, yet simple obvious logic escapes you and sends you on convoluted lengthy responses.

My guess is you lack real world experience. Logic is not just a philosophical exercise in made up examples. Logic is an esential part in and dynamic in daily life and communications. You have to be able to function outside of simple syllogisms
and formal logi. It is not uncommon to see or hear something that makes no logical sense to you, but in reality does make sense.

From my experience I can see a situation where 'praise the blueberry tank' makes sense.

Ah. One who's worked at Cannary.

I did my share of good old manual labor. It kept me from becoming an aloof philosophizer intellectual.

And I spent my share of years in the army working for my living. ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯

Okey dokey.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

The Earth is flat makes physical sense if you go bicycling. My sister and her husband have cruiser bicycles with a single gear. It's fine for biking old canal trails, but not so good for climbing hills. They recently upgraded to add an electric motor.

 

[steve_bank]

"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

The Earth is flat makes physical sense if you go bicycling. My sister and her husband have cruiser bicycles with a single gear. It's fine for biking old canal trails, but not so good for climbing hills. They recently upgraded to add an electric motor.

Given modern science and pictures from space a flat Earth can never make sense.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

The Earth is flat makes physical sense if you go bicycling. My sister and her husband have cruiser bicycles with a single gear. It's fine for biking old canal trails, but not so good for climbing hills. They recently upgraded to add an electric motor.

Given modern science and pictures from space a flat Earth can never make sense.

And yet the Egyptians figured out how to flatten the Earth enough to build the pyramids.

They used water.

Depends on which "earth", and how it is "flat".

At any rate, it's not nonsense in any respect. It's FALSE. It's still a perfectly valid construction. Nonsense only discusses validity of construction and compile-time errors of speech.

Absurdity only discusses implausibility of results, and is at best a runtime check or a runtime assertion on active natural language.

So while not nonsense, it is an absurdity in general and is also false about "the whole earth" and being planar rather than spherical in space.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

... Depends on which "earth", and how it is "flat".

Exactly. William James "Pragmatism" "Lecture II What Pragmatism Means".

... Nonsense only discusses validity of construction and compile-time errors of speech.

Perfect analogy! Love it.

Absurdity only discusses implausibility of results, and is at best a runtime check or a runtime assertion on active natural language.

I think you said this better in the original post. I didn't get the point until you said,

When you wish to describe something as "nonsense" and instead use the phrase "absurdity" you are explicitly stating that the thing CAN exist but you are incredulous about that existence. This is, in fact, argument from incredulity, and so an argument from ignorance.

Claims of absurdity may be answered with examples and evidence.
Claims of nonsense can only be answered through proof of sensibility and of noncontradiction under non-trivializing axiom.
People who make this fundamental error weaken their own arguments.

If "absurdity" is used to express incredulity, then you are spot on, in that it offers no argument.

I suspect that most of us use "absurd" and "nonsense" as synonyms. The OED supports this in some ways but has this interesting footnote to its definition of nonsense:

"nonsense A. n. I. Senses relating to absence of rationality or meaning. 1. a. That which is not sense; absurd or meaningless words or ideas.
Esp. in recent linguistic use often spelt non-sense to avoid connotations of absurdity."

And you apparently have a better understanding of that footnote than I do.

(An interesting aside is that in the etymology of "absurd" they list that it was originally used in Latin for music that is out of tune and that the "surd" originally meant "deaf". But both morphed into uses that indicated irrational. And "nonsense" moved in the same direction from its original meaning of not sensed by the 5 senses or by feeling.)