Sometimes however the weight ˇof a body changes & we
can't account for it the change at all. But we 1
nevertheless don't say that weighing it
had lost its point “because now the
body really doesn't have any one weight”.
Rather we say that the body had
changed somehow that this was the
cause of the change of weight but
that th hitherto we are not have not
found this cause. That is, we shall will
go on playing the game of weighing
& tr we try to find an explanation
for the exceptional behaviour.
  Supposing however which way the rule exc.
became the exception rule & the exception rule became
the rule exc..
We talk of use the ˇformal expression “the weight
of a this body” to designate something
inherent in the body something which
could only be ¿demolished¿ by destroying
part of the body. The same body — the
same weight. (And this is a gramm. prop. )
     Green.
  Supposing what in fact is the rule
became the exception. Under certain
peculiar circc. indeed a body weighd
kept on weighing the same. Say iron in
the presence of mercury. Must <…> a piece
of cheese on the other hand though
keeping its size, calories weigh

14
different weights at different times unaccountably.
 Would we still

    on the one hand it seems that if there
wasn't the behaviour of it.
  “So & so has excellent teeth, he never had
to go to the dentist, never complained
about toothache; but as toothache is a
private experience we can't know whether
he hasn't had terrible toothache all his life”.

 What is an assumption that e.g. ‘A
has toothache’? Is it the saying
the words “A has t.”? Or doesn't
it consist in doing … something with
these words?
How does one assume
such & such to be the case?