I didn’t know how to create a title for this question. I’m talking about how it seems possible one could understand someone saying to you “the sun didn’t set” as a lie vs internalizing as the fact “John said the sun didn’t set”. Maybe call it evaluating vs passing or wrapping. And that this possibility of doing so seems to call into question the status of truth and falsity.
The particles and fields which make up John didn’t lie when he said the sun didn’t set.
So why don’t we humans understand sentences as being “wrapped” by “so and so said __”? Instead, we just “evaluate” the sentence.
It’s certainly simpler. Is a “matter of fact” language possible where we do wrap everything?
I do worry truth and falsity may be “eliminated” if we talked this way, but if our goals changed might we begin to? Or do we know already such language is impossible in practice? Maybe we know talking in such a way wouldn’t change our understanding? But do we really know that?