Is weight really a determination of an external object?

In all respects, is assigning a designated number the end of the matter in regards to a given object's or a given thing's apparently 'actual' weight?

To be sure, and very clear, in my opinion, when speaking of weight, we are not speaking of weight as recognized according to logical signifiers in the abstract (1=1, etc.,); because, if a bar of soap, i.e., an object or a thing, were to be placed before a very tiny ant, while it, as well, remains before myself, who shall we claim would surely experience, rather tangibly than visually, the apparent weight which discloses the 'actual', and certain, weight of the bar of soap, the ant, or myself? Whose phenomena, the ant's or mine, we consider in reflection, would rightfully disclose, in appearance, the certain, and 'actual', weight of the particular bar of wax, before us? From the ant's perspective, the bar of wax soap and appears monolithic, and yet, dissimilarly, from my perspective, the bar of soap feels and appears rather small and light (the former appearance of weight being incommensurable with the latter, i.e., appearance 1 ≠ appearance 2).

Correspondingly, can one coherently claim that verily this bar of soap, before the ant and myself, indeed, does posses a single, 'actual', and certain weight? And if, in fact, this is the case, that is, if the particular bar of soap, before the ant and myself, does posses, as a matter of fact, a single, 'actual', and certain weight, then, again, who shall we claim would surely experience, rather tangibly than visually, in our scenario, the apparent weight which discloses the 'actual', and certain, weight of the extended bar of soap, the ant, or myself? We wonder, is the 'actual', and certain, weight of the bar of soap, apart from perspective, i.e., objectively, like that of a monolith, or a small and little stone?

So, can an external object or an external thing coherently be claimed to be in possession of a single, 'actual', and certain weight, and yet, both be, at the same exact time, or appear to be, the certain weight of a monolith and the certain weight of a small and light stone?

To rehash the question (in order to induce a bit more consideration): if there's a spatially extended bar of soap, i.e., an external object or an external thing, before an ant and myself, which one of us, that is, which subject, would be surely experiencing, perceptually, the single, 'actual', and certain weight of the bar of soap, i.e., the external object or the external thing, before us? Who would rightfully have the phenomena which actually discloses the bar of soap's true weight, i.e., the external object's or the external thing's true weight (is our bar of soap's weight, in actuality and apart from perspective, i.e., objectively, overtly monumental and monolithic, or small and petite)?

In all honesty, after considering the matter in reflection, can one legitimately claim that verily this bar of soap, as a matter of fact, possesses, a single, 'actual', and definite weight? And, again, if so... who, out of the two of us, would be witness to it?

 

... that all depends.

 

Weight and mass are not the same thing. I'm not asking if, in a given environment, the magnitude of gravitational force exerting on an object remains the same; I'm speaking of weight. So, in actuality, is the bar of soap's weight monolithic or light?

 

 
Exactly.

 

 
Weight is the amount of force an object has due to gravity and its mass.
 
Yes, I wouldn't disagree: an object on planet earth does not vary in regards to the magnitude of force exerted on it, that is, on its mass.
 
So if you and an ant were looking at a bar of soap, lol, such an odd but interesting example.. the weight would stay the same. The only difference is the label used to describe the weight. The only way for its weight to actually differ between observers is if they observe it under different amounts of gravity.
 
You see, this is where things go left for me. You say, "the weight would stay the same", but is not weight itself an attribute manifested by and through the subject, i.e., an attribute conditioned by the subject? I believe one can claim that, without logically negating, or questioning, the fact that the gravitational force exerted on an object's mass remains uniform.
 
So say you have a 100 lb stone in front of you and another person. It has an objective weight to it, but the labels each person uses to describe it are relative or subjective. The other person might look at the rock and say its 45 kilograms or 1,600 ounces.. and even though they use a different label, it doesn't change the fundamental characteristics of the rock.
 
You see, there's a reason at the very beginning of the OP, I prefaced, "we are not speaking of weight as recognized according to logical signifiers in the abstract (1=1, etc.,)."
 
100lbs is, as you stated, just a label, a label that can be understood according to different and relative labels or signifiers (45 kilograms, 1,600 ounces, etc.,); yet, not only are these different and relative terms, just labels, more specifically, they're mathematical labels, i.e., labels based in mathematical language. So, seeing as these labels are articulated according to mathematical language and formating, we come to find out that, in congruence with such a format, weight is being quantized, as if weight were similar to discrete arithmetic; weight, in my opinion, is not a quantity, that is to say, an arithmetical quantity, rather, it's a quality - like a smell.
 
Now, if we are to consider weight as a quality, and not a discrete quantity, I would ask you, is 1lb, apart from perspective and objectively, "light" or "heavy" (while logically conceding, as I did at the beginning of the OP, 1=1)?
 
To me and my relative observation, 1lb appears extremely tiny and petite, but, if a gnat were to come across 1lb, the single lb would appear rather heavy; whereby, in my opinion, my original question still stands. For, regardless of labels or logical signifers, I would ask, if a 1lb object were to be placed before myself and a gnat, and one is to claim that this object possess one unchanging weight, then who are we to claim, that is, which one of us, which subject, myself or the gnat, would surely be witness to the appearance of weight which discloses the 'actual' weight of the 1lb object? Is the 1lb object, per se, light (as I see it) or heavy (as the gnat sees it)?

 

 
I never said weight is a measurement, I said that weight is an attribute.
 
In the same way a 5 lb dumbbell to you would be light, while to an infant it would be heavy. The characteristics of the dumbbell don't change, the characteristics between observers does.
 
Right, the magnitude of force, gravitational force, exerted on the particular object does not change (this I have conceded to without dispute, I believe, in every single one of my posts in the thread); but, the question still remains: is 5lbs (if 5lbs is understood to be a single and definite weight) light or heavy? Or, should I ask (after acknowledging that the child and myself have different experiences), whose experience of the dumbbell actually discloses the definite weight of 5lbs? The child's or mine (is 5lbs definitely heavy or light)?

 

 
Yes, I like this response.
 
What you're asking is kind of confusing then. Both your experiences would be accurate, neither one supersedes the other.
 
Do you agree that weight and mass are not the same? If so, one can, under such concessions, assert that an object does not, in fact, have ONE determined weight that underlies all appearances of weight, i.e., there only being appearances of weight (for, weight is only conditioned by and through a subject). That is to say, if both the child's experience of the dumbbell's weight, and my experience of the dumbbell's weight, are accurate, yet admissibly different (i.e., appearance 1 ≠ appearance 2), then a person cannot determine that there is yet another accurate weight which is neither of the appearances of weight that we, the child and myself, individually experience; and precisely because, if there were such an underlying weight, our experiences would be rendered inaccurate.
 
Descriptive words like heavy and light are subjective, relative to the observer.
 
Surely these words are referential to actual phenomena... that is, I can call something that I phenomenally experience as heavy, "light", and something that I phenomenally experience as light, "heavy", without producing actual attributes relative to vernacular.
 
It would be light to you, heavy to the infant.. and both would be correct, neither has supremacy.
 
Surely what you personally experience, Mantikore, as heavy cannot be experienced as light by you, and what you personally experience as light cannot be experienced as heavy by you, i.e., heavy and light are not one and the same, i.e., they're logically different. So, if we agree that heavy is not light, and light is not heavy, and my experience of the dumbbell is light, while the child's experience of the dumbbell is heavy, which one of these weight's can we conclude to be true of the dumbbell itself? To be sure, I'm not asking whose experience of the dumbbell supersedes the others in disclosing actuality, rather, I'm asking, if we were to consider the dumbbell as it is outside of a relation to a subject, is the dumbbell actually light or heavy?
 
Neither experience discloses the weight, only discloses the experience of the weight.. the weight of the object is disclosed by the object.
 
Do you believe that it's wrong to contend that weight only exists as an appearance, while the mass of an object is a determination of an external object?

 

 
You see, this is a practice in logic, friend; again, I'm not saying that 1 ≠ 1 or that 1 > 2; of course, according to mathematical language and formating 5 > 1; do you remember what I wrote about illegitimately quantizing a quality, as if weight were a discrete quanity (or as if you were presupposing the fact that weight is a quantity rather than a quality), in post #10?