Sorites Paradox Analysis

When looking at the whole of an object, the Sorites Paradox poses the question as to what defines that whole as one. Essentially asking, how much of a part of a whole can you take away before the whole no longer is so (whole). Take a pile of sand. By definition, the sand clustered together is a pile. Even if you remove a grain of sand the pile remains. The Sorites Paradox poses the question, at what point when the grains are removed does the pile become not-a-pile. As with anything that deals with definition, the solution to this Paradox is a tricky one to answer. Even more so it has less to do with the actual observation and more with the definition, as an objects definition can be influenced by differing or deceptive definitions, or even
Because of this, each individual has a slightly different concept of the exact definition of something as our understanding can only stem from what we know. It's similar to how electrons in the cell interact with one another and behave as waves, but when measured fall into the constructs of the measurement and show up as a particle. The observer will always have to fit the observation into their own measurements or constructs. In this way we can assume that everyone's definition will always slightly vary and can never fall into an exact definition unless the observer can commit to memory the dictionary definition and guarantee to only use this singular definition as their mental and verbal frame of reference. Even then we would still run into the issue of others using a different definition as well as qualifying the dictionary to others as a primary source that they must adhere
These are acquired through two means, observation and inquisition. The first means of acquiring often leads to bias from our own previous observations as what we are observing falls into the constructs ( or the information we already know) of the observer so that understanding can be formed of the subject. The second means is where the outside world can affect how we define something as it involves directly learning or hearing a definition from somebody else who we have already determined has formed their own definition by either two of these flawed means. This directly leads to the solution of this paradox which is that the solution can only exist in a world who's inhabitants (or observers) are incapable of forming their own ideas of what something is and instead all have a consensus or agreement on what the exact meaning of everything is. While this world would be far less confusing and more self assured, it would take away differences which help lead to new perspectives of new concepts and the imaginations most of us have that help us form understanding of things. The solution can only absolutely exist in a world that does not change, which is not our world. But you cannot technically label the solution as impossible making even this, the solution to a paradox, a