But if I'm not mistaken, there's no such thing as a 2C speed, or a 2C closing
of separation between two objects. All speeds can only be measured
from some reference frame that is travelling with one of the objects (say A) or another,
and no other object (say B) can be observed to be closing at faster than C.
Similarly, if we're measuring the approach speed of A from our reference frame
that is travelling with B, we can never observe A approaching at greater than C.
I'm not really sure how this relativistic stuff impinges on the rest of your argument.
I've always held out the "weirdness of what happens to the concept of speed" at
high speeds to be an example of the "limited domain of applicability of every concept"
idea. i.e. "speed" only makes sense at low speeds, paradoxically enough.
Similarly, "color" wouldn't make sense below the size of wavelengths of light,
etc.
What this tells us is that words (terms) e.g. "speed", "color", "right-wing zealot" make
sense only within delineated contexts. (e.g. the latter term probably is hard to apply to
slugs, but then again... ok it is really hard to apply to rocks sensibly..) Words are
descriptions which arguably only make sense within a (theory - in the formal-logic sense)
or at most within a closely related cluster of similar theories. Theories just being possibly
large but finite self-consistent logical descriptions of lots of "things" and relationships between
those things.
Every theory has a domain of discourse that it can be said to be "about". It may be
a very broad domain of discourse, but there will always be perfectly valid and coherent
other concepts and theories whose domains of discourse bear no relationship
(or no essential relationship) whatsoever to the domain of discourse of the first theory.
-- "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
