The paper only showed that it is possible to talk meaningfully about a story with an element which is given inconsistent labels, and the consequences of having the inconsistent labels are avoided.
The hero looks in the box and sees that it "was absolutely empty, but also had something in it" and "the sense of touch confirmed this". How exactly? Did photons both reflect and non-reflect from the contents? Was it translucent? Or did it randomly appear and disappear? How did the fingers both pass through and not-pass-through the contents? But more importantly, what would happen if the hero tried to spill out the contents? Would something come out or not? What if they tried to use the thing / non-thing to detonate a bomb?
The story seems meaningful only because we don't get answer for any of these questions. It is a compartmentalization forced by the author on readers. The problems are not there only because the author refuses to look at them.
The story seems meaningful only because we don't get answer for any of these questions. It is a compartmentalization forced by the author on readers. The problems are not there only because the author refuses to look at them.
So in essence claiming "A and not ~A, therefore B and ~C, the end." That isn't a limitation imposed by the author but an avoidance of some facts that can be inferred by the reader.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, even in Discussion, it goes here.