AGI > Wittgenstein's discussion more likely responds to Hegel's treatment of measure.

Thanks for the suggestion which seems to me probably correct.  However, I cannot recognise anything of value being said by Hegel or Wittgenstein here.  We can distinguish local social conventions – measuring in feet or metres say - from more general human understandings about honestly sticking to a shared convention.  Thus they seem to me to be making a big deal out of the sort of elementary understanding I was given in a physics lesson at the age of 14.

Historically your point also seems correct.  In broad brush, at the foundation of British Philosophy, Bacon in 1620 called for a return to the scientific ideas of Democritus and for understandings to focus upon things not words.  The first major deviation from that track, as I was taught in the early 1970’s, was a brief interlude of British Hegelianism in the late 19th century, which Russell himself was quite specifically involved in scotching.  

This seems to bring into sharp historical focus the rise of the later Wittgenstein, patronised by an anti-scientific Keynes, very much against the wishes of a pro-science Russell.  It does look to me like a counter attack by a neo-Hegelian upon the scientific tradition itself, a kind of re-run of a timeless rivalry that was reputed to exist between Plato and Democritus even, back at the very start of written Western philosophy.

My point here is to illustrate, by an instance, how very closely this Late Wittgensteinian anti-scientific vaunting of words-over-things is associated with plain financial dishonesty.

Robert Tye, York, UK

https://independent.academia.edu/RobertTye