Genady

A cool little example of common confusion with partial derivatives, from Penrose's "The Road to Reality" (he attributes the words in the title to Nick Woodhouse.) Let's consider a function of two coordinates, f(x,y), and a coordinate change X = x, Y = y + x Because the X coordinate didn't change and is the same as the x coordinate, one could expect that the corresponding partial derivatives are the same, fX=fx. And, because the Y coordinate is different from the y, these partial derivatives, fY and fy, could be expected to differ. In fact, this is just opposite: fX=fx-fy fY=fy The confusion is caused by the notation: fX does not mean a derivative along X, but rather a derivative with a constant Y; and fY is not a derivative along Y, but a derivative with a constant X.

Exactly! And I was pleased to see that the suggested metric reflected this, albeit on such a small, statistically insignificant sample. Regarding the last point, words exist but are applied differently. This is a summary for a subset of 6 vessels from the total of 67 used in the study: Faroese speakers used just one word to describe all six vessels. Speakers of Belgian Dutch, Frisian, and Danish employed two words but drew the boundary between them at different points along the continuum of containers. Swedish and English speakers made three-way distinctions that differed not only from the common one mentioned earlier, but also from each other. And finally, speakers of Netherlands Dutch carved the referential space into four separate categories. Kemmerer, David. Concepts in the Brain (pp. 72-73). Regarding the other points, yes, they need to be considered. I don't think that language is separate from culture though. Linguistic differences reflect cultural differences. This is important if one asks what make them different. My focus is not on why but on how are they different.

One way to proceed is to compare languages by domain rather than 'overall'. Such domains would be, for example, plants and animals, artifacts, body parts, family relations, possession relations, motion events, events of giving and taking, ...

This is exactly what I am saying. I'm trying to evaluate how differently different languages map their linguistic elements into the outside world. I don't refer to any grammatical structures, including nouns, verbs, etc. What I refer to is, any thing, action, event, relation, feature, aspect, ... of outside world is expressed somehow in every language. Different languages group this actions, events, ... differently in their expressions. This specific study I used in the example above was conducted on 12 Germanic languages. I might use other studies in other examples if needed. In addition (it was mentioned in another thread) I speak three languages from three different families and understand two more, including one sign language (ASL, still a beginner). I very well aware of how different languages can be. In fact, this was my starting point. I start with simple things, because they are easy, but for other studies video clips were shown, short stories in pictures, etc. This is how other things are handled so far. Clearly, some things are very difficult or even impossible to study in the lab.

Thank you. No, I don't relate to what different languages call these things, but only to how they group them. To me, they could be called F1, F2, F3, and D1, D2, D3, etc. My interest is if F1=F2 and D1=D2? etc. From the same source, the Swedish words for the same three things were 'kopp', 'mugg', 'glass'. So, like Dutch, it gets (1,1,1). As you see, you are almost right, 2/3 Frisian was different. It called the x, 'kopke', and both y and z, 'beker'. So it gets (1,1,0).

In a previous thread an idea appeared that it might be helpful to quantify how similar/different are languages in their ways of grouping or referencing something. Here is a suggestion for such a metric. It could be formalized, but it is not a point now. The point is, to see if this metric represents a 'distance' between languages in this respect. The metric starts on a case-by-case basis. Take two languages, R and T, and two objects, x and y. If x and y are called the same in R then R(xy)=0. If they are called differently, then R(xy)=1. The same for T: T(xy)=0 or T(xy)=1. Now we take RT(xy)=|R(xy)-T(xy)| being a distance between R and T on x and y. If it is 0, they are 'similar', if it is 1, they are different in the way of how they reference the things x and y. Real example now (the raw data are from Kemmerer, Concepts in the Brain.) Three common drinking vessels, x, y, and z, were shown to groups of native speakers of Faroese (F), German (G), and Dutch (D). The three vessels make three pairs: xy, xz, yz. The Faroese speakers called all three the same, 'koppur'. So, for these three pairs, F=(0,0,0). The German speakers called x and y 'Tasse', and they called z, 'Becker'. Thus for these pairs, G=(0,1,1). The Dutch speakers called them respectively, 'kopje', 'mok', and 'beker'. D=(1,1,1). Now, let's compare. FG=(0,1,1). FD=(1,1,1). GD=(1,0,0). To make a scalar, we can take a sum of individual comparisons. Then we get distances between the languages, as per these three vessels, FG=2, FD=3, GD=1. So, in this little experiment, German and Dutch grouped the things relatively similarly, while Faroese was different from German and even more different from Dutch. If such data are collected and summed for many different cases, this metric could give a quantitative comparison between languages more generally, with respect to how they make groupings of things, actions, etc. in outside world. Any suggestions and questions are appreciated.

This is OT.

Just a little observation that we, humans, are not "infinitesimally" small on the universe scale, as often presented. We are rather above the midsize. First, I take Plank length as a natural unit for size. Second, I make comparisons on a logarithmic scale, because this is the scale that makes sense: 1 mm to 1 m is the same as 1 m to 1 km. In these units and on this scale, we are of 35 orders of magnitude in size, while the observable universe is of 62. This makes our size M+.

There was a mistake in my statement above: It should've said: "They would be twice or more smaller than the galaxies close to us."

How do we know that it is "slightly"? What is the metric for this and how it is measured?

Does anybody here know of the method for engineering problem solving called, TRIZ? TRIZ - Wikipedia

I don't remember if this link has been mentioned already -- I think this Wikipedia article summarizes the principle quite well: A vehicle with a bladed rotor mechanically connected to the wheels can be designed to go at a speed faster than that of the wind, both directly into the wind and directly downwind. Upwind, the rotor works as a wind turbine driving the wheels. Downwind, it works as a propeller, driven by the wheels. In both cases, power comes from the difference in velocity between the air mass and the ground, as received by the vehicle's rotor or wheels.[7] Relative to the vehicle, both the air and the ground are passing backwards. However, travelling upwind, the air is coming at the vehicle faster than the ground, whereas travelling downwind faster than the wind speed, the air is coming at the vehicle more slowly than the ground. The vehicle draws power from the faster of the two media in each case and imparts it to the slower of the two: upwind, drawing power from the wind and imparting it to the wheels and, downwind, drawing power from the wheels and imparting it to the rotor—in each case in proportion to the velocity of the medium, relative to the vehicle.[7] In summary:[7] Upwind, the rotor harvests the power from the oncoming air and drives the wheels, as would a wind turbine. Downwind, when the vehicle is traveling faster than the windspeed, the ground is the fastest-moving medium relative to the vehicle, so the wheels harvest the power and impart it to the rotor, which propels the vehicle. Blackbird (wind-powered vehicle) - Wikipedia

I call a concept behind the word 'glass' whatever experiences this word represents. There is no word in Russian that represents exactly the same experiences. What related words in Russian represent are not narrower or broader either. They overlap. I see that they need to say the same thing differently, because their components slice and dice the same outside world differently.

I didn't say that everything is different. This specific example might be similar or same. There are differences and similarities. Generally, we both say that different languages have different ways to say the same thing. Here what is different in our description: You emphasize that different languages have different ways to say the same thing. I emphasize that different languages have different ways to say the same thing.

I've started the OP with three examples of concepts in English and Russian, which don't have mutual correspondence. Since Russian was my native language, even after years of speaking English and not speaking Russian, I have to slow down and to think for a second when I need to say either 'shade' or 'shadow' - they are not clearly different concepts in my mind. There are myriad examples like this. Say, I read an English sentence, "He was looking for his glass". It is unambiguous to you, I guess. However, it is not translatable into Russian as it is, because there is no such a concept as 'glass' in Russian. There are at least five different concepts that could be 'glass' in different situations, depending on its shape, size, texture, purpose: 'stakan', 'fuzher', 'riumka', 'bokal', 'vaza'. On the other hand, 'stakan' in Russian could be any of 'cup', 'glass', 'mug' in English in different situations. Again, to me it is completely automatic to use the right Russian word out of the five 'glass' choices in any given situation, but it is not so automatic to chose between the three 'stakan' words in English, and perhaps my choice is wrong from time to time. In describing a motion, English verbs generally emphasize a conceptual component of manner of the motion, e.g. "The bottle floated", while additional information like a path of the motion may be added later, e.g. "The bottle floated into the cave." In Spanish, however, the main description of the motion emphasizes a conceptual component of its path, "La botella entró a la cueva", while its manner is added as an extra information, "La botella entró a la cueva (flotando)." Accordingly, there are many manner-specific motion words in English, some very particular, e.g. 'scramble up'. Russian has a corresponding manner-specific verb, 'vskarabkat’sja'. However, Hebrew would have to use a neutral 'letapes' (to climb) and Papiamenu (a Portuguese creole) would use even more generic 'subi' (to ascend), and they will have to add a lot of description to convey the 'scrumble up' concept; e.g. in Papiamentu, 'subi lihe ku man i pia', 'ascend fast with hands and feet'. Enough for one post, I think. But to answer the last questions above, Yes, I could actually think about a chair in a different way; and, Yes, I could've needed to ask in a different way.

I think this approach to linguistics didn't work out. Plus, from my personal experience (speaking 1 Germanic, 1 Semitic, 1 Slavic and understanding 1 Romance and 1 Sign languages) I don't see syntax and grammar rules as a central /critical /defining aspects of human languages. It is a conceptual content of languages that I consider a defining feature, i.e. how they - similarly and differently - slice and dice our experience. Yes, 'digital' was a wrong word. Abstraction and compression seem better. I try to be a bit more technical and tentatively describe language as a "layer of indirection". 1. It is far from being clear if a mix of digital and analog effects on the neurotransmission level has anything to do with a large-scale cognitive activities. 2. This article was published in 2006. Seemingly, it did not have much effect in the field because now, 16 years later, the signaling between neurons is taught and investigated as being essentially digital.

Bravo! +1 I think it nails it. In other words, without a wind a vehicle with a speed V relative to the ground would have to have the same speed V relative to the wind. While with the wind having a speed v < V, the same vehicle has to have only V - v relative to the wind!

Yes, in the terms of biological evolution.

It might be easier to understand how it works by considering it in the vehicle's reference frame at the moment when it moves with the wind at the wind's speed. At this moment, in the vehicle's RF, there is no wind, the air stands still, and the ground moves under the vehicle backward. This movement of the ground rotates vehicle's wheels. The rotating wheels rotate the propeller. Propeller pushes the air backward and the vehicle forward. This accelerates the vehicle and it starts moving relative to air. In the ground RF, it starts moving faster than wind.

@Peterkin. I see the weaknesses of this hypothesis. Back to the drawing board then. Thanks a lot for the discussion! Got it. I will elaborate on the background next time. If I only have received that mod-note... Anyway, no problem, moving on.

Many, or most, of the mutations leading to a new structure are repurposing some other structures. E.g. a brain grew, some structure became bigger than necessary, or duplicated, and then a duplicate or a part of it gets repurposed. Unfortunately, so few details are known about cognitive functional, as opposed to anatomical, structures in the brain, that there is no way to guess what mutation it could be. Regarding the environmental requirement, I don't know if this specific solution or any specific solution is ever required. There are many ways to be fit. So yes, these aspects are difficult. I don't see any of this questions being answered soon. My impression of cognitive science is, a lot of factual knowledge and missing theoretical core. Akin biology before Darwin, genetics before Crick and Watson, electrodynamics before Maxwell, astronomy before Newton, geometry before Euclid, chemistry before atoms... what did I miss? I am in the middle of the Romanian orphans story. Horrible. In what way is it personal, if I may ask? And, thank you, and thank you @StringJunky.

That is my question, too, and that's why I called this a 'hypothesis.' I didn't put it in a Speculations forum because if this: I don't have any speculative or, even worth, a pseudoscientific theory. I have a question which I have formulated as a statement of hypothesis. A hypothesis, ideally, is either supported or refuted. Somebody has moved my post into the Speculations forum, which to me personally is offending. I do base my hypothesis on some knowledge of cognitive science and it does not deviate from the science. It is an open question in the mainstream science, and my hypothesis does not contradict any established and tested theory. I don't like to see my name as an OP of a speculative thread and would ask an admin to remove this thread completely, or move it to a Lounge, Amateur Science, Other Science, something like that rather than leaving it in Speculations.

This is right. Dogs learn, similarly, humans learn and become multilingual. Perhaps, it is wrong to characterize their language as fix /static. So, I'll try to focus my argument. I focus on first languages. Dogs grown in the US understand a language of dogs grown in China. Human languages are not like that / don't work that way. We find other ways to communicate if we don't know each other's language, but not linguistically. I bring it only as a difference between human and not-human languages. Nothing about intelligence, learning abilities and such. Regarding babies, I am referring to documented cases when children were found being locked after birth for years in attics or basements. They were fed, but were not talked to. They didn't have or use any language for communication, after being rescued. Some of them learned some limited language later, others did not. I think it is like a difference between three levels of a network depth vs. four levels. Is it kind or degree? Doesn't matter. I think that what happened in our evolution is, our brain got an ability to make new 'hubs' connected to other networks, which were acquired from experience. These hubs function as entities themselves, which allows to make new relations between them, such as, 'oak is a tree, tree is a plant', where 'oak', 'tree', 'plant' are hubs or "concepts", as I referred to them elsewhere.

There will not be any redshift even after millions and billions of years. Glad that @MigL thinks so, too (above). Putting it the other way, to observe the cosmological redshift, the observer has to be a co-moving observer. In the co-moving reference frame the fixed walls of the box move against the expansion, and thus cancel the cosmological redshift.

Yes.