Understanding Reality

[Doctordick]

Well, I apologize for being unable to communicate with anyone here. I had thought that there might be someone here who might comprehend what I said yesterday but apparently I was wrong. I will add one more assertion which, in my mind, is an obvious consequence of that post. I restate the central issue of that post in hopes that someone might reread the assertion made there and perhaps comprehend where that idea leads.

----------

(My previous post):

Every human (including the most brilliant scientist who has ever lived) can be seen as beginning his (or her) life as a child born without a language. During his (or her) life he (or she) will experience many interactions with what he (or she) supposes to be reality. It is the need to reference those experiences which stand behind the language he (or she) will eventually learn to use to express any understanding of his (or her) experiences. That includes the relevant interpretation of the meanings attached to the elements of that language (essentially the information contained in a dictionary).

Of significance is the fact that the actual language is an arbitrary construct. It can be seen as a secret code required to communicate any collection of ideas. Before communication can occur, definitions of the elements must exist. Bit codes on computers are an excellent example. Without a specific translation of those bit codes to the relevant language, they are arbitrary elements to be defined and that has some significant consequences.

----------

If one has a list of the concepts expressed via the language of interest and a dictionary yielding the meaning of those concepts expressed via those self same concepts and understands that language then they may create an arbitrary numerical list of those concepts. Possessing that list, any thought which can be expressed in that language can be represented by the specific notation:

[latex](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_i,\cdots,x_n)[/latex]

where the x entries constitute the appropriate numerical index of the relevant concept. (Note that this is essentially the transformation required to convert the language representation to a computer presentation).

If anyone here believes that assertion is false please give me an example of an expression of a thought (presented in any language) which can not be transformed into such a format: i.e., cannot be communicated via a computer.

If this is beyond comprehension to everyone on this forum, I will cease posting.

Have fun -- Dick

[Strange]

Yawn....

 

I don't have a problem understanding what you are saying, just why...

 

Hey, did you know that the sky is blue!

[studiot]

 

If anyone here believes that assertion is false please give me an example of an expression of a thought (presented in any language) which can not be transformed into such a format: i.e., cannot be communicated via a computer.

If this is beyond comprehension to everyone on this forum, I will cease posting.

Have fun -- Dick

 

 

Well I already made some comments you didn't bother to answer so why should I bother pointing out the flaws in your latest post?

[Outrider]

Well, I apologize for being unable to communicate with anyone here. I had thought that there might be someone here who might comprehend what I said yesterday but apparently I was wrong. I will add one more assertion which, in my mind, is an obvious consequence of that post. I restate the central issue of that post in hopes that someone might reread the assertion made there and perhaps comprehend where that idea leads.

 

----------

(My previous post):

 

Every human (including the most brilliant scientist who has ever lived) can be seen as beginning his (or her) life as a child born without a language. During his (or her) life he (or she) will experience many interactions with what he (or she) supposes to be reality. It is the need to reference those experiences which stand behind the language he (or she) will eventually learn to use to express any understanding of his (or her) experiences. That includes the relevant interpretation of the meanings attached to the elements of that language (essentially the information contained in a dictionary).

 

 

 

 

Yes we agree and already knew that. Did you know that even the most brilliant scientist couldn't walk at that stage?

 

Of significance is the fact that the actual language is an arbitrary construct. It can be seen as a secret code required to communicate any collection of ideas. Before communication can occur, definitions of the elements must exist. Bit codes on computers are an excellent example. Without a specific translation of those bit codes to the relevant language, they are arbitrary elements to be defined and that has some significant consequences.

----------

Agree, already knew.

 

 

If one has a list of the concepts expressed via the language of interest and a dictionary yielding the meaning of those concepts expressed via those self same concepts and understands that language then they may create an arbitrary numerical list of those concepts. Possessing that list, any thought which can be expressed in that language can be represented by the specific notation:

 

 

[latex](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_i,\cdots,x_n)[/latex]

where the x entries constitute the appropriate numerical index of the relevant concept. (Note that this is essentially the transformation required to convert the language representation to a computer presentation).

Agree, already knew.

 

If anyone here believes that assertion is false please give me an example of an expression of a thought (presented in any language) which can not be transformed into such a format: i.e., cannot be communicated via a computer.

No you're absolutely right.

If this is beyond comprehension to everyone on this forum, I will cease posting.

 

Have fun -- Dick

I'm a layman, Doctor, with only a passing interest in linguistics and what you have presented so far is nothing new.

Perhaps you could take a stable at the Indus Valley script. That might be interesting.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Outrider

[dimreepr]

Not being a whatever speaker I don't understand dimreaper's comment and request a translation if there is a joke involved.

 

The translation is "what a dick"

[Strange]

If one has a list of the concepts expressed via the language of interest and a dictionary yielding the meaning of those concepts expressed via those self same concepts and understands that language then they may create an arbitrary numerical list of those concepts. Possessing that list, any thought which can be expressed in that language can be represented by the specific notation:

[latex](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_i,\cdots,x_n)[/latex]

where the x entries constitute the appropriate numerical index of the relevant concept. (Note that this is essentially the transformation required to convert the language representation to a computer presentation).

 

 

There is a serious problem with this idea (which is not novel, Boole and others wanted to do the same thing). Mainly this is to do with the fact that concepts are not discrete things. They are fuzzy, overlap, have changing meanings, and mean different things to different people in different contexts.

 

Is "size" a concept? What about "big"; is that the same concept or a different one? Is "huge" the same concept as "big", or some sort of super-concept?

 

Is a mountain "big"? Well, compared to a pebble it is, but compared to the planet it is "small" or even "tiny".

 

So building your dictionary is only practical if you have an AI which already knows all about the world and can, effectively, build the dictionary itself. But this is hard.

Mouseover text: "In the 60s, Marvin Minsky assigned a couple of undergrads to spend the summer programming a computer to use a camera to identify objects in a scene. He figured they'd have the problem solved by the end of the summer. Half a century later, we're still working on it."

Edited May 23, 2017 by Strange

[Doctordick]

Yawn....

 

I don't have a problem understanding what you are saying, just why...

 

Hey, did you know that the sky is blue!

 

There are some subtle consequences of the fact that, given a numerical identification of each and every concept specifically defined within a language, any conceivable thought in that language may be represented by a specific list of those numerical indices:

 

i.e., [latex](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_i,\cdots,x_n).[/latex]

That fact implies some rather significant symmetries embedded in all languages.

 

If one were to multiply each and every numerical index (including all dictionary entries) by a given constant (which I will refer to here as alpha) no change whatsoever would occur in the thought represented by

 

[latex](\alpha x_1,\alpha x_2,\cdots,\alpha x_i,\cdots,\alpha x_n).[/latex]

Likewise adding a given constant to each and every numerical index also yields absolutely no change in the actual thought being represented. This leads to some rather profound symmetries which must be valid in any conceivable communication in any conceivable language.

 

There is a single specific issue embedded in any language. That is the issue of communication. It seems to me that central to idea of communication is the underlying idea of understanding.

 

Thus it is that I would like to define "understanding" to represent the following relationship: if party #2 understands party #1 then he (or she) must have some idea as to the truth party #1 places on the thought being communicated: i.e., thus it is that I want to define understanding to be represented by

 

[latex]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_i,\cdots,x_n).[/latex]

where "P" stands for the probability the party #1 believes the represented thought constitutes a valid assertion. I am not asserting that party #2 believes party #1 I am merely asserting that party #2 (the receiver) must have an idea of the probability party #1 assigns to the thought. This allows for the existence of miscommunication and a number of other subtle effects which may very well be serious issues. (Issues I will bring up later if anyone is capable of following my thoughts.

 

Note that the notation looks like a mathematical function (which it certainly is not). If the expression, [latex]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_i,\cdots,x_n)[/latex] were a mathematical function and the above symmetries were valid, it would lead to some very interesting relationships within all communications worth serious examination.

 

If there is anyone here who can follow what I have just said, I will show them a way of transforming the definition of [latex]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_i,\cdots,x_n)[/latex] into a valid mathematical function. That result will say a lot about the constraints on "Understanding Reality".

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

To Strange!!!!

 

You are clearly failing to include the issue of learning which I brought up earlier:

Every human (including the most brilliant scientist who has ever lived) can be seen as beginning his (or her) life as a child born without a language. During his (or her) life he (or she) will experience many interactions with what he (or she) supposes to be reality. It is the need to reference those experiences which stand behind the language he (or she) will eventually learn to use to express any understanding of his (or her) experiences. That includes the relevant interpretation of the meanings attached to the elements of that language (essentially the information contained in a dictionary).

"Is "size" a concept? What about "big"; is that the same concept or a different one? Is "huge" the same concept as "big", or some sort of super-concept?"

Size is a word and that word is a concept of which that brilliant scientist is aware (I suspect). So are the words "big" and "huge" (they are listed as different words in most all the dictionaries I have. His experiences will certainly include occurrences which will lead him to various accepted interpretations of the usage of those words.

"Is a mountain "big"? Well, compared to a pebble it is, but compared to the planet it is "small" or even "tiny"."

Once more you totally omit the learning standing behind that "brilliant scientists" interpretation of what is meant and you omit the context of the usage.

"So building your dictionary is only practical if you have an AI which already knows all about the world and can, effectively, build the dictionary itself."

To my knowledge no computer yet exists which can accumulate the knowledge and understanding that "brilliant scientist" might possess. Certainly it would be difficult to write down a dictionary which gives every possible interpretation of every possible word that "brilliant scientist" might choose to use. He doesn't require that dictionary and, for the most part, neither do I. Yet we both regularly us our personal language to communicate our thoughts and usually manage to understand one another.

When I was a child, I knew people who couldn't read or write who could still manage to communicate one hell of a lot of information. Five thousand years ago, most people who existed could not read or write. Yet they thought they knew what was meant by a great number of words they heard and used. To make a dictionary of the kind I am talking about. all one needs is to attach a number (essentially a different mark or perhaps a different sound to each element used by those attempting to communicate).

Understanding what is meant is a function of the experiences of the speaker or the listener. A dictionary is a rather new invention and quite beneficial when the essential experiences required to understand what is meant exceed the direct experiences of the listener.

What you apparently fail to comprehend is the issue of "context". Context has a very important roll in any communication and the differences you refer to are, for the most part, resolved by context. There are many other issues which depend quite seriously on experience to interpret. Jokes often depend on relationships existing in the language you will never find in a dictionary.

When I first tried to communicate my ideas, I used to use "words", "ideas", "sounds" and many other concepts to talk about these numerically labeled entities. I am currently using the idea of a dictionary as dictionaries you commonly used to translate other languages. The central issue of my opening position is the finite nature of these things. I make no attempt to put forth the specific language just the consequence of the finite nature of the offerings we can make.

Have fun-- Dick

[Strange]

You do know that this has all been done before? You have yet to say anything novel.

 

I mean, if you have really thought of all this by yourself, then congratulations, I guess. But before you spend too much more time on it you might want to read up on some of the relevant work in the philosophy of language, information theory, linguistics, etc.

[studiot]

 

Dick

Every human (including the most brilliant scientist who has ever lived) can be seen as beginning his (or her) life as a child born without a language.

 

"Out of the mouths of Babes"

 

Have you had any dealings with a newborn baby ?

 

They manage to communicate, so giving the lie to your thesis.

[Strange]

 

"Out of the mouths of Babes"

 

Have you had any dealings with a newborn baby ?

 

They manage to communicate, so giving the lie to your thesis.

 

 

But they don't have language. Although, studies do show that they have learnt almost everything they need about language within the first year but it takes a lot longer before they can produce language.

[studiot]

 

 

But they don't have language. Although, studies do show that they have learnt almost everything they need about language within the first year but it takes a lot longer before they can produce language.

 

Exactly, and somewhere in this thread dick makes the claim that it is impossible to communicate without language, which he just stated a newborne babe does not possess.

[Strange]

 

Exactly, and somewhere in this thread dick makes the claim that it is impossible to communicate without language, which he just stated a newborne babe does not possess.

 

 

Ah. Good catch.

[Doctordick]

Well, it has been a while since I posted here. My biggest problem is the absolute ignorance of the others who post here. I had some hope that someone here would have some comprehension of thoughtful analysis of their beliefs. I was apparently totally misunderstood by absolutely everyone. As a matter of fact, I still have some hope for "Strange" as she (or he as it may be) seems to have at least some comprehension of the issues standing behind understanding.

 

Meanwhile, I will take the trouble to explain the errors in their responses.

 

To my comment regarding "establishing a mechanism for representing any conceivable language", Lord Antares responded with "Which is language itself!" He clearly misses the point that without a mechanism for "representing" a specific given language, the language is totally worthless. He makes the mistake of aligning the concept of understanding with representation, two very different concepts.

 

Further down the line, dimreepr totally misconstrued my assertion which clearly led to confusion everywhere.

 

Now Mordred's comment that "scientists use the universal language of mathematics to understand reality" seems to make some sense, he misconstrues the difference between "representation" and "understanding" (two very different concepts).

 

Studiot's assertion that there exist concepts in one language which are not easily translated into another is of absolutely no significance here as I am no where talking about "translation" my issue of interest is "representation" only. What needs to be understood by the reader that understanding is an achievement reached through "learning" and that relevant state is achieved with whatever representation is used if the language is ever actually understood.

 

Then "Strange" responded with "Yes. Without symbols (words and morphemes) a language does not exist." This again struck me as showing some comprehension of what I was saying. Actually, instead of "symbols", "words" and "morphemes" she (or he as it may be) could have used the reference "representations" which I used and I really missed the significance of the change in representation.

 

Delta 1212 seemed to think the central issue was translation which has utterly nothing to do with my presentation. At that point Strange also began to see translation as a central issue and began to deviate from his or her earlier posts. Strange's further presumption on 20 May that I was presenting a linguistics course clearly indicated a total lack of comprehension of what I was talking about.

 

At that point the whole community seemed to have descended to exactly the same presumption of a linguistic course and the point of my presentation seemed to be totally beyond their comprehension. So on May 21, I posted the representation I wanted to use in the hope that someone here would comprehend.what I was saying.

 

Strange's response was simply beyond me.

 

"Yawn....

I don't have a problem understanding what you are saying, just why..." I didn't think that indicated any understanding at all. If she (or he) understood what I said, acceptance of it as a simple fact was all that was necessary. There are real consequences of that fact apparently invisible to anyone reading this forum.

 

Strange's comment on May 23, "You do know that this has all been done before? You have yet to say anything novel." was totally beyond me. If indeed this were "all been done before" then someone with half a brain should have noticed the implied differential implications on my definition of "understanding" would have profound consequences. How come I have never seen any references to those subtle consequences??

 

If you could comprehend what I have put forth, I can show that the entirety of modern physics can be directly deduced from my definition of understanding.

 

Clearly, ignorance is bliss and I will leave you all to enjoy that profound ignorance!

 

Barring some intelligent response, I won't bother you again ---- Have fun -- Dick

 

[Strange]

Then "Strange" responded with "Yes. Without symbols (words and morphemes) a language does not exist." This again struck me as showing some comprehension of what I was saying. Actually, instead of "symbols", "words" and "morphemes" she (or he as it may be) could have used the reference "representations" which I used and I really missed the significance of the change in representation.

 

 

Saussure used the word "signifier", when explaining this idea, as opposed to the signified ( what you call concept). The two together he called a sign. I'm not sure the choice of words makes that much difference.

 

 

 

Strange's comment on May 23, "You do know that this has all been done before? You have yet to say anything novel." was totally beyond me. If indeed this were "all been done before" then someone with half a brain should have noticed the implied differential implications on my definition of "understanding" would have profound consequences. How come I have never seen any references to those subtle consequences??

 

Perhaps you could explain what these profound consequences are?

 

 

If you could comprehend what I have put forth, I can show that the entirety of modern physics can be directly deduced from my definition of understanding.

 

Please go ahead.

[Mordred]

Now Mordred's comment that "scientists use the universal language of mathematics to understand reality" seems to make some sense, he misconstrues the difference between "representation" and "understanding" (two very different concepts).

Nope understanding comes when you can represent every dynamic via mathematical modelling.

 

No verbal descriptive is as exacting, all descriptives of anything is a representation. Verbal descriptives simply are not as detailed as mathematical descriptives. Take a metal bar for example.

 

Can you describe the precise tensile strength without referring to a mathematical value?

 

Try to describe how rough an object feels verbally. You end up comparing the roughness to other objects.

 

Where as mathematically you can precisely define every detail.

 

Pick up any random rock. Describe its shape, obviously the mathematical representation will be more precise than any verbal representation.

 

What is more precise. The ball is red or the ball reflects the wavelength of light we see as red?

 

I don't know about anyone else but I would think in order to understand reality you must be able to as precisely as possible describe reality. Mathematics is a more precise tool to do so.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

My biggest problem is the absolute ignorance of the others who post here.

 

Thank you SO much for this, it's going to be a wonderful day. Priceless!

[EdEarl]

There is a little known man who started a field of linguistics, which might be related to this thread. See: Chomsky normal form.

In formal language theory, a context-free grammar G is said to be in Chomsky normal form (first described by Noam Chomsky)[1] if all of its production rules are of the form:[2]:92–93,106
A → BC, or
A → a, or
S → ε,
where A, B, and C are nonterminal symbols, a is a terminal symbol (a symbol that represents a constant value), S is the start symbol, and ε denotes the empty string. Also, neither B nor C may be the start symbol, and the third production rule can only appear if ε is in L(G), namely, the language produced by the context-free grammar G.

Every grammar in Chomsky normal form is context-free, and conversely, every context-free grammar can be transformed into an equivalent one[note 1] which is in Chomsky normal form and has a size no larger than the square of the original grammar's size.

It relates to natural language processing; the link is an example.

 

I think natural language is very complex, and the best way to encode it is in neural nets, with each one being unique and beyond our current ability to visualize and understand.

Edited June 14, 2017 by EdEarl

[Delta1212]

Well, it has been a while since I posted here. My biggest problem is the absolute ignorance of the others who post here. I had some hope that someone here would have some comprehension of thoughtful analysis of their beliefs. I was apparently totally misunderstood by absolutely everyone. As a matter of fact, I still have some hope for "Strange" as she (or he as it may be) seems to have at least some comprehension of the issues standing behind understanding.

 

Meanwhile, I will take the trouble to explain the errors in their responses.

 

To my comment regarding "establishing a mechanism for representing any conceivable language", Lord Antares responded with "Which is language itself!" He clearly misses the point that without a mechanism for "representing" a specific given language, the language is totally worthless. He makes the mistake of aligning the concept of understanding with representation, two very different concepts.

 

Further down the line, dimreepr totally misconstrued my assertion which clearly led to confusion everywhere.

 

Now Mordred's comment that "scientists use the universal language of mathematics to understand reality" seems to make some sense, he misconstrues the difference between "representation" and "understanding" (two very different concepts).

 

Studiot's assertion that there exist concepts in one language which are not easily translated into another is of absolutely no significance here as I am no where talking about "translation" my issue of interest is "representation" only. What needs to be understood by the reader that understanding is an achievement reached through "learning" and that relevant state is achieved with whatever representation is used if the language is ever actually understood.

 

Then "Strange" responded with "Yes. Without symbols (words and morphemes) a language does not exist." This again struck me as showing some comprehension of what I was saying. Actually, instead of "symbols", "words" and "morphemes" she (or he as it may be) could have used the reference "representations" which I used and I really missed the significance of the change in representation.

 

Delta 1212 seemed to think the central issue was translation which has utterly nothing to do with my presentation. At that point Strange also began to see translation as a central issue and began to deviate from his or her earlier posts. Strange's further presumption on 20 May that I was presenting a linguistics course clearly indicated a total lack of comprehension of what I was talking about.

 

At that point the whole community seemed to have descended to exactly the same presumption of a linguistic course and the point of my presentation seemed to be totally beyond their comprehension. So on May 21, I posted the representation I wanted to use in the hope that someone here would comprehend.what I was saying.

 

Strange's response was simply beyond me.

 

"Yawn....

I don't have a problem understanding what you are saying, just why..." I didn't think that indicated any understanding at all. If she (or he) understood what I said, acceptance of it as a simple fact was all that was necessary. There are real consequences of that fact apparently invisible to anyone reading this forum.

 

Strange's comment on May 23, "You do know that this has all been done before? You have yet to say anything novel." was totally beyond me. If indeed this were "all been done before" then someone with half a brain should have noticed the implied differential implications on my definition of "understanding" would have profound consequences. How come I have never seen any references to those subtle consequences??

 

If you could comprehend what I have put forth, I can show that the entirety of modern physics can be directly deduced from my definition of understanding.

 

Clearly, ignorance is bliss and I will leave you all to enjoy that profound ignorance!

 

Barring some intelligent response, I won't bother you again ---- Have fun -- Dick

 

 

If you don't believe anyone understood what you were trying to say, perhaps the common element in the failure to communicate is not "everyone else."

[Doctordick]

Well, I don't believe anyone really understood what I was trying to say and I suspect very strongly that the failure was not my fault. I suspect the real issue is that no one (other than perhaps Strange) had even the first idea as to what my interest was. They all made presumptions as to what I was trying to say along the lines of their common thoughts.

 

Strange did make the comment, "perhaps you could explain what these profound consequences are!" I can, but only if my opening assertions are understood. The first problem I have is that this thread is in a category called "Speculation". The first thing any reader must comprehend is the fact that I have utterly no interest in speculation of any kind. I want to discuss the consequences of absolutely exact constraints. I specify (and/or define) what I am talking about the way I do because of the profound consequences of those specific definitions.

 

The first error everyone seems to make is to presume the word "representation" has something to do with what is being represented! I have utterly no interest whatsoever in what is represented! My only interest is that it can be represented. Discovering what is being represented by the specific language of interest is a consequence of learning the represented language.

 

Can you describe the precise tensile strength... , describe how rough an object feels... , ball is red or the ball reflects the wavelength of light we see as red--- All these comments presume the language being discussed is understood (actually without even bringing up the issue as to what "understanding" is). Mordred's comment that "in order to understand reality you must be able to as precisely as possible describe reality" has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about the fact that understanding reality requires a language. I am at no point defining that language; in fact that issue is to be left absolutely unconstrained so that absolutely all possibilities are included.

 

On 23 May Strange said, "You do know that this has all been done before? You have yet to say anything novel." She (or he) could not possibly comprehended the consequences or the results I have deduced would be in the scientific publications somewhere.

 

When I say that the number "x_i" is to specify the representation of a specific concept within that language, I am making no constraints whatsoever on what the meaning of that concept is to be. The actual meaning is something acquired by means of learning the language and, learning any language requires extensive experience in presumed communication via that language.

 

On 23 May Strange also said, "There is a serious problem with this idea (which is not novel, Boole and others wanted to do the same thing). Mainly this is to do with the fact that concepts are not discrete things. They are fuzzy, overlap, have changing meanings, and mean different things to different people in different contexts." I have no complaint with that issue at all. What a specific "representation" actually means is something which must be learned before understanding of a specified thought represented by

may be comprehended. Does "x_i" stand for "big", "large", "huge", "small" or "tiny"? Those are different language representations! Knowing what they mean is deduced from their usage (helped out by a dictionary) and they can actually have meanings not specified in the dictionary. Jokes can be built by meanings never found in the dictionary but only from presumed meanings deduced from usage (something acquired by learning the language and its usage).

 

The actual meaning of any specific representation may shift depending upon the other representations presented in such a thought representation (that is the issue of "context"). The issue of concern to me is that any thought represented in any language may be represented by the numerical representation I have presented. Everyone here apparently wants the translation of the specified thought when the actual issue is representing the thought, not translating that thought into something they understand. If they knew the language being represented, they could preform the translation but that is not the issue I want to discuss.

 

What I have just presented are facts and nothing more. If the reader finds these assertions not to be facts then let them present a language which cannot be so represented!

 

I would comment that the fact that thought in any known language representation may be transformed into specific points on a computer screen (or in a printed book for that matter) seems to pretty well defend my assertion.

 

If anyone here can comprehend this post, let me know and I will continue my deductions.

 

Thank you -- Dr Dick

 

Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics 1971

[Strange]

Well, I don't believe anyone really understood what I was trying to say and I suspect very strongly that the failure was not my fault.

 

As someone who has spent decades as a professional communicator, I would say you are almost certainly wrong about this.

 

Strange did make the comment, "perhaps you could explain what these profound consequences are!" I can, but only if my opening assertions are understood.

Perhaps you should carry on anyway. Further explanation might clarify any confusion about your initial assertions.

 

The first error everyone seems to make is to presume the word "representation" has something to do with what is being represented!

It is very clear that representations and the thing represented are different. And that the relationship is arbitrary.

 

I am talking about the fact that understanding reality requires a language.

I am not sure that is true. But that is another (huge) area of philosophical debate that would probably just be a distraction.

 

The issue of concern to me is that any thought represented in any language may be represented by the numerical representation I have presented.

Given the ill-defined, vague and changing nature of each of the [latex]x_i[/latex] terms in your equation, it is not clear that this is a useful exercise. I can't currently see that it does anything more than translating the original sentence into another natural language would. Hopefully, your further explanations will clarify this point.

 

You also seem to be ignoring grammar. You appear to be only considering the meanings (representations) of the symbols, not their relationship to one another.

 

For example, there is a big difference between "man bites dog" and "dog bites man" and "dog bit man".

 

And even more so between "let's eat, Grandma" and "let's eat Grandma".

 

How does your mathematical representation handle these?

 

There are other complexities such as context, the relationship between the speaker and the listener, where the utterance is made, etc.

 

And then there are the issues of the implied meaning versus the literal meaning. For example, if someone gives you a cup of coffee and you say, "Do you have any sugar?" then you are probably not asking about whether they are in possession of sucrose or not. You are (politely) requesting that they give you some.

 

(Or, more topically, if your boss says, "I hope you will drop this inquiry" then that is not just a vague hope, it is a pretty direct order.)

 

I would comment that the fact that thought in any known language representation may be transformed into specific points on a computer screen (or in a printed book for that matter) seems to pretty well defend my assertion.

No more so than the fact that any language can be translated into any other.

 

But there are difficulties in converting spoken language to a written form. For example, these forms do not easily convey tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, etc. This is why some jokes fail to work, or are seriously misunderstood, on the Internet. You can also lose the ability to make jokes involving homophones that are spelled differently.

 

These problems seem to apply equally to your proposed mathematical representation. (Which is why, despite the idea being centuries old, no one has achieved it.)

 

I look forward to hearing more of your thought. I haven't yet seen anything that justifies your rather grandiose claims.

 

Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics 1971

 

 

(I should say, in case you are not familiar with his work, that this is from a physicist.)

Edited June 21, 2017 by Strange

[Mordred]

How can lanquage not be a representation? Every single word in any lanquage represents a meaning. Including mathematics.

 

How can you possibly have a lanquage that isn't representative?

 

Of course understanding reality must include lanquage usage. There is no option to convey discoveries etc without some form of lanquage. It is unavoidable. Mathematics is simply a more exacting lanquage but a lanquage nonetheless.

 

Yes lanquage terminology has limits in describing reality but there is no better option. At some point one must convey to another a descriptive of a dynamic etc.

 

I didn't post examples to discuss circumstances but to convey that at some point interpretation and representation would be required ie the examples I posted.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Mordred

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

How can lanquage not be a representation? Every single word in any lanquage represents a meaning. Including mathematics.

 

How can you possibly have a lanquage that isn't representative?

 

Of course understanding reality must include lanquage usage. There is no option to convey discoveries etc without some form of lanquage. It is unavoidable. Mathematics is simply a more exacting lanquage but a lanquage nonetheless.

 

Yes lanquage terminology has limits in describing reality but there is no better option. At some point one must convey to another a descriptive of a dynamic etc.

 

I didn't post examples to discuss circumstances but to convey that at some point interpretation and representation would be required ie the examples I posted.

(Sorry wrong person.)

 

Strange _Hope, is not an Order in this quote, meaning to stop it.

 

if your boss says, "I hope you will drop this inquiry" then that is not just a vague hope, it is a pretty direct order.) < take it as ; creating a vision of a suggestion, perhaps ? it is better to forget about the issue.

That is Reality .

Edited June 21, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

As someone who has spent decades as a professional communicator, I would say you are almost certainly wrong about this.

 

 

Perhaps you should carry on anyway. Further explanation might clarify any confusion about your initial assertions.

 

 

It is very clear that representations and the thing represented are different. And that the relationship is arbitrary.

 

 

I am not sure that is true. But that is another (huge) area of philosophical debate that would probably just be a distraction.

 

 

Given the ill-defined, vague and changing nature of each of the [latex]x_i[/latex] terms in your equation, it is not clear that this is a useful exercise. I can't currently see that it does anything more than translating the original sentence into another natural language would. Hopefully, your further explanations will clarify this point.

 

You also seem to be ignoring grammar. You appear to be only considering the meanings (representations) of the symbols, not their relationship to one another.

 

For example, there is a big difference between "man bites dog" and "dog bites man" and "dog bit man".

 

And even more so between "let's eat, Grandma" and "let's eat Grandma".

 

How does your mathematical representation handle these?

 

There are other complexities such as context, the relationship between the speaker and the listener, where the utterance is made, etc.

 

And then there are the issues of the implied meaning versus the literal meaning. For example, if someone gives you a cup of coffee and you say, "Do you have any sugar?" then you are probably not asking about whether they are in possession of sucrose or not. You are (politely) requesting that they give you some.

 

(Or, more topically, if your boss says, "I hope you will drop this inquiry" then that is not just a vague hope, it is a pretty direct order.)

 

 

No more so than the fact that any language can be translated into any other.

 

But there are difficulties in converting spoken language to a written form. For example, these forms do not easily convey tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, etc. This is why some jokes fail to work, or are seriously misunderstood, on the Internet. You can also lose the ability to make jokes involving homophones that are spelled differently.

 

These problems seem to apply equally to your proposed mathematical representation. (Which is why, despite the idea being centuries old, no one has achieved it.)

 

I look forward to hearing more of your thought. I haven't yet seen anything that justifies your rather grandiose claims.

 

 

 

 

(I should say, in case you are not familiar with his work, that this is from a physicist.)

Strange _Hope, is not an Order in this quote,

 

if your boss says, "I hope you will drop this inquiry" then that is not just a vague hope, it is a pretty direct order.)

< take it as ; creating a vision of the suject matter , a suggestion, perhaps ? it is better to forget about the issue.

That is Reality .

[Doctordick]

Apparently no one here can comprehend my post. Everyone confuses "representation" with what is being represented. They are very different concepts!

 

Jun 20th Strange said "Perhaps you should carry on anyway. Further explanation might clarify any confusion about your initial assertions."

 

If they cannot comprehend those assertions, to continue is little more than adding to their to their confusion (a rather waste of time).

 

Learning a language is developing an idea as to what a collection of specific representations means. What is important here is the fact that the symbols used for the specific required representations is arbitrary. That fact stands behind the many different languages mankind has managed to invent. If you know a language (English for example), you know what the words mean. In essence, a "dictionary" constitutes a collection of words with a presentation of their meanings (expressed with exactly that same set of words).

 

As a simple example, consider the thought (This is a cow!) or perhaps (That car went by.). In some other language, those thoughts would be represented with a totally different collection of symbols. My central interest is in the arbitrary nature of the symbology itself. If one understands a specific language, they should be capable of constructing a "dictionary" of the words they wish to be understood.

The point being that the number of words required must be finite as construction of an infinite dictionary is simply not possible. The second significant point is that the representation of those words is a totally open issue. (Consider for example, the range of possible secrete codes.) In essence, any secrete code can be seen as an unknown language. It should be clear that the actual range of possibilities here is infinite.

Considering the complete misunderstandings I have run into regarding my thoughts here (as expressed in common English) I will present a short example of what I am talking about.

 

Specifically, the comments (This is a cow! or That car went by.) can be expressed if one were aware of the following entries of a dictionary (plus the knowledge of the words used in that relevant dictionary).

 

This -- [plus the definition of that word!]

is -- [plus the definition of that word!]

a -- [plus the definition of that word!]

cow -- [plus the definition of that word!]

That -- [plus the definition of that word!]

car -- [plus the definition of that word!]

went -- [plus the definition of that word!]

by -- [plus the definition of that word!]

! -- [plus the definition of that symbol!]

. -- [plus the definition of that symbol!]

a space -- [plus the definition of that facet!]

 

This collection of "seven words and three symbols" is clearly only a minute fraction of what any useful language requires; however the representation of those words is a rather straight forward issue. If I were presenting a different language, those "representations" would be different. My point being that the representations themselves are absolutely arbitrary!

 

If one decided to represent the relevant words with numeric labels (which I usually refer to as "indices" in my presentations), a dictionary representation of the above concepts (plus the required indices to specify that dictionary) could easily be:

 

223 -- [plus the definition of that word!] Originally "This"

16 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "is"

2237 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "a"

1 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "cow"

756 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "that"

39 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "car"

256 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "went"

99 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "by"

242 -- [plus the definition of that symbol!] " "!"

12 -- [plus the definition of that symbol!] " "."

6094 -- [plus the definition of that facet!] " "a space"

 

and the two thoughts, "This is a cow!" and "That car went by." could then be represented by

 

(223,6094,16,6094,2237,6094,1,242) and (756,6094,39,6094,256,6094,99,12)

 

It follows that, if one comprehended the language (and was capable of following and/or constructing a dictionary), absolutely any thought, in the language of interest, could be represented by a fixed expression of the linear form of a finite collection of such indices where each and every index was specified by the required dictionary.

 

If the representation of ideas via such a construct beyond the ability of the reader to comprehend then I am afraid your intellect is far below what is required to follow my thoughts. I am speaking of representation and am not at all concerned with interpretation! Determining the interpretation of such a collection is the final result of learning the language. I will comment that there exists evidence that there exist a number of languages (together with representations) constructed by humanity which are no longer understood because we lack sufficient information to deduce the meanings of those representation.

If what I am saying is simply beyond comprehension of everyone here I will stop bothering you.

Have fun -- Dick

[Manticore]

I can't see what you are trying to say because your ego keeps getting in the way.