A lingual theory of everything

[ACG52]

Language however can be more flexible and enables concepts to be communicated more easily

 

Which language is that? How do you communicate the concept of E=mc² in Inuit?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

But language does 'crash'. If I walked into a room and sat a box down in front of you and said the box was very heavy, what does that mean? What if an Olympic weightlifter said it was heavy? How about a petite little ballet dancer? How about a toll booth attendant?

 

Language here is incredibly ambiguous. Language by its very nature is dependent upon the person who uses the words, and then is also dependent upon the person who hears and interprets the words. Words are fungible.

 

However, if I said it took 500 N to lift that box, that is unambiguous. It is not 5 N or 5000 N. 500 N may be easy for one person to exert that much force, and difficult for another. But it is, and always will be 500 N.

 

This is why math is so very, very preferred when talking about science. Because math can be used to make direct comparisons.

 

If I measure that the box takes 498.4 N to lift, the prediction that it would take 500 N to lift will be very much preferred over the predictions that it would take 50 N or 5000 N.

 

Language is great. There are many absolute classics of literature that tell extraordinary stories using only words. But at least some of what makes those stories so extraordinary is that they are constantly debated and reinterpreted over and over. 500 N never needs to be reinterpreted. 500 N is 500 N and only 500 N.

 

There is no language that can be as exact as 'it takes 500 N to lift that box.'

 

Yes. Well i cannot disagree with the precision and accuracy , with which number and thus maths is able to deal with the exactness of measurement. This indeed is its forte .

 

Similarly, I can not disagree with the imprecision that language brings to the table, in the example that you quote.

 

 

However, to me I think the example only illustrates the different attributes that Language and Number/Maths have. As I have previously stated , the shear exactness of maths can make it very 'stiff' and 'Brittle'. Should a digit be wrong , or the formula be a little wrong, the whole edifice can snap like a carrot, or break like an icicle . Errors can compound easily, and wrong equations can turn to nonsense by an incorrect combination of variables.

 

On the other hand , Language when dealing with " the Big Picture " or "Sweeping conceptual ideas and changes " lends itself to the flexibility which is not present in the number and maths approach . True heavy can be all sorts to all sorts of people , in the example you gave . However , If I were to say that the Oceanic Plates under the Seas is Heavy (more iron in with the silicates ) compared to the continental crust which is light by comparison (More Aluminium in with the silicates) . And as such the continents float high above the ocean depths like scum on the top of gently boiling pea soup. I am sure the concept of how the world is, with its land masses and ocean depths only today seen with fresh new images of hydro-thermal vents, with blind shrimps and other life forms. All this without mention ( even if one could describe the accurate number of Newtons the American Continents is, or how many newtons the Pacific Ocean plates are. We are able to get a better picture of how Everest is where it is and how high it is , and how deep the various deep trenches under the ocean are, before they sub-duct back down under the continents on their way down to rejoin the hot mantle and be re-absorbed.

 

 

 

Now tell me which sounds better in these circumstances in understanding the Earth Systems The Paragraph before or Formula now given ( example)

 

 

 

Cont .B squared Cos to the minus 1 double integral X to the 4 div X = Grad y cubed plus 7 y squared CURL j ( square root (y to the 5 + 5 )

 

Which language is that? How do you communicate the concept of E=mc² in Inuit?

 

Well I am not sure if my computer has a translation system to Inuit, However I will have a go in English then see if translator will work.

 

 

Our universe as we perceive contains and is material mainly. We walk around on land made of elements of various sorts. we are made up of many of these elements. We say that this material has mass. Namely it tries to keep going when we move it, It tries to fall to earth when we drop it. A man called Einstein proved that this same Mass of material , Our fingers, the sod of earth, an iron arrowhead could, and sometimes does get converted into energy like fire. An example is the SUN where mass is being converted to sort of heat and light energy. The amount of energy you can get out of any of this mass is immense , very, very ,very,very large. Its as if the light of the sun where some how bottled up in the mass. Einstein worked out exactly the amount of energy of this type you can sometimes get your hands on. You would have to get hold of a phyisist or a mathematician to give you the exact figure of energy.

 

Inuit translation :-

 

 

Alheimurinn okkar sem við skynjum inniheldur og efni fyrst og fremst. Við göngum um á land úr þætti af ýmsum toga. við erum samsett úr mörgum af þessum þáttum. Við segjum að þetta efni hefur massa. Þ.e. reynir hann að halda áfram þegar við færa hana, reynir hann að falla til jarðar þegar við sleppa því. Maður heitir Einstein sannaði að þetta sama Massi efnis, fingur okkar, sem sod jarðar, járn Arrowhead gat, og stundum er að fá breytt í orku eins og eldur. Dæmi id SÓLIN þar massa er breytt til að raða af hita og ljós orku. Fjárhæð orku er hægt að fá út úr einhverju af þessum massa er gríðarlega, mjög, mjög, mjög, mjög stór. Eins og ef þess ljós sólinni þar sem sumir hvernig flöskum upp í massa. Einstein gekk nákvæmlega magn af orku af þessu tagi sem þú getur stundum fá þinn snertið ekki á. Þú þyrftir að fá að halda á phyisist eða stærðfræðingur til að gefa þér nákvæma mynd af orku.

 

This is Icelandic (nearest I could get , Its the same temperature, maybe the language is similar ! Best I could do !

Edited February 21, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ACG52]

Except all your verbiage did not explain E = mc^2, neither in English nor in Intuit.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Except all your verbiage did not explain E = mc^2, neither in English nor in Intuit.

 

I am not sure if my Inuit person is a professor of physics , ( who would already Know ) or a uneducated hunter who lives along with polar bears and survives very well, better than most of us, but wants to hear what "the man called Einstein had to say that was so important. " I think if it was the latter I had a good attempt in a paragraph.!

Edited February 21, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ACG52]

Perhaps it's because the basic concepts do not appear in their language.

 

You're arguing that verbal language is an adequate substitute for mathematics. But there are many languages which do not have the words or concepts needed.

 

Language however can be more flexible and enables concepts to be communicated more easily

 

Obviously not the case.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You're arguing that verbal language is an adequate substitute for mathematics.

 

No I am Not.

 

What I am suggesting is that they both have a place . But usually the basic idea quite often gets drawn or written on the "back of a fag packet" . That's probably not politically correct anymore. ( say a small piece of scrap paper ) . If you want a new house on a piece of land with a view. A lot of arm flying, pointing the odd sketch. Garage over there Point. Swimming pool along side that building , Layout of house rooms ( usually women's ideas prevail.) A lingual picture is described, if not on paper into the air. LANGUAGE CONCEPT of The DESIGN.

 

What follows is a precise Architectural Drawing to Scale really a Mathematical Construction Drawing .

 

Both have their place. Ideas first usually Drawings and Language Detail Design second Measurement , Calculation ( Mathematics)

 

BOTH essential , but you could argue there would be no requirement for maths if there was not the design first.

 

 

Hence my proposition is : -

 

We should give a lot of head room to Creative thinkers and designers without bogging them down in maths too soon. Let them have their sky high ideas, let them fly with their possible thoughts. let them put forward their designs on scraps of paper. Then when they come to the mathematicians they can both work together in building the scaffolding that can support the new ideas in a more accurate definitive form. Not all ideas will come to anything. But some will.

.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Yes. Well i cannot disagree with the precision and accuracy , with which number and thus maths is able to deal with the exactness of measurement. This indeed is its forte .

 

Similarly, I can not disagree with the imprecision that language brings to the table, in the example that you quote.

 

 

However, to me I think the example only illustrates the different attributes that Language and Number/Maths have. As I have previously stated , the shear exactness of maths can make it very 'stiff' and 'Brittle'. Should a digit be wrong , or the formula be a little wrong, the whole edifice can snap like a carrot, or break like an icicle . Errors can compound easily, and wrong equations can turn to nonsense by an incorrect combination of variables.

 

That's the point, though. We want to know if an equation is right or wrong. There is no way to tell if a vague prediction is of value if there are multiple ways of interpreting it as being right. Saying that if you drop something in a vacuum it will fall is less useful than saying it will fall and pick up speed, which is less useful than saying it will accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. There are many scenarios where either (or both) of the first two statements would be correct — falling at a constant rate, accelerating at some other value, etc., but only one where the equation works.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

That's the point, though. We want to know if an equation is right or wrong. There is no way to tell if a vague prediction is of value if there are multiple ways of interpreting it as being right. Saying that if you drop something in a vacuum it will fall is less useful than saying it will fall and pick up speed, which is less useful than saying it will accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. There are many scenarios where either (or both) of the first two statements would be correct — falling at a constant rate, accelerating at some other value, etc., but only one where the equation works.

 

Yes.

 

But you are just arguing your mathematical exactness. Which I agree is the case. But the poor bird ( the infant creative idea ) has not had a chance to fly. Let it fly a while , with the flexibility of language. Let it flit around , with argument and counter argument. Let it gain strength in its skills of flying . Then and only then , test it out and apply mathematical rigor, and compare with existing theory. Maybe it will occasionally stand up to the testing and occasionally overtake existing ideas. Here is hoping !

Edited February 22, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[StringJunky]

Yes.

 

But you are just arguing your mathematical exactness. Which I agree is the case. But the poor bird ( the infant creative idea ) has not had a chance to fly. Let it fly a while , with the flexibility of language. Let it flit around , with argument and counter argument. Let it gain strength in its skills of flying . Then and only then , test it out and apply mathematical rigor, and compare with existing theory. Maybe it will occasionally stand up to the testing and occasionally overtake existing ideas. Here is hoping !

 

How do you describe verbally that which there is no macro world correlate to use as a mutually understood reference point but has measurable numerical parameters? This is most of physics. Maths is also the bridge between different verbal languages...it is commonly understood. The dissemination of new ideas across international borders would be severely stifled if it was primarily verbal because there wouldn't be a common language. Why should science cripple itself to accommodate those that can't make the effort to learn it's language?

 

Even though my maths level is only very modest I find this oft repeated railing against mathematics in science puzzling because to me algebraic language is quite clear and rather beautiful in the way it describes things without any ambiguity. Mathematics is not a problem, it's a method of concise description..

Edited February 22, 2013 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Yes.

 

But you are just arguing your mathematical exactness. Which I agree is the case. But the poor bird ( the infant creative idea ) has not had a chance to fly. Let it fly a while , with the flexibility of language. Let it flit around , with argument and counter argument. Let it gain strength in its skills of flying . Then and only then , test it out and apply mathematical rigor, and compare with existing theory. Maybe it will occasionally stand up to the testing and occasionally overtake existing ideas. Here is hoping !

 

This is a different argument, though, of final product vs creative process (as you have also argued elsewhere). I don't think anyone is arguing that there is only one path of formulating ideas.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

This is a different argument, though, of final product vs creative process (as you have also argued elsewhere). I don't think anyone is arguing that there is only one path of formulating ideas.

 

Then there is no argument.

 

I think where this debate has come from , was in my original proposition of a theory, which was not based on a mathematical formula but rather on a set of three verbal or lingual statements. Which I still hold to, and at this stage possibly has the advantage over the mathematical approach , in that it can be very flexible , as I have stated. You may interpret this as non precision, but I have found the flexibility useful in using the theory across discipline boundaries.

 

I am sure this is not without the model of past scientific masters. After all Isaac Newton said :-

 

"Things would stay still, or move with constant velocity if not acted upon by a force " true he added equations of motion including his famous

 

. " F=ma" for when a force is introduced to a mass an acceleration will result. etc etc.

 

I am sure if I homed in on a particular example a formula could be derived.

 

The issue of an electron staying in a given energy band /orbital ' ad infinitum' forever without energy loss or gain ,( if it does not move energy band) must be a scientific application of my theory.

 

.

[michel123456]

I didn't read thoroughly the whole thread but I have something to say about E=mc^2

 

The = sign is language.

The meaning of "equal" you cannot put in mathematics because that would be circular reasoning.

I think.

 

For example in E=mc^2 one could say that the = sign does not mean properly "equal" but means "equivalent". Both meanings are language.

[SamBridge]

I think the problem with a lingual theory of everything is even if it's purely logical and flawless, without scientific testing it could be 100% wrong. If you just look at string theory there's all sorts of maths for it, logical maths that seem to make sense, yet we cannot find any direct evidence.

Edited February 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

I think the problem with a lingual theory of everything is even if it's purely logical and flawless, without scientific testing it could be 100% wrong. If you just look at string theory there's all sorts of maths for it, logical maths that seem to make sense, yet we cannot find any direct evidence.

 

I have set up a TEST

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

O.K. Let us put this to the TEST.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A science based example . Used in conjunction with . A lingual ( language based ) Theory of everything .

 

.. V

 

 

See Next but one Post

Edited February 25, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

If you just look at string theory there's all sorts of maths for it, logical maths that seem to make sense, yet we cannot find any direct evidence.

 

?

 

string theory ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

O.K. Let us put this to the ULTIMATE TEST.

 

A science based example . Used in conjunction with . A lingual ( language based ) Theory of everything .

 

.. V

 

LHS

 

The Big Bang took place approx 13.7 Billion years ago.

 

RHS

 

Line 1 &/or Line 2 and Line 3 from a Lingual Theory Of Everything

 

" A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".

 

1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

 

3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. "

 

RESULT

 

from Line 1 & 2

 

Anything and everything is occurring from 13.7 billion years ago , and as we speak , as there was/is no reason for it not to occur.

 

LINE 3 applies ,

 

Now we are well on in the process of occurring, . There are restraints ( reasons for anything not to occur ) now in place due to the universe /mass , so the path of least resistance is being followed by the universe.

 

 

. QED ( Quad et Demonstratum )

 

Lingual Theory of everything works with the biggest science around ( The Visible Universe )

 

Yippee ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I WIN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited February 25, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

How is this functionally different from various forms of "God did it"?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Isn't this essentially a "Theory of Anything", without a list of what's not possible? -- It could be used to predict anything you want, depending on the parameters you use.

 

If so, how is a list of "reasons for something to not occur" any better than our current collection of theories and laws and assumptions? Neither is complete, right? So how could you ever complete the list of "reasons", to make this a true theory of everything?

 

Or if not, are there any new specific predictions that this theory makes? For example, I could write "A Complete History of Earth" in one line: "Anything that has happened, has happened." And that's true of all of history, but gives no specific information that isn't in any other history book. Without the specifics, it's not useful.

 

 

I've Done a test on something Scientific , and complex, and much encompassing

 

How is this functionally different from various forms of "God did it"?

 

I'll have to think on that one. It's a bit of a BIG subject . Very big subject . Trust you.!

Edited February 25, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[michel123456]

LHS

 

The Big Bang took place approx 13.7 Billion years ago.

 

RHS

 

Line 1 &/or Line 2 and Line 3 from a Lingual Theory Of Everything

 

 

RESULT

 

from Line 1 & 2

 

Anything and everything is occurring from 13.7 billion years ago , and as we speak , as there was/is no reason for it not to occur.

 

LINE 3 applies ,

 

Now we are well on in the process of occurring, . There are restraints ( reasons for anything not to occur ) now in place due to the universe /mass , so the path of least resistance is being followed by the universe.

 

 

. QED ( Quad et Demonstratum )

 

Lingual Theory of everything works with the biggest science around ( The Visible Universe )

 

Yippee ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I WIN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So following this it must be that 15 billion years ago there was a reason for not to occur.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So following this it must be that 15 billion years ago there was a reason for not to occur.

 

You are as bad as Mr Swansont, you have both gone back before the Big Bang .

 

O.K. That too is a BIG one. I need to think a bit , then get back to both of you. !

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Think !

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There is this issue of Initiative. !

 

Before the Big bang .... Initiative is mandatory, essential ( Line 2 of A lingual theory of everything )

 

After the Big bang .......Initiative is not always essential ( Line 1 of A lingual theory of everything )

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Think ! .........................

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited February 25, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[michel123456]

You are trying to make contortion with words in order to fit a prerequisite.

It's obvious to me that a straightforward lingual theory is incompatible with the Big Bang Theory.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

It's obvious to me that a straightforward lingual theory is incompatible with the Big Bang Theory.

 

I thought I just proved it , a few posts back ! What fault can you find in my reasoning and theory.?

 

You are trying to make contortion with words in order to fit a prerequisite.

 

I am not sure what you mean by this. I am a serious sort of a guy with words.

 

 

If you mean I am trying to make things fit. Then yes as that is what I have been looking for all those years.

 

If you mean I am forcing then I don;t think that has been by purpose.or the result .

Edited February 25, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[michel123456]

 

I thought I just proved it , a few posts back ! What fault can you find in my reasoning and theory.?

(...)

Answer:

from line 1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

From this sentence PUFFF here is the Universe because there is no reason for it not to occur.

But not exactly PUFFF because there is no temporal condition in your sentence,

which means straightforward that the Universe has always been because "there is no reason for it not to occur" yesterday, the day before etc. billion & billion years ago or even TODAY or even in the future. So your sentence is an infinite pufffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff with no end in both temporal directions.

 

That does not correspond to the BBT that happened only once (supposedly) at a specific time in the past.

 

So you create line 2. "Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

Here comes the "initiative". You introduce it to fit the BBT in such a way to explain that something triggered the BB, avoiding the infinite puffffffffffffffff of line 1.

But then why do you keep line 1.?

I think you need line 1. to explain everything "without initiative" then introduce "initiative" once everything exists. That's what I call contortion.

Edited February 25, 2013 by michel123456

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Answer:

from line 1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

From this sentence PUFFF here is the Universe because there is no reason for it not to occur.

But not exactly PUFFF because there is no temporal condition in your sentence,

which means straightforward that the Universe has always been because "there is no reason for it not to occur" yesterday, the day before etc. billion & billion years ago or even TODAY or even in the future. So your sentence is an infinite pufffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff with no end in both temporal directions.

 

That does not correspond to the BBT that happened only once (supposedly) at a specific time in the past.

 

So you create line 2. "Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

Here comes the "initiative". You introduce it to fit the BBT in such a way to explain that something triggered the BB, avoiding the infinite puffffffffffffffff of line 1.

But then why do you keep line 1.?

I think you need line 1. to explain everything "without initiative" then introduce "initiative" once everything exists. That's what I call contortion.

 

I am not good with all these short hand Abbreviations ( whats PUFFF) ? BBT is Big bang theory. is it Science Forum Speak ?

 

But I developed the theory long before I applied it to the Big Bang. Starting with pebbles on a beach , back in the late 1980's From observation and experiment. I was quite staggered when I found much later it applied to The Big Bang , Before the Big Bang . After the Big Bang. Today , Entropy. and a whole host of things which startles me somewhat !

 

The PROFOUND thing about the Theory ( which appears to me to be true ) is it moves a modest distance away from Reductionist thinking ( where the answer to everything is to be found deep down in the sub-atomic particles ) toward Emergent thinking ( where the environment, or the setting , has a lot to do with how things turn out.). Not entirely but enough to give an interesting slant for research. Also instead of moving towards more and more density , say society seeking more and more materials, and material gain . Rather it puts an emphasis on SPACE , more and more SPACE for things to have less restriction on " things to happen " This appears to be what is currently happening on an astronomical level. ( eg The speeding up of the expansion of the Universe.

 

So I must disagree with your idea that this Theory is contrived, and as such ( with a great deal of respect ), but none the less is just not correct. If the principle of what I have said is True ( all-be-it somewhat all embracing) that is only what one would expect of a " Lingual Theory of Everything " almost by definition.

 

How is this functionally different from various forms of "God did it"?

 

As answer to Michel above .

Edited February 25, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

As answer to Michel above .

 

Not really.

 

I don't see that you've added anything. Reasons for things occurring or not occurring are not part of the theory; it relies on some other framework to explain whether things can occur. That really can't be said to be a theory of everything. There are no specifics to any prediction you might make, which is one of the hallmarks of a decent theory. So it's not a theory, and it doesn't cover everything. It's also not testable in any meaningful way, which is the connection I was making.