Philosophy Now Forum

Can ordinary verbal/written language be expressed in more symbolic/mathematical equations? Is not every idea in a sentence expressible as either a distinct object or as a relationship between two distinct objects? Can we not say that to the extent those objects are sufficiently distinct that the relationships can be sufficiently known? In other words, isn't it possible to do math on language in every meaningful sense?

even bearded chimney sweepers know that mathematics itself is nothing but another language

-Imp

[quote=Impenitent post_id=483587 time=1607278405 user_id=3944]
even bearded chimney sweepers know that mathematics itself is nothing but another language

-Imp
[/quote]

fixed

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:46 pm Can ordinary verbal/written language be expressed in more symbolic/mathematical equations? Is not every idea in a sentence expressible as either a distinct object or as a relationship between two distinct objects? Can we not say that to the extent those objects are sufficiently distinct that the relationships can be sufficiently known? In other words, isn't it possible to do math on language in every meaningful sense?

This is moot. Mathematics and English are both languages.

Mathematics has no adjectives/adverbs (feeling words), so it's obvious that certain things from English can't be expressed in Mathematics.

On the other hand formal languages have homoiconicity and English doesn't so it's obvious that certain things from formal languages can't be expressed in English.

The distinction is subtle yet enormous. What becomes a "circular argument" in English turns into a "recursive function" in a homoiconic language.

You literally get a language which doesn't require interpretation because it interprets itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconicity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-circular_evaluator

[quote=Skepdick post_id=483599 time=1607284471 user_id=17350]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconicity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-circular_evaluator
[/quote]

Good stuff but i'm talking about something more skin to Lojban, but with which ordinary sentences like this one can be directly represented as a sequence of technically specific relationships and changes.

[quote=Advocate post_id=483603 time=1607287776 user_id=15238]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=483599 time=1607284471 user_id=17350]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconicity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-circular_evaluator
[/quote]

Good stuff but i'm talking about something more skin to Lojban, but with which ordinary sentences like this one can be directly represented as a sequence of technically specific relationships, intents, changes.
[/quote]

We're gettin' there! Hold onto your horses.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 9:54 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 9:49 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 8:54 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconicity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-circular_evaluator

Good stuff but i'm talking about something more skin to Lojban, but with which ordinary sentences like this one can be directly represented as a sequence of technically specific relationships, intents, changes.

Good. But something akin to Lojban with concise sentences.

I sense an insight, the OP's, that seems to suggest the task s/he has in mind isn't impossible, but isn't a walk in the park either. Language is evolving and from the small sample any one individual like myself can hope to get their hands on, I'd say we're getting there ... slowly but ... surely.