If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:52 am

If all language is meaningful, and all reality is composed of medians in the respect structure exists as an extension of a center, is language connected to reality as both exist through a point of center? Can language and reality be viewed as one and the same, because of this, leading to a premise of one does not necessarily presuppose the other?

And what is language but a form of meaning through use, to loosely reference Wittgenstein, considering it is the use of language which gives meaning to life as it effectively exists as a limit through which we not just structure our own perceptions and those of the group, but effectively structure the environment through which the individual or group exists?

This transcendental aspect of language effectively unites and gives structure, which in itself is positive through the boundaries it gives, or is divisive and causes seperaration, which in itself is negative through the absence of boundaries it necessitates.

This positive and negative aspect of language, as both unifying and seperative in nature, reflects the neutral qualities of language as a limit of not just the human condition but an universal element of definition which gives premise to existence itself. Language as neutral, is language as a median of being which gives directive properties to, through, and from the observer which inherently self directs to language as a form of movement itself, with movement being the foundation of all being.

The definitive properties of language in itself observes language as not just universal to all elements of being regardless of there state or degree of comsciousness, but effectively presents itself as a median in itself. This property of "meaning" within language in turn extends to all of aspects of meaning necessitating a degree of oneness with them.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2863
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by attofishpi » Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:07 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:52 am
If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?
Meaningful? Useful? Purposeful?

If the universe has intelligent entities capable of communicating via language then the obvious answer is yes. I suppose you want to define 'language'?

To be honest, your post is extremely confusing.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:10 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:07 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:52 am
If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?
Meaningful? Useful? Purposeful?

If the universe has intelligent entities capable of communicating via language then the obvious answer is yes. I suppose you want to define 'language'?

To be honest, your post is extremely confusing.
Language acts as a median that connects not just one phenomena to another but the observer to the phenomena as well.

As a median it acts as a center point of balance where this point of balance acts as an origin of both connection and separation.

As an origin of connection language effectively observes a unifying property.

As an origin of separation language acts as a seperative property, or a point of inversion, where unity in structure is inverted to multiplicity of structure as absence of structure.

As a point of origin that observes both separation and connection the language acts as its own set of limits which define empirical and abstract phenomena.

These empirical and abstract phenomena are composed of various limits in themselves which effectively act as connectors and separators.

This the limits of language and the limits of empirical and abstract phenomena both act as a means between the positive value of connection and the negative value of separation, with this meaning observing these dualism extending from a common point of origin.

Considering the language, empirical and abstract phenomena exists as points of origin between their respective positive and negative values, they all share the median quality of a point of origin hence are extensions of Each other that effectively exist through one another.

In these respects language is universal.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2863
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by attofishpi » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:36 pm

...still waffle. The answer was so blatantly obvious, but you need to impress us with what again amounts to waffle.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:50 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:36 pm
...still waffle. The answer was so blatantly obvious, but you need to impress us with what again amounts to waffle.
Not really, the foundation of language lies in the fact is quite literally directed movement, in one form or another.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by TimeSeeker » Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:48 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:50 pm
Not really, the foundation of language lies in the fact is quite literally directed movement, in one form or another.
Yes. Directed movement. Change over time. Calculus.

Impenitent
Posts: 2011
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by Impenitent » Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:17 pm

meaning is private

-Imp

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by TimeSeeker » Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:21 pm

Impenitent wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:17 pm
meaning is private
If you accept that premise then you need to surrender the notion of universal truth ;)

One simply asks: What does it mean for something to be true?

Impenitent
Posts: 2011
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by Impenitent » Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:23 pm

"T"ruth (if it exists) would be perceived privately as well...

-Imp

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by TimeSeeker » Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:27 pm

Impenitent wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:23 pm
"T"ruth (if it exists) would be perceived privately as well...
Then why capitalize it?

Impenitent
Posts: 2011
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by Impenitent » Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:28 pm

"common" parlance

-Imp

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:50 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:48 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:50 pm
Not really, the foundation of language lies in the fact is quite literally directed movement, in one form or another.
Yes. Directed movement. Change over time. Calculus.
Elaborate further.

My current stance is what I call a mirror function, it is in the mathematics section and you should take note of the latter updated pages.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:30 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:50 pm
Elaborate further.

My current stance is what I call a mirror function, it is in the mathematics section and you should take note of the latter updated pages.
If language attempts to describe the world, and the arrow of time goes in one direction (as we currently experience it), then any phenomenon we attempt to explain can be described as a series of events e.g time-series ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_series ). Think - movie. 24 frames (descriptions?) per second.

Language is like a movie: "Today I went to the shop and bought some icecream"
This sentence is a movie at a time-scale of 3 frames per hour.

Frame 1 (sets context): Today
Frame 2: Me walking/driving to some shop
Frame 3: Me buying icecream

It is similar to what physicists call 'world line': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line
Calculus is the mathematical language for describing change in respect to some variable. In this case - change in respect to time.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:28 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:30 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:50 pm
Elaborate further.

My current stance is what I call a mirror function, it is in the mathematics section and you should take note of the latter updated pages.
If language attempts to describe the world, and the arrow of time goes in one direction (as we currently experience it), then any phenomenon we attempt to explain can be described as a series of events e.g time-series ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_series ). Think - movie. 24 frames (descriptions?) per second.

Language is like a movie: "Today I went to the shop and bought some icecream"
This sentence is a movie at a time-scale of 3 frames per hour.

Frame 1 (sets context): Today
Frame 2: Me walking/driving to some shop
Frame 3: Me buying icecream

It is similar to what physicists call 'world line': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line
Calculus is the mathematical language for describing change in respect to some variable. In this case - change in respect to time.
Agreed...but I have to make a few remarks considering the directed nature of phenomena is not limited to "time" alone, and can reference a form of consistency as self-directed timeless movement where all "being" (whether physical and material or abstract and mental) exist fundamentally as 1 moment approximated through time.

The premise for this "consistency" or nature of "absolute" truth comes from a perspective where we merely "quantify" everything as "1".

This leads to questions about the nature of cause.

****Bear with the "( )" marks.

The series of events in time necessitates a premise where the events are structures. For instance if I view one event, lets say a cat playing with a ball (A), progressing towards another event, lets say me feeding the cat (B), these events are effectively instantaneous "structures" of time where the event as a cause leads to the event as effect.

(A) → (B)

Now if I break down each structure further, where the cat playing with the ball (A), is broken down to the cat looking at the ball (Aa) and the cat moving towards the ball (Ab), we are left with the same cause and effect structure which composes the structure. So each structure of time in itself is deterministic in the respect is exists as the manifestation of one set of movements towards the other which gives foundation to the structure of time as a series of movements in itself.

(((Aa)→(Ab))(A)) → (((Ba) → (Bb))(B))

In turn all effects act as causes in themselves as evidenced by (((Ba) → (Bb)→(Bc))(B)):

(((Aa)→(Ab)→(Ac))(A)) → (((Ba) → (Bb)→(Bc))(B)) → (((Ca) → (Cb)→(Cc))(C))

Now the event as a structure observes that the cause cannot exist without the effect, as the effect is a cause in itself. Hence what we understand of effect is the repetition of cause through itself where cause exists as an everpresent median as structure.

So where cause exists as effect, the effect is in itself is a cause that exists through cause and is approximated. Hence the cause cannot exist without the effect which in itself is a cause, cause is merely directed through itself as itself as:

with the premise of

(((A) → (B)) ↔ ((A) ← (B))) ∴ ((A) ⇄ (B))

Where this "therefore" statement observing a dual symmetrical "because" nature:

(((A) → (B)) ↔ ((A) ← (B))) ∵ ((A) ⇄ (B))


With (B) ↔ ((A) ⇄ (A))


And


(((Aa)⇄(Ab)⇄(Ac))(A)) ⇄ (((Ba) ⇄ (Bb)⇄(Bc))(B)) ⇄ (((Ca) ⇄ (Cb)⇄(Cc))(C))


In these respects all "cause" is an everpresent median that is fundamentally self-directed through itself as itself with the "multiplicity" of these "structures" as "cause" being an approximation of the 1 cause conducive to a dual form of randomness as absences of structure. In these respects all structures as an extension of an ever present cause that exists through itself as itself with any form of multiplicity observes all structure as an extension of this 1 cause while dually observing time as premised in "localized" movement as 1 directional linear movement.

However if this "cause" is directed to itself through itself ad-infinitum it becomes 1 in itself as it becomes constant. Hence we are left with the premise of this "cause" being everything as Unified and 1 through pure "movement" and fundamentally sizeless as it alone exists. Under these terms we are left with a purely theoretical 1d point which is necessary but paradoxically can never be proven as it is its own standard of truth and the foundation of all "proof" as pure "symmetry" and "order".

Under these terms all directed movement exists from this 1d point that is everpresent. All "causal structures" under these terms are an approximate of the "1" quantitatively and "Unity" qualitatively. In these respects all "phenomena" are a multiplicity of "points" as "point" in itself where all structure exist as cause.

Now the mirror function threads, preferably the latter parts, give more definition to this from a quantitative perspective considering the standard linear expression (or quantitative "sentence" if one wants to play with words) 1+2=3 is merely a 1 directional projective statement and changes when observed as directed towards itself simultaneously as ⨀(+1,+2) ⧂ (+1,*1,+2,*2,+3,*3,+4,*4).

****This statement may have to be elaborated on considering the localization of symbolic phenomena such as "1" , "+", "2", "=" and "3" results in a different observation of symmetry compared to the same localities are inevitably observed as "connected" such as "+1" and "+2".

The same nature applies to qualities.



We can observe this premise in strictly 1 directional linear terms as existing through "time" where this intradimensional self-maintainance is observed under a particular nature of 1 directional Linearism (as a "part" of the whole with the "whole" being all directions as 1). So the statement of:

(((Aa)⇄(Ab)⇄(Ac))(A)) ⇄ (((Ba) ⇄ (Bb)⇄(Bc))(B)) ⇄ (((Ca) ⇄ (Cb)⇄(Cc))(C))

Changes to:

(((Aa)→(Ab)→(Ac))(A)) → (((Ba) → (Bb)→ (Bc))(B)) → (((Ca) → (Cb)→(Cc))(C))

where (A), (B), (C) are means of movement in themselves and inevitable result in not just a "causal structure" as (ABC):

((((Aa)⇄(Ab)⇄(Ac))(A)) ⇄ (((Ba) ⇄ (Bb)⇄(Bc))(B)) ⇄ (((Ca) ⇄ (Cb)⇄(Cc))(C)))(ABC)

but effectively a localization of movement as well through:

((((Aa)→(Ab)→(Ac))(A)) → (((Ba) → (Bb)→ (Bc))(B)) → (((Ca) → (Cb)→(Cc))(C)))(ABC)

leading to:

In these respects (ABC) exists as both a "causal structure" and "acausal progressive median as locality" considering:

(ABC)→(EFG)→(HIJ)

Where the "Point of Origin" of (ABC) effectively is directed back to itself through "infinity".
((ABC)→(EFG)→(HIJ)→ ∞) → (ABC)

This nature of "localization" not only necessitates a "timezone" in and of itself, but existing of and composing further timezones:


Now the question occurs how this relates to language. Language maintains this self-directed nature where the letter forms the letter through the letter, word through word, sentence through sentence, etc. While we observe the directional qualities of language as manifested through time as being 1 directional so to speak, as language is an extension of a cultures perception of movement (hence "time"), a form of "replication as mirroring" occurs as evidenced by the properties of definition observed in a dictionary.

However where the letter "A" progresses to "B" which progresses to "C", "A" is fundamentally directed back to itself through these letters giving premise to words. All words are the cycling of letters so to speak, with these cycles resulting in words and the cycling of words resulting in sentences, etc.

The coherency of this cycling, considering "A" may cycle to some gibberish word as "acrvtra" and another word such as "acre", observes:

1) Language is formed through time.
2) What is deemed as "gibberish" and "not-gibberish" is determined by the connectivity the word has to a phenomena.
3) This connectivity demands a form of alternation between the observer and the phenomena, the observer and observers, and the observers and the phenomena.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Oct 20, 2018 7:14 pm

Agreed...but I have to make a few remarks considering the directed nature of phenomena is not limited to "time" alone, and can reference a form of consistency as self-directed timeless movement where all "being" (whether physical and material or abstract and mental) exist fundamentally as 1 moment approximated through time.
I don't think we can overcome this at present. The scientific method is grounded in statistical sampling. Worse - we are victims of human experience itself. We pre-suppose the arrow of time in EVERYTHING we do, so by definition - we have quantized time. Until we have some continuous measuring tools/mechanisms to allow us to treat time as a continuous wave function we are stuck with a "digital" conception of the universe.
The premise for this "consistency" or nature of "absolute" truth comes from a perspective where we merely "quantify" everything as "1".
Sure. I have been down that path. The "1" is not the problem. It represents the whole - The Universe. But it is a dynamic system and so you have no chance in hell to express anything useful in classical logic! You need calculus for this even at the highest level of abstraction.

lim (x -> ∞) f(x) = 1 is the problem.

1 of WHAT? What is X and f(x) ? ;)

It is fashionable nowadays in Physics to think of the universe as a quantum computer, and we have Big O notation to deal with asymptotic functions so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation

Let G(X) be some super-powerful quantum computer, and U(x) be our universe. We could say 1 is the time it takes for this super-computer to compute our universe? *shrug*
(A) → (B)
You are thinking along very similar lines I have thought about. This thing you call 'symmetry' is what I call equilibrium. It would be a system that does not change in respect to itself AND in respect to time. It would be (A) ⇄ (B). Forever and through time - unchanging. There are a few promising developments here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect
A time crystal or space-time crystal is a structure that repeats in time, as well as in space. Normal three-dimensional crystals have a repeating pattern in space, but remain unchanged as time passes. Time crystals repeat themselves in time as well, leading the crystal to change from moment to moment. A time crystal never reaches thermal equilibrium, as it is a type of non-equilibrium matter — a form of matter proposed in 2012, and first observed in 2017.

But I think I am going far too deep into the practical. The theoretical aspect ends in complexity theory. The complexity class ALL is equivalent to the "Universe" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_(complexity) )

If the universe is a computer (a Turing machine) then the universe IS recursive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(complexity)
R is equal to the set of all total computable functions.
Which is lim (x -> ∞) f(x) = 1
If the universe IS recursive then the Universally meaningful language is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_language

The problem still remains: define f(x) :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests