If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Posts: 5884
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: If Language is Meaningful is Language Universal?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:33 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
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.

I "partially" agree to the above. What you say is correct. However the problem occurs that in the grounding of time as a "premise", so to speak", we need to understand the foundation for time itself considering "time" quite literally is its own system of definition and measurement we reflect through the relation of "localities" (whether they be abstract concepts as parts evidenced in basic arithmetic or the more practical nature of relations of parts in a car or what tool to use for a job).

The question of "foundation", one that is immovable and fixed, gives premise to how we metaphorically and literally "direct the movements" which compose both ourselves and the phenomenon through which we exist.

This quantification of time, with time being linear as a base premise, necessitates a viewpoint of "quantification" as "time" where the linear nature of time as 1 directional effectively shows a simple "line as directive quality" being "1" quite literally. Under these terms geometry and basic arithmetic (from which we derive further fields of mathematics) effectively support the other and are viewed as one and the same.

This affects the nature of not just personal reflection, but the nature of computer as well considering if we view numbers as linear structures we can use "frequencies" as the foundation for not just number but actually computing and a more multidimensional approach can be taken. If memory serves, "quantum" computing gives some evidence to this; however we are left with the base philosophical questions as to what the foundations of quantity and quality as directed movements really "are".

Calculation is movement, and observing frequencies as the foundation of numbers with "upgrades" effectively being frequencies more closely associated to numbers gives a change to this perspective.

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*

I see somewhat where you are going and again I only "partially" agree:

"1" as quantity may exist qualitatively as both "unit" and "unity" and in these respects relates back to a geometric nature where the "unit" as localized direction exists through the line. "1" as "all direction" and "unity" exists through the "circle".

Even the observation of a "unity", such as the circle, is represented as a unit conducivied to the linear trajectory through time it takes. Dually, the line as "unit" relates through a form of "unity" so to speak as the same point it projects from is the same point it projects towards...effectively arguing it (in more ways than one) as a "degree" of the circle.

The question of "unity" and "unit" takes on a dualistic role where the continual existence of one through the other showing all limits as existing simultaneously as both "unity" (whole) and "unit" (multiplicity). The limit as the foundation of both, through both, simultaneously takes on a nature of being beyond both and the question of reality cyclically expands back to a definition where everything is directed movement where directed movement is everything.

The problem with computer example is that the computer, as that which calculates, must calculate at a rate of infinity and quite literally must tap into a theoretical "ether" in order to do so (with the ether being a dimension through which everything exists and all information is present). The problem occurs that the computer itself must be composed of "ether" considering the "ether" composes all movement.

The act of computation, by dividing realities so to speak, causes a problem in the respect the "ether" would inevitably have to divide itself.

Another problem occurs in the respect that this computer as composed of ether and existing through ether is already tapped into the ether, with the ether existing as infinite movement conducive to "unity" as "absolute" so to speak. This would necessitate the computer requiring a movement towards infinity and we are left with such a high degree of complexity in developing such a device that to reach this "complexity" would require an infinite timeline in and of itself.

Considering however the "computer" as calculating reality must be dependent upon certain "infinite" movements so to speak, we may cycle back (theoretically at least) to basic geometry as the foundation for computing and the formation of elements respectively into similar geometric structures (with this geometry being an infinite means of computing considering it is self-reflective in form and function). From this premise, it may be "possible" that pyramids may be computing structures where instead of the person working at the computer, the computer worked through the person.

This is considering a paradox occurs in the role of "created" or "creator" where the creation can never be greater than the creator as it is merely a proxy, however the creation can exist through the creator. Geometric structures, changing the human psyche, may in fact observe a means where the "creation" exists through the "creator"....if you understand where I am heading considering the question of the constitution of the human framework lends itself to moral laws (ways of being) through reciprocity.

If a man creates a computer and directs himself towards the computer the man becomes an extension of the computer. If the man creates a computer and has the computer directed towards him, the computer becomes and extension of the man. Under these terms the nature of computer changes not just form and function but meaning as well for one could build something, through geometric principles, that enhances the human condition by effectively housing it.

The only true "computer" in these regards may be the human condition in many respects, for how absurd this may sound, due to its reflective capacity.

It really breaks down, from what I am "currently" observing, of using supertasks to calculate supertasks with the premise of all supertasks being geometric limits.

(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:

Will look into, from a brief glance it appears that the structure of the crystal as "barely" changing effectively cause it to act as median by "directing" movements which lack structure and giving them structure through the structure of the crystal itself.

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.
If I am understanding you correctly, what you are saying is that because of the high "symmetry", "order" or "equilibrium" (trying to deal with the entropic nature of language here) the crystals maintain themselves as time zones closer to "perceived unity" that effectively change the "movements/timezones" around them?

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) :)

Agreed to with the above. Theoritically, and you may be able to elaborate more considering your education in Lambda calculus, type theory, etc. is "relatively" more in depth than mine, a "new" function either has to be discovered or created to deal with the nature of "recursivity" as being an intergral part of all calculations.

I have doubts about type theory precisely because it is defined by a projective nature, leading to the question of "which came first: Projective Definitions or Number?" leading to my stance of both being one and the same as any relativity leads to a circularity as "one" so to speak. My education in Lambda calculus is relatively low, but considering what I have observed it "appears" (maybe?) to have more have a recursive nature. However stepping back further this would necessitate both lambda calculus and type theory as "symmetrical" duals? These prior two sentences take with a heavy dose of salt.

Under these premises we inevitably are led back to, and pardon the language here as it may give some distortion to what I am arguing, "a mathematical function existing through directed movement as directed movement". In simpler terms geometry should be used as a proof of arithmetic and not the other way around as the calculation of a supertask (necessary for the computer you are talking about) would have to exist through a supertask as a "function". Hence the supertask is both form and function and a limit in itself...if that makes sense...

The latter portion of the thread in the math/logic section addressing all "degrees as relation of geometric forms" points directly towards evidence where what we understand of number is inseperable from the line and exists as a spatial entity in itself as the degree is dependent upon the number of geometric forms in a circle with the circle effectively existing as the foundation for the forms themselves. Under these terms the degree as a line moving away from and towards point 0 simultaneously, sets the foundation for the number.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests