Language, Meaning and the TOE

[RascalPuff]

We humans take special relish in naming things.

But naming things can be a perilous responsibility...especially if we name a thing before understanding what we have named.

There are times I have thought that we should not name our children until long after they are born. How can we name a thing whose nature we don't yet understand?
My wife reminds me that this would make it difficult to call the children (the ones who are slow to the table) to dinner...but still.

Perhaps naming is less perilous in people than it is in things.

Take for example the luminiferous ether of the 19th century. We named it without understanding what it was, then after having named it we tried to identify its nature which was odd to say the least. The ether was said to be a fluid that filled the immensity of space, but which was millions of times more rigid than steel. At the same time, the ether was said to be massless, having no viscosity, completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale.
In the end we came to the conclusion (though some dispute it) that the ether was not real. We had named something and had given a hundred-year-long ontological existence to something that was (ostensibly) not even real.

Many centuries before we did the same thing when we named the Dome of Fixed Stars. After much time, and centuries of confusion, we would unname the Dome of Fixed Stars through the titanic efforts of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton. Naming the Dome of Fixed Stars was easy. But once named, the Dome of Fixed Stars acquired an all-to-great authority over our minds. We came to think of the Dome as sacrosanct...as true...and were loath to let it go. And thanks to this little knot of language and meaning (a name), science was impeded for centuries.

Unnaming the Dome was most difficult, indeed.

Take the atom, as an example. The meaning of the word atom implies an indivisable particle. But our name for the atom was, perhaps, premature. Do we not believe that the atom divides into electrons, quarks, gluons and a vast soup of virtual particles? Yes we do. Clearly, we named the atom before we understood what it was. And in so naming the atom, we confused future of science, perhaps slowing down what might have been progress had we been more careful with the language we employed.

Today we have named many things that we fail to understand...and while we admit that we don't understand the named objects, we proceed to name them nonetheless. Things like photons, quarks, electrons, neutrinos, dark matter, dark energy, and this is just a short list.

Even things we may pretend we understand hands down remain mysterious to us. The thing we call "space," for instance, hold more mystery than almost anything in nature.

Is space real? Does it exist? If it exists than we must not think of "space" as "nothing". And if it bends (as Einstein purported, and as many have since proven) then space must be something. But what is it.

There was a time when we made strict distinctions between space and matter. But since Rutherford showed us that all matter is mostly space, we have been forced to reconsider our position. That collection of molecules we call a Granny Smith Apple is infact an alloy of space and matter (with a great deal more space than matter). The matter exists as a "suspension" of sorts. And the configuration of the space and matter is what makes the Granny Smith a Granny Smith. There is very little difference between say a Granny Smith and a Golden Delicious. Its all in the configuration. Configuration is everything.

Some say that space is unmoving, that it is merely a reference work against which all matter moves. But if space bends on the large scale (and it does), might it not also bend or oscillate on the small scale? In other words, if I were to watch a Granny Smith apple floating through space, should I imagine it as a collection of fundamental particles passing through fixed points in space? Or should I think of the apple as carrying its own bit of space around with it? If the apple is an alloy of space and matter, isn't the latter more true? Don't the ways that space undulate inside the apple lead to things like color, taste, texture, and smell?

Yet there are many (perhaps a vast majority of scientists) who would tell us that space does not move. It may bend...we might permit that point (since Einstein suggested it and numberless experiments confirm it)...but to say that space moves--well that is something entirely different.

Electrons move. Photons move. Gluons move. These things we accept as instruments of motion. But space must not move. Space is a fixed thing that bends (on a massive scale) obediently under the influence of matter. Or is it?

What is an electron? A photon? A gluon? We have given these mysterious objects names, but truth be told, we don't even know what they are. Might they not be space in motion. Isn't it possible that we have subdivided a simple and basic element--space--into elements so small that we are thus led to misunderstand space as a whole? Perhaps we are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel...or in other words, we might be so focused on the spray, that we fail to hear the ocean roaring all around us.

I guess what I'm saying is that the thing that keeps us from finding a TOE is a linguistic problem. We come to believe that the things we name (based upon mathematical formalities) are real and that we understand them. This may not be true. It is likely NOT true. If history can teach us anything, it is this: We once believed in the Dome of Fixed Stars, which is now defunct. We then believed in a luminiferous ether, which is now defunct. After that we believed in absolute space and time, which are now defunct. Today we believe in the conflicting tenants of general relativity and quantum mechanics. What have we named that has led to this confusion? What in our language is keeping us from the next leap in science?

Wick

Thursday, July 26, 2007

The ladder of Abstraction as described by S.I. Hayakawa in

"Language in Thought and Action"

...the Ladder of Abstraction, developed by S.I. Hayakawa to explain the concepts of General Semantics Faunder Alfred Korzybski. Korzybski's Science and Sanity looked at the difference between "insane" and "unsane" made clear the difference between the thing and the name of the thing, made possible modern thought from Hayakawa to Marshall McLuhan, Quantum physicists, and Matt Groening.

So here's the basic guide -- the ladder can be used to see the forest instead of one tree, or to send you into the forest when the press is asking about that one particular tree you sold to developers.

... used by politicians in such cases as when being asked "Why are you tapping the phones of Americans?" "For Security." "What do you mean by Security?" Democracy" and? "Freedom." Always going into larger and less definable concepts, saying words that are less and less able to ever be defined in real terms except by going DOWN the ladder to specifics.

posted by Saintperle at 12:28 PM 11/26/07

***************************************
http://www.thisisnotthat.com/learn/litaa.html

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

Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Silpher, and Hubble ascended the betrothed 'dome of fixed stars', graduating it from an obstructively revolving impediment to progressive observation, onward to the omnidirectionally far flung celestial vault that we presently recognize it as being. By any other name, the bequeathed 'fixed dome' with its remonstrating constellations contentiously continues to be the struggling classroom within which its expostulating observers pursue their inevitably disputed progressive studies. A compass rose by any other navigational name. T'was ever such, and so shall it continue. The language of naming - philology - evolves with increasing knowledge of necessarily named objectives.

Best regards,
- RP (aka Kai)

[labelwench]

The ladder of abstraction plays an important role in our ability to define unfamiliar words. Visualizing the bottom rung of the ladder as "Bessie" and the top as "wealth," it is much easier to define "Bessie" than it is "wealth." We can simply point to Bessie to make our meaning known, but in order to explain the meaning of "wealth" we must use other words. This is the difference between extensional meaning (the physical Bessie) and in tensional meaning (the abstract wealth). If we must use words when defining, it is imperative that we use those words found below the word in question on the ladder of abstraction. The definition must point toward the extensional for the meaning to be understandable. For example, in defining the word "livestock," we would want to say something about cows and horses and chickens rather than discussing assets or wealth. The most effective, meaningful definition is one in which specific examples are given which point directly to the meaning of the word.

From the link posted by RascalPuff
http://www.thisisnotthat.com/learn/litaa.html

Language, as it describes the demonstrable and the derived, is where the frustrations may begin, in my observation.

Look no further than the Legal system.

The intent of the law is stated in such a manner that, while the meaning may seem to be very clear, there is ever much latitude in the interpretation. Lawyers become very adept at building ladders and layers of abstraction, more like a circular staircase, and the outcomes of such deliberations and the precedents set are the means by which many people are fettered by language and dare I suggest a tool of societal conditioning and control.

More than wealth or station of birth, I would suggest that language, and a thorough understanding of it's subtlety and power, is the filter by which our society stratifies itself at the intellectual level.

One may be the most brilliant human being alive, and yet without some means of communicating the core of that knowledge to another, even one other, the idea or concept is lost. Hence the value of language as a tool.

I would also mention that music, even without words, and the visual arts, also demonstrate 'the ladder of abstraction'.

[labelwench]

Something to consider though is that there does exist an absolute reference for time though. For example, in Relativity, not all motions can be considered relative because accelerations don't affect time symmetrically. In the case of the "Twin's Paradox", though the two could be considered accelerating relative to each other, there still exists an absolute reference in which one is experiencing more acceleration than the other and this implies an absolute frame of time which does not treat acceleration identically.

Also, phenomenon witnessed throughout the universe occur over time in common units that can be compared. This is also necessarily synchronized with observations.

I believe the reason why such a diversity of phenomenon are witnessed is because there doesn't a specific limit to complexity. In many ways, the fact that there does exist such a complexity of physical phenomenon as well as complexities of logical structures in mathematics and number theory is because they are related (though I'd assume physical phenomenon represent a particularly detailed set) and similar to events occuring with comparable units or time, they share the same "1" or number line as in mathematics.

Steve, may I be bold enough to suggest that you are one whose use of language ventures into such new territory of abstracts at times, that the ladder becomes more like a hanging bridge. From that bridge, you employ a trapeze, and your thought process has moments of pure suspension, which leaves conservative persons like myself standing where the intellectual ground at least appears firmer, to observe the show of a trapeze artist working without a net.

Certainly, you venture where others do not go, and the dialogue between yourself and other posters provides both entertainment and suggests new directions of thought.

The ladder(s) of abstraction are everywhere employed, and I would suggest that most of the complexity or our world arises from our use of language in the attempt to explain 'that which exists'.

Not enough for our species to merely experience existence. Through the evolution of language, we bring new dimensions to our experiencing as we shift our perspective by means of abstraction, not unlike looking through a lens and changing the focal length by increments.

[SteveA]

Oh, I tried to post a reply but it timed out and I lost the text ... I have to start getting ready for work, but let me at least put up a few links that were in the reply:

Steve, may I be bold enough to suggest that you are one whose use of language ventures into such new territory of abstracts at times, that the ladder becomes more like a hanging bridge. From that bridge, you employ a trapeze, and your thought process has moments of pure suspension, which leaves conservative persons like myself standing where the intellectual ground at least appears firmer, to observe the show of a trapeze artist working without a net.

That's funny you use that analogy. I'd thought of it like this before



Then again, it occassionally looks like this too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LsWG...eature=channel

Certainly, you venture where others do not go, and the dialogue between yourself and other posters provides both entertainment and suggests new directions of thought.

Thank you for noticing. I guess to be honest, I'm largely just using existing ideas and trying to head the same direction as many others, but I'm also trying to construct a very consistent foundation, even if it's not something orthodox.

In many ways, what can appear as "freestyling" on my part, is largely just following pathways that are already known by many, but the fun part is finding out how they connect in ways that not a lot have considered. (Yes, I almost intentionally try to find some of the most obscure and unsuspected relationships between things possible - those are usually where the fun stuff happens! I've done this a few times on jobs as well and created or modified products in ways that most people wouldn't have guessed could be done)

The ladder(s) of abstraction are everywhere employed, and I would suggest that most of the complexity or our world arises from our use of language in the attempt to explain 'that which exists'.

One of the beautiful things in life is that there appears to be no limit to the details and complexity that someone might want to add to it - that option is always available. On the other hand, this is largely optional too and things can be very simple as well.

I bet that there are at least dozens, if not hundreds (or dare I say even thousands? It's possible ...) of different contexts in different areas of science or even everyday expressions where something as simple as multiplication is being described but from within a specific context of what is being multiplied and how it's presented.

There are only a small set of fundamental operations. The complexity arises from how these are connected together between things. Once those basics are seen clearly and how their interactions unfold to give properties of specific traits, it's almost like seeing the alphabet in which the words of experience are written, and it's amazing the diversity of phenomenon that arise form this. The body is already a supercomputer and we naturally work on a day to day basis with scales of complexity that are still beyond what technology is capable of. A good athlete has an intuitive understanding of forces and kinetic energy and non-linear processes etc. ... the hard part appears to be able to consciously recognize and understand these things and connect them all together into a coherent whole that can be zoomed in or out of at various scales of time and space and see how those properties are qualitatively represented.

Not enough for our species to merely experience existence. Through the evolution of language, we bring new dimensions to our experiencing as we shift our perspective by means of abstraction, not unlike looking through a lens and changing the focal length by increments.

Yes, I tend to think that we just naturally seek a bit beyond what we already know ... and it appears the universe is definitely capable of supplying "more" in that respect, though again, it's not really necessary but I presonally can't complain about having the option

Here are a couple quotes from "The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy":

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

Now that could appear frustrating, but then again, along the way you can learn how to do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrDwO...eature=related

... something that's really struck me for a while now is that no matter how things are going or how dark and heavy the clouds might appear at some moment, there's always a silver lining ... and I'm beginning to think it's more than just random concoincidence (Especially because I've seen many times in the past where it turned out, in hindsight, that the clouds were a blessing but I hadn't realized it at the time and more things begin to make sense and fall into place over time, so I strongly suspect, and it even makes sense logically, that there exist patterns and structures over time that are not immediately visible (the "present" is a zoomed in and moving area of visibility) and these provide for a continuity across time to exist. Things appear to interact and transform in the present, but this isn't uncoordinated or random and properties regarding those objects remain present.

[Wick]

Language, as it describes the demonstrable and the derived, is where the frustrations may begin, in my observation.

Yes. The mind tends to focus more on structure than behavior...on nouns instead of verbs. Perhaps thats why we got the Dome of Fixed Stars in the first century AD...and why it lasted so long. Perhaps that's why we got absolute space and absolute time, and why we morphed that Newtonian structure into space-time. Structure is something concrete.

But the greatest discoveries of our time have come from verbal thinking NOT nominal thinking. Copernicus asked himself, "Does earth move in circles?" Kepler asked himself, "Do the planets move along eliptical paths?" Newton asked, "Why do objects descend to the earth?" Einstein asked, "Does matter bend space?" So it would seem that questions regarding the actions of nature yield a great deal more light than deriving the structure of nature. Science, just as language, is best employed without the passive voice.

If I imagine space in motion, I can often discard the nouns of science and replace them with the verbs of science. If matter bends space in the gravitational interaction...I can also imagine matter causing space to ripple with regard to the electromagnetic interaction. I can get rid of the photon and instead see space waves propogating at various frequencies which have an errosive affect upon the matter against which they wash (photoelectric effect). Space waves and matter are jointly the instrument and the cause. Space waves propogate at the velocity c whether they are waves associated with gravity or light).

Point is this: If we simplify the language, perhaps we can simplify the science. We should be careful making nouns for science and ask ourselves if perhaps we are dealing with a motion rather than a object.

Wick

[Wick]

We should be careful making nouns for science and ask ourselves if perhaps we are dealing with a motion rather than a object.

Wick

Quantum Physics, linguistically speaking, has been a time of great noun making. This noun making time may have started with what Einstein called the Lichtquanta and which Lewis would later refer to as the photon, but it would not end there. During the 1960's hundreds of "different species" of particles seemed to appear in particle colliders. This perplexed scientists, but they continued their cloud chamber safaris and named every new particle they came across.

Naturally the most common of these were the neutron, the proton and the electron...but scattered here and there were rare species, like the lambda, and all its descendants, the sigma, the xi, the omega, the delta, and all the slight variations of the same. There were the pion, the kaon, the eta and other mesons in all their variety--a veritable menagerie.

The vast number of new particle troubled physicist who searched deeply to find why there was such a degree of variation in such a small subset of the overall particle population. Eventually the standard model evolved and it was determined that all of these newly discovered particles were simply collections of two or three of the standard quarks (of which there were six)--the up, the down, the charm, the strange, the top and the bottom. So many names. So many nouns.

And the particle physicists took pleasure in generating these new nouns. They christened each new particle like proud mothers and fathers.

But the diversity of particles did not end with the quarks. Electron's had "brothers" and "sisters" of their own. In those same particle collisions that gave rise to the particle zoo, we found evidence of "massive" electrons--the muon and the tau. And all of these particles--quarks and electrons--had partners (negative version of themselves). So even with the improvements of the Standard Model, there were still a goodly number of particles--the up quark and the anti-up, the down quark and the anti-down, the charm quark and the anti-charm, the strange quark and the anti strange... Oh, the list is long. And we added a few theoretical particles--the graviton, the photinos, charginos, the list goes on.

Why must we think nominally. We are talking about particle collisions here!!! Shouldn't we be thinking verbally?!!

Isn't it quite likely that the electron, muon and tau are all the same thing which appears more massive because of the way it's moving? Might not the same thing be true about the tumbling action of the bottom quark to the topquark to the strange quark to the charm quark to the down quark--as massive quarks "decay" towards stability??? We are watching an action here. We are not watching nouns turn into other nouns. On the contrary, we are watching something that was light but which by action has become massive return to its naturally light state.

Bottom line: Physicist would do well to employ the help of a linguist or two.

Wick

[labelwench]

Why must we think nominally. We are talking about particle collisions here!!! Shouldn't we be thinking verbally?!!

Originally posted by Wick

Perhaps, as we began our explorations, we were tentative in approach, and so, by 'naming', we assigned markers to those things which were observed, to have a reference for common discussion.

With a better understanding of the process involved in the journey of discovery, it may well be time for a different approach in our observations and summaries.

'Life', though commonly treated as a noun in language, would far better be considered an 'action verb' in the ways of it's expression.

Re-thinking the linguistics in use might be preferable to continually generating new words, which seems rather to confound rather than define topics under discussion.

[RascalPuff]

"We shall not cease from exploration, and, at the end of all our exploring, we may arrive where we started, and know the place for the first time."
- T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets (paraphrased)

Post Script:
Kudos to the architects of self expression who remarkably grace this entire site.

Best regards,
- RP (aka Kai)

[labelwench]

"We shall not cease from exploration, and, at the end of all our exploring, we may arrive where we started, and know the place for the first time."
- T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets (paraphrased)

Post Script:
Kudos to the architects of self expression who remarkably grace this entire site.

Best regards,
- RP (aka Kai)

The quote by T.S. Elliot puts me in mind that while life is a journey of discovery, it is also a journey of rediscovery, many times, as we suddenly come to fully appreciate the importance of a detail or a teaching which we earlier learned and then set aside, as our hungry mind coursed in search of more substantial fare.

Many experience a sense of 'incompleteness', a feeling that there is 'something more', or that there is a 'secret as yet undiscovered' among the treasures and troubles that define the average lifespan. We suck up new information like a sponge, until we are saturated, yet often find no real 'meaning' or 'learning' from the raw data.

Only when we step back, and take the time to revisit much of what we have absorbed in our haste, do we realize that we may have overlooked that which was truly important, that which we already knew, knowledge that is genetically imprinted into us from conception.

Interesting also, that this is not a thing which can be 'taught', though many have tried. It is a thing that must be 'learned', and it can only be learned by each of us, be our journey a long one, or short.

[SteveA]

"We shall not cease from exploration, and, at the end of all our exploring, we may arrive where we started, and know the place for the first time."
- T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets (paraphrased)

Great quote. Thanks