Re: Universal grammar


Hans Aberg wrote:

You would probably have to ask those who wrote them. In general, it is
probably a bad idea learning from schoolbooks! :-)

All media are spreading the same idea of a gradual evolution;
all you read and hear and see is Darwin's model of gradual evolution.

So I guess this answers much of your question, except that quarks cannot
exist as free particles, so they only formally exist in the
physical modeling of QM phenomena.

Let me say the same in another way, then. Newton invented gravity.
Before Newton, there was no gravity. People were floating around
in the air ;-)

But note that I said there are no signs that say the foundations of QM
would be radically changed, not that won't. That is quite of a difference.

Yes, true. But I expect changes from my point of view. Newton was
a child of the mechanic revolution. The revolutionary technology of
engines gave rise to Einstein. He thought about locomotives, and what
happens if they travel very fast. Informatic revolution will see
another
genius of the same caliber. Computers allow us to think in new ways,
and this will bear fruit.

The problem is the none has yet come up with a physical definition of
information, and how to physically measure it. So, as long that has
happened, valid physical theories have no claim about information.

At age fourteen I had an insight: when I do a chore in a clever way
I save energy, so intelligence and energy are perhaps related?
A couple of years later I spoke with a professor, he told me no,
one is an intensive and the other an extensive category, so there
is no equivalency. In the 1990s I asked several physicists at a
symposium, the answer was again a polite no. The first confirmation
came from Eric J. Chaisson, Cosmic Evolution, The Rise of
Complexity in Nature, Harvard University Press 2001, page 133:
"information basically _is_ a form of energy, whether flowing, stored,
or unrealized." Please have a look at the book. I find it very
inspiring
(alas, not his new book).

Since QM and GR haven't been unified yet, we have no yet seen the end. And
QM and GR are in themselves not finished - for example, GR has several,
non-unified matter models.

Thanks for confirming that the field is wide open for new ideas.

In order to get our discussion back to a more pragmatic ground I'd
like to say that I see the biggest promise in computer visualizations
of physical models, of numbers, and so on. One third or even half
of the brain is occupied with vision, and so I naively or boldly assume
that as big a percentage of computer power will be devoted to all kinds
of visualizations. A couple of years ago I saw a colored visualization
of a polynom, kind of a torus with extensions, probably in The
Scientific
American, very fascinating, and the short article said this
visualization
already led to a mathematical insight one wouldn't have obtained
without such pictures. I imagine that also language can be visualized.
For example Rupert Ruhstaller's grammar of budding circles:
www.seshat.ch/home/grammar.htm I gave him a sentence, and he
quickly and automatically drew up the corresponding system of circles.
I looked out for the longest sentences in Caesar's De Bello Gallico,
but he never failed. No sentence was long and complicated enough
to make him hesitate, so I think his grammar could be automatized,
at least to some extent. Ruhstaller would have been pleased with
the modern facilities of visualization. I can imagine his budding
circles
in three dimensions, colored, as kind of verbal molecules floating
through the 'space' of a computer screen ...

Regards Franz Gnaedinger

.

Loading