Do We Need a Non-Classical Language System?

[con.foundas]

I've thoroughly enjoyed reading posts on this site. I have a query which is pretty much as the title suggests: Are we lacking and do we need a non classical language/meaning base vehicle to better understand the non classical 'world' (universe), theoretical mathematical implications etc? And if so, can we develop such a complex and non classical language based system? My original assumption, if this was needed (of course), is probably not.

Broken down, our classical language base systems, in just about any language, is in the form of a subject and predicate; ie her eyes are green. There are of course more complex examples of this, that ends up being the primary vehicle for language transmission and meaning, for everyone in all disciplines.

I feel that we may have classical limitations with respect to the structure of our language (syntax etc) as this may not be a reliable vehicle for generating understanding and adequate meaning when attempting to describe such non classical or complex systems, models, events etc.

If you look at it in terms of one system up against another (classical language based systems that serves a good purpose, and advanced complex systems in ie mathematics, physics etc), you have a classical based system being used as a vehicle to describe, tackle etc non classical systems and the like. While you can get away with this to some degree or a high extent, there seems to be possibilities where you may not.

I'm just curious to see if anyone has any feedback on this.

 

[jedishrfu]

We have a non-classical language mathematics and we apply it to the systems you've mentioned in various new and profound ways.

 

[con.foundas]

We have a non-classical language mathematics and we apply it to the systems you've mentioned in various new and profound ways.

But how reliant are you on (our) classical language based systems for meaning and understanding (to its fullest extent)? And I understand it would be written in a non classical format, but somewhere along the line, its meaning or applications may get muddled in classical based reasoning (inherent in classical based language/meaning models), to a small extent maybe, because we have to rely on classical based language/meaning as a vehicle for comprehension and understanding.

 

[Evo]

Are you saying we should write math in non-mathematical terms?

 

[jedishrfu]

i feel this thread is outside the purview of this forum and perhaps should be discussed elsewhere on the web.

We are here mainly to help students with problems in math and physics not as philosopher debating personal theories.

 

[con.foundas]

Are you saying we should write math in non-mathematical terms?

Not at all. I'm referring to the comprehension of some of it and more specifically to the complex understandings of non classical physics, described using our classically based language structures as a vehicle for meaning (at its fullest extent).

 

[Evo]

Not at all. I'm referring to the comprehension of some of it and more specifically to the complex understandings of non classical physics, described using our classically based language structures as a vehicle for meaning (at its fullest extent).

I don't get it. New words for new things are created all of the time.

 

[con.foundas]

I don't get it. New words for new things are created all of the time.

So true. But subject/predicate relations, and the structure of our language base systems, no matter which words (new or old) are used to derive meaning, seem to be limited in some capacity to handle, to its fullest extent, issues like the edge of the universe and implications of the Big Bang theory.

 

[con.foundas]

i feel this thread is outside the purview of this forum and perhaps should be discussed elsewhere on the web.

We are here mainly to help students with problems in math and physics not as philosopher debating personal theories.

I thought this was in a general section for general discussions. I certainly hope Science, Physics etc isn't in the business of omitting views, like other institutions were doing to the founding fathers of modern day sciences, hundreds of years ago?

It just seems a little odd not to just dismiss this view as false, rather than to suggest leave or something to that effect.

A challenge here or there, outside of one's comfort zone can be a good thing.

All options should be left on the table.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This is an idea that will have was hadn't been coming before it's time.

 

[Evo]

this is an idea that will have was hadn't been coming before it's time.

aaaarrgh

 

[Astronuc]

This is an idea that will have was hadn't been coming before it's time.

If it ain't not broke, don't not fix it.

or "If it's not broken, fix it until it is"


or the current syntax works fine, so we don't need a new language/syntax.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Broken down, our classical language base systems, in just about any language, is in the form of a subject and predicate; ie her eyes are green.

Getting rid of the subject and predicate form is a good idea. First of all, 90% of Americans and 95% of physicists can't tell you what a predicate is anyway. Past participles should go too for the same reason. In fact, most problems in physics could be solved if we just stopped diagramming sentences altogether. Things start to get hairy when the book starts with "Alice is in a rocket going in the positive x direction ..." and ending up with a question that no one can possibly know the answer to. Instead of all that, how much simpler it would be to say "Her eyes are green. They take in the photons reflected off of Bob's exquisite body. Rockets begin to go off. How is all this going to look in Ted's reference frame?"

 

[Evo]

Getting rid of the subject and predicate form is a good idea. First of all, 90% of Americans and 95% of physicists can't tell you what a predicate is anyway. Past participles should go too for the same reason. In fact, most problems in physics could be solved if we just stopped diagramming sentences altogether. Things start to get hairy when the book starts with "Alice is in a rocket going in the positive x direction ..." and ending up with a question that no one can possibly know the answer to. Instead of all that, how much simpler it would be to say "Her eyes are green. They take in the photons reflected off of Bob's exquisite body. Rockets begin to go off. How is all this going to look in Ted's reference frame?"

I know that got my attention.

 

[micromass]

This thread does not meet the guidelines of this forum.