What is the Future of Physics in Relation to Other Sciences?

[loseyourname]

Back to the Lorentz transformation, the only way to find out what "imaginary time" means is by investigating our language, not our math. There's nothing in mathematics that says v can't be greater than c in the equation; it's only our inability to make (linguistic) sense of the concept "imaginary time" which prevents us from asserting that "an object can move faster than the speed of light" (a purely linguistic statement as well, whose truth does not depend on mathematics at all)

To stay on this route, you don't investigate what "imaginary time" is by looking into language. "Imaginary time" means that the quantity coming out of the equation when v is greater than c is an imaginary number. To understand what this means, we need to understand what an imaginary number is. It is certainly not a linguitic anomaly. It is a number system built from multiples of the number that, when multiplied by itself, results in -1. If anyone ever figures out exactly how this might translate into a physical phenomenon (it is entirely possible that it does not), it will be a mathematician, not a linguist.

 

[loseyourname]

And of course, the point remains that any calculation using the Lorentz Transformations will always give the same results, when it is made using the same input, regardless of the language spoken by the person performing the calculation.

 

[zeronem]

On the contrary, this is the argument. Without an understanding of a language, such as English, there is no way that you could understand physics.

I doubt that. Imagine a primitive Human Being who knows nothing of language or how to read. He just scavenges for food. Well one day he found an apple on the floor, he threw it straight up in the air and having no idea about gravity the apple came back and hit him in the head. He was exited by this apple coming back down to hit him, so he threw it up in the air again and he would catch it and throw it up again and again. He then finds an orange on the ground, notices how it is different from the apple and throws it up in the air, once again he notices that it comes back down just like the apple. He starts to jump himself and he notices that he comes back down just like the apple and the orange. This primitive being is aware of gravity. Well he is primitive so he can't really give this force a term intill language develops. BUT, he has come to some understanding of the Physical Phenomena Gravity.

 

[Loren Booda]

How about psychology, or brain development? Physiologists pore over Einstein's brain - why not his or future evolution of cognitive abilities revealing a new area of physics not currently accessible to typical homo sapiens sapiens?

 

[loseyourname]

Without an understanding of a language, such as English, there is no way that you could understand physics, or that physics could ever have developed in the first place.

Just to elaborate on the point zeronem made, language is not necessary to understanding. It isn't even necessary to communication. For instance, a tiger has a great understanding of the grazing habits of its prey, without language. A bee can very effectively communicate with its hive by the alignment of its dance with the lines of the honeycomb, the angle between them indicating the direction that food lies in. This is essentially nothing more than pointing in a certain direction and I doubt would qualify as language.

 

[Egmont]

I doubt that. Imagine a primitive Human Being who knows nothing of language or how to read. He just scavenges for food. Well one day he found an apple on the floor, he threw it straight up in the air and having no idea about gravity the apple came back and hit him in the head. He was exited by this apple coming back down to hit him, so he threw it up in the air again and he would catch it and throw it up again and again. He then finds an orange on the ground, notices how it is different from the apple and throws it up in the air, once again he notices that it comes back down just like the apple. He starts to jump himself and he notices that he comes back down just like the apple and the orange. This primitive being is aware of gravity.

Actually, that primitive being is aware of what you call gravity. And you became aware of gravity not by throwing apples up in the air, but by being taught a scientific explanation of why apples fall. Without being educated about it (ie, without being told what the word "gravity" means), your understanding of what makes apples fall would almost certainly not resemble the modern concept of gravity. You could think, for instance, that apples fall because they come from the ground and as such have a tendency to return to it.

Well he is primitive so he can't really give this force a term intill language develops. BUT, he has come to some understanding of the Physical Phenomena Gravity.

So how long do you think it will take this primitive man to understand that things fall because space is curved? You really think he can understand that without using language?

 

[vanesch]

To give just one example of how this reasoning is not correct:

The Lorentz transformation is mathematically expressed, yet nobody knows what it means when v > c, since the time dilation factor becomes imaginary and nobody has a clue what "imaginary time" means. Yet several mathematical equations also give imaginary results, and we often don't have a problem with those. For instance, "imaginary current" has a very clear meaning in electricity, "imaginary position" has a very clear meaning in mechanics, and so on.

It seems quite common for people trained in human sciences to adhere a lot of importance to language as a tool for reasoning. I know what I talk about, my wife is a Classicist, and we can have endless arguments about it. But physical reasoning is just not that way.
To take your example above, there's no point in looking at v>c in a lorentz transformation, because a lorentz transformation is an element of a continuous group, the lorentz group, and the case v>c is simply not an element of the group we consider. In other cases, we are in the complex plane, which can be considered as an analytical continuation from the real axis (such as when applying a Wick rotation), or we can be considering the complex plane simply as a mathematical tool to describe 2-dimensional real vectors (such as is the case when using complex numbers in electricity, or when solving the poisson equation in the plane). But because historically people have given the name "imaginary" to the vertical axis of the complex plane, you seem to have a fixation on that WORD. It is not because the formula, sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), can appear, or as part of the description of a lorentz transformation (where analytical extension in the complex plane has not much meaning), or in other contexts, where this analytical continuation might have a meaning, that the mathematical idea behind it is not sufficient to express what we mean, as you seem to imply.
The mathematical idea behind it is not the formula, but a continuous group in the first case (analytical continuation has not really a meaning), and a plane in the second (analytical continuation HAS a meaning). I do not think that this is dependent on the spoken language, as long as the mathematical concepts are understood by the audience.
Indeed, I have difficulties believing that the mathematical concept of the lorentz group is different if you have a russian, chinese, english or arabic linguistic background. If you don't believe this, go to a scientific conference, and listen how terribly badly some speakers speak English, and yet understood perfectly well their subject.
But I *KNOW* that people with a human science background cannot accept this because their thinking *IS* mainly organised around the definition of words.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Egmont]

It seems quite common for people trained in human sciences to adhere a lot of importance to language as a tool for reasoning.

For the record, since I have a PhD in physics, the rest of your post is a non-sequitur.

Cheers

 

[vanesch]

Back to the Lorentz transformation, the only way to find out what "imaginary time" means is by investigating our language, not our math. There's nothing in mathematics that says v can't be greater than c in the equation; it's only our inability to make (linguistic) sense of the concept "imaginary time" which prevents us from asserting that "an object can move faster than the speed of light" (a purely linguistic statement as well, whose truth does not depend on mathematics at all)

If you got a PhD in physics, and you wrote the above, then there is something very strange. Maybe you got it over the phone or something
As I said before, it is not the formula, but the mathematical idea of a continuous lorentz group that limits the parameter v to be between -c and +c. Because that's how the lorentz group is parametrized. It is almost as silly as to say that nothing stops you from specifying lattitudes higher than 90 degrees. It is simply because the mathematical idea behind it, namely a sphere (modeling the Earth's surface) is parametrised in theta and phi, with theta only going from -90 to +90 degrees. And yes, the cosine and sine functions do also allow complex arguments. But for the position of a ship on the ocean, that won't happen. You will find lattitudes between +90 and -90 degrees.
How can you say that we need to investigate the linguistic meaning of "imaginary time" to get beyond v>c ??
We need a real number for time (not real in the sense of "reality" but in the mathematical sense, element of R). Why ? Because we need an order relation which is complete, and which exists on R, but not on C. Because the fundamental meaning of time in our model (flat minkowski manifold) is to label what preceeds, and what follows.
Order relation: 1) if a>b then not b>a ; 2) if a>b and b>c then a>c ; 3) not a>a
Complete order: if a and b and not (a=b) then a>b or b>a.

This, together with a few continuity properties, uniquely defines R. If we had called the vertical axis in C, "zork", instead of "imaginary" then this doesn't change a single bit to the reasoning or the conclusion.

But nobody stops you from developing a theory where time can be zork. (it is sometimes used as a mathematical trick, btw, such as in Wick rotation, but just for calculational purposes). You do not need to delve into the etymology of the word "zork" to do so

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[marcus]

It seems quite common for people trained in human sciences to adhere a lot of importance to language as a tool for reasoning. I know what I talk about, my wife is a Classicist, and we can have endless arguments about it. But physical reasoning is just not that way.
.

lucky you (about wife being a Classicist)
hope the kids are good both with number and geometrical thinking, as well as words

what is her specialty-----like Greek history writing of the such and such period----or use of Homeric epithets in later imitative epic poetry---or what? Say hello from a Herodotus fan here (there are more than one at PF)

 

[vanesch]

what is her specialty

I think she did something on the grammatical structure of archaic dialects on Crete. Now she teaches latin and greek to high school kids

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Egmont]

If you got a PhD in physics, and you wrote the above, then there is something very strange. Maybe you got it over the phone or something

I actually bought it for $30 over the internet

As I said before, it is not the formula, but the mathematical idea of a continuous lorentz group that limits the parameter v to be between -c and +c. Because that's how the lorentz group is parametrized. It is almost as silly as to say that nothing stops you from specifying lattitudes higher than 90 degrees.

You are correct. It doesn't make sense to say v may be greater than c, but you only know it doesn't make sense because you have a linguistic understanding of what the equation means.

If you show all the math of physics to someone who's extremely competent at math but completely ignorant of physics (a hypothetical person of course), that person would tell you the solution to the Lorentz transformation for v > c is an imaginary number. He will never tell you v > c is as meaningless a mathematical notion as sin(r) > 1.

Besides, if you think physics is nothing more than math, then why is it that it has become a separate discipline? Why don't we just let mathematicians figure out all mathematical truths, and accept those as truths about the universe?

 

[Locrian]

If you show all the math of physics to someone who's extremely competent at math but completely ignorant of physics (a hypothetical person of course), that person would tell you the solution to the Lorentz transformation for v > c is an imaginary number. He will never tell you v > c is as meaningless a mathematical notion as sin(r) > 1.

This isn't true. If I showed the math to someone, I would have to include the restriction on the domain as part of the math. Domains are something people in math are very comfortable with, and they would need no physical or linguistic explanation for why v < c, since it would be part of the mathematical description of the system.

As for why we don't just let mathematicians do the work... well, to some extent we do, since all physicists must be mathematicians to one degree or another. The difference is that physicists use the math to predict observables. You can't make a case that we need language to observe something.

I wish a linguist present would give us a really good definition of the science of linguistics and then talk about whether math can be defined as language. I think that would be an interesting piece to read.

 

[Egmont]

This isn't true. If I showed the math to someone, I would have to include the restriction on the domain as part of the math. Domains are something people in math are very comfortable with, and they would need no physical or linguistic explanation for why v < c, since it would be part of the mathematical description of the system.

I think I'm just going round in circles with this. All I said was that SQRT(x) has valid mathematical solutions for x < 0. Why x can't be less than zero in the particular case of the Lorentz transformation is something that can only be conveyed with language.

It's quite funny to see you guys saying language isn't important to mathematics or physics, when the fact is that everything anyone knows about mathematics was learned through language. You can't show a bunch of equations to someone and expect them to figure out, "ah, this set of equations describes the relative motion of objects relative to an inertial frame". Come on guys, you know that is just not possible, why do you keep saying it is?

You can't make a case that we need language to observe something.

Of course not, but you need language to know what to observe. If I give you a set of equations and tell you they describe the gnookness of bewunts, how exactly would you make your observations? Wouldn't you start by asking me to clarify what I mean by those concepts?

Come on, I can't believe this is that difficult to understand.

I wish a linguist present would give us a really good definition of the science of linguistics and then talk about whether math can be defined as language.

I can tell you right away that some philosophers classify math as a language, some do not. In the end, the only thing being discussed is what the word "language" means. As Fliption would say, just a word game. The important thing is not language itself, but the concepts we have in our minds which we express through language. We have a set of concepts for mathematics, and we have a set of concepts for observations of the physical world. The only reason math can be used to predict observations is because both sets intersect. The part of the set of math concepts which doesn't intersect with the set of observables is called "pure math"; the part of the set of observables which intersects with math is called "physics". It is as wrong to claim one can do physics without language as it would be to claim it can be done without math. I honestly don't understand why some people can't see this.

 

[Locrian]

Why x can't be less than zero in the particular case of the Lorentz transformation is something that can only be conveyed with language.

No, that cannot be conveyed by language. Why it cannot be outside its domain isn't a question that has a meaningful answer at all. All one can do is say that, well, -c < v < c for this equation. You could say "that's just how the universe is," but to me that carries no meaning.

It's quite funny to see you guys saying language isn't important to mathematics or physics

I absolutely never anywhere in this thread ever said language wasn't important to mathematics. If you feel you are going around in circles with people it could be, as you say, that we just can't see it. It could also be that you aren't using good examples, aren't wording them carefully enough, or just aren't reading what we write.

 

[Gerinski]

Coming back to the original question, I think that the next breakthrough in physics will still come from maths. The most fundamental issues in physics today are beyond our experimental ability so researchers on the edge are mostly focussing on finding relations or trying to encompass the loose ends from a theoretical -mathematical- way.

And I believe math can still give us a lot of insights, it has still much way to go.

However in a longer term I agree that biology / brain development (in particular obviously triggered from genetic engineering and bionics), can bring forward unexpected developments.

You don't need to fancy about "supernatural or esoteric powers" to be aware that human perception is limited by the ability of our senses, and all the science we can develop is rooted in our perceptions of our environment (plus the processing of those perceptions by our brains).

It's clear that "beyond-human" perception abilities are not science-fiction. Many animals can perceive so many phenomena that we can't (ants communicating by chemical signals, birds finding their way thousands of kilometers away, animals perceiving directly infra or ultra visible light, ultrasounds or magnetism, plants behaving collectively etc etc etc etc, examples are endless and some nearly unbelievable)
Yet all of these are scientifically known facts, but we can not enjoy the knowledge all these perceptions could provide. Our artificial instruments have increased hugely the range of phenomena we can perceive, but surely we're not yet at the end of the road ...

It's very likely that in the future (with genetic engineering, bionic enhancement of our sensory organs, the interaction of the brain with computers, some other type of brain development techniques etc), we will be able to:

1. broaden the borders of our perception abilty, maybe even acquiring some new senses different from our current familiar 5

2. Enhance the processing ability of our brains, so from a certain perceived information we can extract much more knowledge

With such an additional perspective of our environment we may well be able to derive completely new conclusions and knowledge about the universe we inhabit.
Which should of course be reflected in our formulations of physics !

Well, at least that was from an idealistic point of view, but as long as our society is based on the current ultra-capitalist values and rules, the human race will probably not get that far anyway ... oeps, no politics here, isn't it ?! :-)

 

[marcus]

I think she did something on the grammatical structure of archaic dialects on Crete. Now she teaches latin and greek to high school kids

cheers,
Patrick.

I say also.
It's essential

 

[Prometheus]

Still, this is right on the line between what physics is and isn't, so I have a hard time seeing any great advance that will come from linguistic advances in the communication of experimental measures.

I can see that you are having a hard time, which is why your arguments are so against the idea.

In any case, "the structure of the world" or maybe "how the universe really is" are concepts left to the philosophers. They can have them and do what they will with them, just so long as they don't push them on me, suggest they are important, or suggest they denote the quality of my work.

I am not pushing this on you. Look at the posts. You were the first to respond to me. Now, you are saying that I should not even suggest to you that linguistics is important. Sorry to suggest this, but you seem a little arrogant.

More importantly, how is an advancement in linguistics going to affect the math that affects physics? I'd be interested in hearing your response.

Science reflects the organization and understanding of the world that is presented by the grammar of our language. Science did not develop, nor could it develop in its present form, in linguistic environments such as exist in China or Japan, for instance. Once we recognize that other language-based views of the world have value to offer, consideration can be given to other ways to organize understanding, and changes can occur that provide for an improved model of science. I consider that these changes can be very profound. I have experience in this field that is not strictly philosophical in nature, and it forms the basis of my opinion. If you resent being told this, please do not reply to this post.

 

[Locrian]

I am not pushing this on you. Look at the posts. You were the first to respond to me. Now, you are saying that I should not even suggest to you that linguistics is important.

You seem to be having a great deal of trouble understanding what I wrote. I said nothing in that paragraph about linguistics, but instead about philosophical interpretations of physical models - thus my use of "they" and not "you." You asked for my thoughts on what is physics and isn't, and seem to resent my response. Your statement about physics and "the structure of the world" shows you had a misguided notiton of what physics is. I make no apoligies for correctng you.

Science did not develop, nor could it develop in its present form, in linguistic environments such as exist in China or Japan, for instance. Once we recognize that other language-based views of the world have value to offer, consideration can be given to other ways to organize understanding, and changes can occur that provide for an improved model of science.

That's interesting, but what evidence is there that science could never have formed in those countries? Give an example of how a change in linguistics has positively affected science over that past 100 years. Or maybe a specific example of how it will in the future. Imho that would give your argument a great deal of weight.

Resent? I haven't resented anything you've written. Others might be annoyed with your sarcasm or your tone, but not I; I just reply in kind.

 

[Prometheus]

That's interesting, but what evidence is there that science could never have formed in those countries?

Unfortunately, you would like me to bring the evidence to you, in a simple manner that is easy for you to recognize. I cannot do that. The best way to understand the evidence is by you going to it. If you would learn the grammar of Chinese or Japanese, for example, you would find that the concepts of western science do not fit them in a natural manner as they do in English. Now, 2,500 years after the advent of the philosophical development of science in ancient Greece, scientific principles must be superimposed on the grammars of these languages in a non-natural manner. I recognize that you most likely will not understand what I am saying, and therefore that you will not and should not accept what I say without question. However, your lack of understanding in this context should not convince you that I must be wrong.

Give an example of how a change in linguistics has positively affected science over that past 100 years.

This is perhaps the source of our miscommunication. You seem to think that I am referring to minor changes in linguistic structure. Instead, I am referring to differences that have developed over many thousands of years. One such change that has affected science is the development of the expression of time in the form of the verb in language. Chinese, for example, expresses only a single tense, the present. Chinese therefore has limited ability to express relationships in time compared to English. Geometry also reflects no relationships in time, but space alone. Physics has progressively expressed more complex interrelationships of time involved with relationships in space.

Or maybe a specific example of how it will in the future. Imho that would give your argument a great deal of weight.

Asking for a specific example is not an easy request. One aspect of my argument is that a language such as Chinese lacks the ability to express the complex temporal relationships that English can. However, Chinese is able to express spatial relationships that are beyond what can be expressed in English. For example, speakers of English recognize a world of 3 dimensions of space (plus the point, which symbolizes 0 dimensions, for a total of 4 dimension-like concepts). Chinese, however, recognizes a world of 5 dimensions of space. Chinese symbolizes no dimensions of time, but 5 dimensions of space; the point, the ray segment, the line segment, the area, and the volume. English recognizes only four of these dimensions of space (although the point is considered zero dimensions, and the others are considered infinite instead of finite as in Chinese). What about the ray? English recognizes one dimension of time, and time is symbolized in the form of a ray, as a line that flows in a single direction. English and Chinese have the same symbols, but their spatial-temporal symbolism is different. A comparison will, in my opinion, lead to a deeper understanding of the relationship of space with time.

I believe that an investigation into this difference in conceptualization of the dimensions of time and space, among numerous other such types of differences among languages, will lead to a more powerful model of nature.

 

[vanesch]

Chinese, for example, expresses only a single tense, the present. Chinese therefore has limited ability to express relationships in time compared to English.

In that case, French should be vastly superior over English, because it has a wealth of tenses (the subtle differences between "passe simple" and "imparfait" and "passe compose", but also the conditionnel and subjonctif) which allow to express hypotheses, facts, "ongoing actions" in the past versus momentary actions etc...
Nevertheless, the dawn of physics saw the light in England and Germany with Newton and Leibniz, and not in France.

I have learned a little Japanese (but never used it and lost most of it), and I think I know what you're pointing at. But you're not going to tell me that the formulation of ideas like:
"if I want to have rice next year, I have to plant them today", or "Yesterday, I walked too far from home, and didn't get back home before it was dark. So, in order to return home today before it is dark, I shouldn't go that far today" are not to be had by someone who is a native Chinese or Japanese.


cheers,
Patrick.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In that case, French should be vastly superior over English, because it has a wealth of tenses (the subtle differences between "passe simple" and "imparfait" and "passe compose", but also the conditionnel and subjonctif) which allow to express hypotheses, facts, "ongoing actions" in the past versus momentary actions etc...
Nevertheless, the dawn of physics saw the light in England and Germany with Newton and Leibniz, and not in France.

.

But they had no immediate successors, and the further development of physics in the 18th century was centered in Switzerland (the Bernouillis and Euler) and France (Laplace, Lagrange, Poisson,...). And don't forget Fermat (Snell's law) and Descartes.

 

[Prometheus]

In that case, French should be vastly superior over English, because it has a wealth of tenses (the subtle differences between "passe simple" and "imparfait" and "passe compose", but also the conditionnel and subjonctif) which allow to express hypotheses, facts, "ongoing actions" in the past versus momentary actions etc...

It is not simply the number of tenses alone. More important is the structure of the tenses. These "subtle differences" as you say are not fundamental leaps in terms of structural differences.

But you're not going to tell me that the formulation of ideas like:
"if I want to have rice next year, I have to plant them today", or "Yesterday, I walked too far from home, and didn't get back home before it was dark. So, in order to return home today before it is dark, I shouldn't go that far today" are not to be had by someone who is a native Chinese or Japanese.

Sorry, but I do not understand your question.

I am telling you that if you want to say in Japanese "Tomorrow I will go to the park", there is no correlate to the word "will" in Japanese.

 

[vanesch]

I am telling you that if you want to say in Japanese "Tomorrow I will go to the park", there is no correlate to the word "will" in Japanese.

Doesn't really matter, does it ? If I say " tomorrow I go in the park" you know what I mean, even if the english is not fully correct.
As long as the notion of "tomorrow" or the day after today, or the day before today, can be expressed, the order relation in time is expressible. And that's about all you need. That's what I wanted to say: in each language you will find a way, clumsy or not, to express the basic ideas you need in order to do elementary physics. I cannot imagine a human language so poor that this is not, in some way or another, possible, because lots of "everyday experience" needs exactly the same kind of expression. That's what I wanted to point out with my example phrases to be translated in Chinese or Japanese. The slightest bit of military strategy could not be expressed either, in "you go with your men on that hill ; you wait for him to attack. When you see that his troups are making progress, you do not interfere. If he has a problem, he will signal it with a red flag. If you see the red flag, you attack on the left side, unless they have more than 200 men".

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Prometheus]

Doesn't really matter, does it ?

I recognize that you think that it doesn't matter. Do you not yet recognize that I think that it does?

That's what I wanted to say: in each language you will find a way, clumsy or not, to express the basic ideas you need in order to do elementary physics.

I previously agreed with you on your point about "doing" physics, once it has been developed. My point concerns the ability of the speakers of a language to have developed physics, as it has evolved in western society, from scratch.

 

[vanesch]

I previously agreed with you on your point about "doing" physics, once it has been developed. My point concerns the ability of the speakers of a language to have developed physics, as it has evolved in western society, from scratch.

I didn't understand that you agreed that one could "do" physics, once it had been developed, in non-indo-european languages. Meaning, can a Japanese, who learned also English, and came to, say, Cambridge to study theoretical physics, go back to his country, and teach - IN JAPANESE - to only native japanese speakers, the rudiments of Newtonian gravity ? I would think so, you agree now with me. I didn't understand you agreed with it. But this means that Japanese DOES contain the linguistic structures to talk about Newtonian gravity, right ?
So why then couldn't a native japanse Isaac-san not have had those ideas all by himself, even when thinking purely in japanese ?

But you have of course one big argument against this: it didn't happen ! As I pointed out, you are on the "right side of history". Nevertheless, one should refrain from the fact that a correct outcome justifies a wrong reasoning (like: the days in summer are longer because they expand under heating :-)

I think that to develop the scientific method, there are cultural and political prerequisites, and also a certain prosperity must rule. As I pointed out elsewhere, these conditions were satisfied in ancient greece (and it was exceptional at that time), and later, they were satisfied again around the 17th century in a few places in Europe - although this came because of the renewed interest in the ancient greeks.

If there is not enough prosperity, people just don't sit back and think, they have other problems on their mind. In a centralized theocracy, it is forbidden to think outside of the dogma. In a wardriven tyranny, critical and creative thought is not permitted. Not much is left when you exclude these ways of organizing society. There might also be a cultural influence, in that it simply _doesn't interest_ people to find the way the world works, because they might be influenced by a philosophy where it is considered "good" not to be concerned about this. So the intellectuals use their time and liberty to ponder about other things, like poetry or music or I don't know what.
I think all this has a much larger influence on the possibility, or not, to develop the foundations of physics (and the scientific method in general) than has the linguistic structure of the native language.

I can try to illustrate my point with the following: doesn't it surprise you that the same culture that laid the foundations of science also invented democracy, something unique at that time, and for millennia to come ?


cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Locrian]

This is perhaps the source of our miscommunication. You seem to think that I am referring to minor changes in linguistic structure. Instead, I am referring to differences that have developed over many thousands of years. One such change that has affected science is the development of the expression of time in the form of the verb in language.

Well I think it would be fair that I think that, since the thread began about improvements to science in the "forseeable future." We could certainly have different ideas about what the forseeable future might be. I still have a nagging suspicion we are using words with different definitions.

Unfortunately, you would like me to bring the evidence to you, in a simple manner that is easy for you to recognize. I cannot do that. The best way to understand the evidence is by you going to it. If you would learn the grammar of Chinese or Japanese, for example, you would find that the concepts of western science do not fit them in a natural manner as they do in English.

Well, are there any texts on this subject you might suggest? As a coincidence, I'm in the process of trying to learn Chinese right now. This would make an interesting side study to that. If the reason I am not seeing any evidence is because you cannot bring it to me, then I am willing to try another route.

 

[Prometheus]

Well, are there any texts on this subject you might suggest? As a coincidence, I'm in the process of trying to learn Chinese right now. This would make an interesting side study to that. If the reason I am not seeing any evidence is because you cannot bring it to me, then I am willing to try another route.

Keep your eyes open. When you encounter ideas that seem unusual, do not try to conform them to your English understanding, but attempt to understand the Chinese context that makes them appropriate.

You might consider reading an introduction to the Dao. The Dao permeates the Chinese language, but you might not notice it if you are not looking for it. You will notice that all primary subdivisions of time and space, which are subdivisions into 4 in English, are subdivisoins into 5 in Chinese.

Good luck.

 

[Telos]

Powerful discussion.

For those of you who support linguistics, that it will be the field which will contribute most to physics in the near future, what do you have to say about the way language is evolving presently, compared to the way it was before the information age, and before the invention of mass-market dictionaries?

According to James Burke, the printing press "froze the languages." Dictionaries became widely available and there was less reason to deviate from the "standard." Since then the evolution of language has been very limited. Now in the information age, language evolves mostly by pure augmentation of terminology (adding to the vocabulary set $$\mathbb{V}$$) Will this trend change? If not, how will adding new vocabulary help physics any differently than it already has in the past?

I hope these questions make sense. This thread has come to me at a time when I am considering linguistics for postgraduate and doctoral work. I am an Economics undergrad because, frankly, I wanted a "useful" degree first. But then it doesn't hurt to have it as a background social context. Anyways, it may be that linguistics will become much more important than it is today (namely in developing AI), so I am curious to hear your thoughts expanded.

 

[Billy T]

Thread has drifted to focus on language (mainly as its power or lack thereof to structure ideas) I want to note (Hope not already done) that style and notation are very important. I think it very likely that Newton knew of analytical geometry, but he did not use it in Principles of Mathematics. The proper style of proving something in his day was via geometry. His book is full of amazing demonstrations of the power of geometry in the hands of someone like him.
Today several previously unproven postulates have been determined to be true (or disproven) by exhaustive testing of all logical possibilities in long computer runs. Many mathematicians do not consider the positive results as "proof" (not the right style for a proof) - Most all accept the "false nature" of postulate when one can give a counter example, but regret that it was discovered by computer.
In general philosophy thread "time does not exist - math proof" (The math proof shows only that time is not necessary for a complete description of all events in the universe, but this more accurate version does not fit in space available for title) I make use of the general functional notation y=f(t), which is relative new in man's history. I doubt if it is possible to give my proof in the notation Newton used. (The simple proof is attached to the first post, but that thread has become about 13 pages long, so jump directly to the start if interested in it.)