Byrd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm going to be pedantic here. Yes, you CAN
> translate computer code into English. We
> programmers do it all the time and translate
> accurately English-to-Code and Code-to-English
> (otherwise computers wouldn't work.) That's quite
> literally what we do for a living.
>
> Same with mathematics. YOU might not be able to
> understand it or translate those into English, but
> we can.
>
> Likewise the type of birdsong can be categorized
> fairly easily... which you'd know if you were a
> birder.

English is a wonderfully expressive language and there is nothing that can't be said in it. Every time someone comes up with a thought that can't be expressed in English they will invent the words necessary despite the fact that since we think in words "new" thoughts are not fully even possible. There is nothing new under the sun but English still continues to grow, thinking changes, and new vocabulary arises.

Obviously the eight words that comprise programming language and which breaks Zipf's Law when used in programming can always be "translated" into English but a computer can hardly use this English to run a program. When "translated" into English every word and sentence will have to be parsed to be understood and they will obey Zipf's Law.

It's very much the same way with math. Yes, you can claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is exactly the same thing as two plus two equals four but this "translation" isn't the same thing. There are strict rules and definitions in math for the meaning of every one of the terms but English has no such rules. Indeed the English can be deconstructed in all manner of ways especially if the statement is spoken rather than written. "Four" and its homonyms have thousands of meanings as do "equal", "plus", and "two".

We are simply spoiled by English. In almost every instance we each take a meaning from everything we read and hear. We simply don't notice that we each take a different meaning so it's difficult to understand that any language can exist that isn't parseable. It's hard to imagine a language that is representative, metaphysical, digital, and never obeys Zipf's Law, but this is exactly what I believe we are dealing with in this specific instance.

In many way computer code and math have all these properties but rather than having unlimited application they mostly have a single application. Math applies to a single equation or process and computer code runs a single program. Bird songs would be "unlimited" but the knowledge of individual birds is so extremely limited there would be very little for them to say about the inside of a small box. Their only applicable knowledge would probably be that their movements are highly restricted and there is air inside the box (and a very dead cat).

Math and code also contain their limited metaphysics in their "grammar' and fixed definitions for each word. Both are effectively digital. THIS is like Ancient Language if I am correct. Young's work would not have led to the processes that have been used to decipher, interpret, and translate any ancient writing. I believe his process would have made the change in language very apparent. Champollion's work simply seeks word meanings based on known language. It ignores parsing and the fluidity of modern languages. But, again, it's unlikely Champollion had any AL available to parse so he can't be blamed for the errors of later scholars.

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2022 10:29AM by cladking.