Does anyone know if there already exists

Well those are still words, but yea!

How about like, if we'd focus on the words "to accept", is there like a branch of mathematics that tries to give it an equation, define it mathematically? That a person who understands mathematics, physics, well, nature in general could understand it?

That's kinda.. what I'm trying to explain here, but I suck at using words, as you might have noticed.

knowledge graphs

Logics like second order logic can be used to describe mathematics.

Statements in logic like
[math]\forall (n \in { \mathbb N } ). \, \left( \exists (m \in { \mathbb N } ). \, (m>n) \right) [/math]
can easily be translated into another language, and you can easily make up translation conventions on the fly.

[math]\forall (\alpha \in \phi ). \psi [/math]
>For all _ 'alpha' _ in _ 'phi' _ holds that _ 'psi'
[math]\exists (\alpha \in \phi ). \psi [/math]
>There exists an _ 'alpha' _ in _ 'phi' _ such that _ 'psi'
[math] \alpha > \beta [/math]
>_ 'alpha' _ is larger than _ 'beta' _
[math] { \mathbb N } [/math]
>'the natural numbers'

The sentence above,
[math]\forall (n \in { \mathbb N } ). \, \left( \exists (m \in { \mathbb N } ). \, (m>n) \right) [/math]
now translates to
For all n in the natural numbers holds that there exists an m in the natural numbers such that m is larger than n

The language I use here is first-order logic plus the type N and a symbol for "is in".
Here's a list of theories
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first-order_theories

Numbers (or their theory) are "fairly simple" from a syntactic standpoint.
As I said, if you want to describe normal world stuff, you get theories with too many parameters to be practical.

>to accept
There are theories in other logics (not often used in mainstream mathematics because you can in principle express them in set theory, written down in first-order logic) like
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontic_logic
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic
which is about obligation, or believe, for example. I think pic related shows how academic / unpractical the question are that pop up if you go this formal.

Also, I was referencing
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus
above

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus

Wow that's really useful in many ways!

Semiotics point of view, when you look at signs, that is just giving words symbols, like.. Mandarin, Japanese and so on, don't you think?

If ℕ = natural numbers, and well.. natural numbers are quite easy to explain using mathematics, since natural numbers are exactly what they are.

Okay apparently I am just bad at getting my point across..

I'll just try again then..

You know what one apple is, in reality,
it's 1, now you know there is one, but that 1 is many things, because you know, fundamental particles..

Now since you are mathematically literate, you might be able to describe an apple using an equation, that a mathematically literate person could understand it?

Oh dude that is highly relevant! Getting closer to the point, a lot closer to the point, actually so close it has to be part of this, not fully though

I can take any theory we deem fundamental and describe the state of particles that make up the apple. Except for I can't really, from an information storage point of view, and I'd also say the whole is more than it's parts and a collection of quarks in some way is pretty far removed from being a good way of talking about an apple in my pocket.

I don't even know how to express what an apple is in English without relying on your experience with apples.
What I can try is consider all things (type = things,) and list properties like
F(x) ... x is a fruit
B(x) ...you can buy x in Austria
J(x) ... you can make juice out of x
K(x) ... x is in my kitchen
...
Now if [math] \iota [/math] is a "Hilbert operator" so that
[math] \iota x.\, \phi [/math]
means
>The thing _ x _ with the property that _ 'phi' _
and
[math] \phi \land \psi [/math]
means
>'phi' _ and _ 'psi'
Then I can try to define a predicate
[math] A(x) := F(x) \land B(x) \land J(x) \land K(x) \land ... [/math]
so that
[math] a := \iota x.\, A(x) [/math]
hopefully denotes the thing I intend, a particular apple in my kitchen.

The world is big and this is hard. I can much easier single out the number 3, e.g. as "the smallest uneven prime". Real world, to much stuff going on.

Here's stuff from Wittgensteins teacher
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_descriptions

Oh yea that.. what you are doing there seems to be the type of math I am kinda looking for in the first place.

A branch of mathematics that dedicates to describe reality through mathematics using the information we know from it.

Which would be quite useful in many ways,
since I don't like to argue, and what you are doing there is... mathematics, it's kinda absolute there, it is what it is. Awesome! Thank you!

But yea again.. I guess? There is no need to rely on my experiences on an apple, because you can find an apple in reality, since we have named an apple.. Like, we know what a banana is.
-- But a person who is also mathematically literate, but doesn't know what a banana is, or any other noun that matter, or verb, those words turned into a mathematical equation of some sort, would make those words kinda absolute.

And I agree, it is hard, but.. mathematics isn't easy, or any sciences that matter!
It has been a long road to this point, long road ahead too.

Na, I don't see what this kind of approach would solve.
PS I don't believe in the "existence" of bananas in any realist sense.
The performative approach to language (you say "Mr. Clerk, please give me a banana, I'm hungry" and this triggers actions that eventually change your feeling of hunger) doesn't rely on there being bananas in the most literals of sense.
You know it's like when you say "You can never touch pear" because in physics, things like pears or the skin on your hand is made up from particles and repulsive forces keep electrons and protons apart and when you approach the pear you can pick it up because you native those electromagnetical and nuclear forces associated with particles through space and they push the pear around, and when you 'hold it in your hand' there are actually never two protons touching. Now I ranted about the impossibility for the naive meaning of "touch", which actually renders "touch" a completely fuzzy concepts that nobody ever really tries to make work with physics but still use it. You can make sense of the sentence "You can never touch pear" without all their words referring to something. In some theories of quantum gravitiy the notion of point in space and spacetime experience the same breakdown.
So There's not point in believe in the "existence" of bananas in any realist sense. In the end words are something you use, and that -despite- their lacking semantics. There's nothing wrong with that. Trying to pin them down will not help.

And I should add that I'm "touching" your balls with my cock right now, although the force falls of at least as 1/r^2 where r is the distance. I'm far away, so you hardly feel it anymore.

Well you have some good point there, I must say.

But seriously, are you mathematically and scientifically literate enough to understand what it would mean after we can write down all nouns, verbs, adjectives etc.. in a mathematical form?

The applications of that.

lol :) yea, you kinda.. are touching my balls with your cock.

"You can never touch a pear" is an excellent sentence though to analyse like you did there,
because if you can never touch a pear, it just means the word touch is a wrong, if I say go touch a pear, but you can't..

Are you Asian?

Anyway, my point is that all things (and maybe even the notion "things") has ontological problems, like "touch" does.

Reading the whole thread, I must tell you OP that you can't explain everything in terms of mathematics or logic. You simply can't equate an apple. !?!?!

lol, you do know what an apple is!

Apple is one of the many things we as humans have been trying to explain through decades! You know an apple is made out of fundamental particles, we have been kinda been trying to figure out..

Get it?

Re inventing the wheel is waste of actions obviously.. just asking if anyone of you knew if there is a branch of mathematics that is already working on this, so I don't have to do it.

But all I know that physical objects can be defined in mathematical terms, because that is something.. you know, is our goal in science, to explain nature, physics, chemistry, etc.. you know

No, I am not Asian. Are you?

Yes, the word touch is an interesting word, since you can't touch in terms of physics, because that's how nature is! How we observe it.

So we mean by touch something else, obviously, lol. Go touch an apple, but you can't touch it.. what do you think touching is? Reforming energy? You touch an apple, you move it, it makes a sound etc..

>I see no blind people
>I can't sense people with hypoesthesia or anaphia
Ok if everyone knows according to you what an apple is the I guess you can use a programming language.

Everyone doesn't know what an apple is, since not every knows English, duh.

I can't sense a point you are trying to make, is there one?
yea.. sure.. python, C++?
I'm little rusty, since I haven't been programming for a long time, had better things to do.

But back to the.. defining words like an apple with maths, is this really a new thing, it'd be truly amazing if it really is, since it'd be amazing and useful af, no more arguing with creationists, or.. anything that matter.

how about the sentence "you cant touch the number 4"?

I think OPs goal is to get a more performative language.

"Clerk! 2 objects of the category foodstuffs called Bananas can get rid of the hunger Im feeling right now."

If touching has issues it just shouldnt be used. We dont HAVE to.

[math]8==D[/math]

there is an equivalence of proofs and computer-programs. Write a program that identifies apples. You now have a mathematical description of an apple. Then modify your program so that it bricks any apple it gets contact with.

Pretty much formal logic expressed in any sort of notation is a universal language. Hofstadter goes over this a lot in "Gödel, Escher, Bach" (which everyone needs to read). Although I don't think that's quite what you're looking for.

look if you would've learned math instead of english as your main language and the periodic table would be your alphabet, you would end up with a universal language.

its only a matter of convention

math major?
phil major math minor?
vice versa?

just curious, I want to study some of the same things

You get on my nerves, bro. No, touching isn't a particularly interesting example. My point is (as I emphasized) that all words describing things are like touch - they don't actually work.

I'm a physicist

>all words describing things are like touch
nope. Even the language you used there is rigorous enough, that you can instantly see this is wrong.
touch is not a thing.

I didn't want to use "things" in the restricted sense of physical objects, but I'm also a bit to lazy to be more specific.
Other examples are the potential problem with space, e.g. points (tuples of numbers describing positions with respect to some reference frame) have no actual physical realization, as in non-commutative geometry as
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncommutative_quantum_field_theory
(which is a limit of some string theories)
then talking of objects like they or their constituents have attributes like locations is a fictions. (Not that I personally would believe in the existence of a mathematical theory describing reality in the first place)
Or if we consider that there are thousands of organisms in a humans body (e.g. those that are part of the digestive tract of mammals "on purpose") that if removed, would make it impossible for a human to live, where to draw the line to specify "individual". Or where does you body/skin end, given the nature of atoms?
Or, going away from physics, what about stuff like
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
The ride doesn't end.
I see OPs point with having a more formalized language, maybe e.g. for promoting stuff like
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
But I doubt he'll ever come close to what he hopes in the end.

>I didn't want to use "things" in the restricted sense of physical objects, but I'm also a bit to lazy to be more specific.
1 reason to invest into a more rigorous language right there.
>Other examples are the potential problem with space, e.g. points (tuples of number...
yeah Im gonna ignore string theory and QFT and say that this is not an issue. A language, that was unable to describe nonexistant thing is not the goal in my opinion.
>then talking of objects like they or their constituents have attributes like locations is a fictions
because of flaws in the word location, that show up at that point. objects, with constituents that have attributes are very much mathematically descibable, and you could read out that mathematical description, but to have these concepts built into our language is a worthwile task
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf-Hypothese
(see I even threw in a wiki article that you know, so we know we understand each other)

Or if we consider that there are thousands of organisms in a humans body (e.g. those that are part of the digestive tract of mammals "on purpose") that if removed, would make it impossible for a human to live, where to draw the line to specify "individual". Or where does you body/skin end, given the nature of atoms?
these things would be easier to think about in a more rigorous language. Math and Philosophy both have tried and given us ugly unformely languages that may or may not make sense. Lets try again.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
I cant say, that I really deeply understand the gettier problem, but the definition of knowledge as a justified TRUE belief is already plenty problematic. Also its not kosher to go from "the winner has 10 coins in his pocket and I think I dont and he does" to "I KNOW its him"

>Also its not kosher to go from "the winner has 10 coins in his pocket and I think I dont and he does" to "I KNOW its him"
to clear that up, since I essentially just rephrased the gettier problem:
its no a problem. Knowledge is for math stuff, where you have made your assumptions and can just say you "know" them. Its not for job interviews.
You dont have no knowledge, that the sun is gonna come up tomorrow. You believe it, youre justified in believeing it, and its true. You dont know though. This is precisely the kind of thing people should be aware of, because our language is quite precise there.

The problem is that this stuff is made by philosophers, who then call it the gettier-"problem" even though its just "oh but you dont KNOW there is no god"

scratch the "true" part from the definition, call it knewledge and youve molded empricism into language in some shitty way. Its good though.

Of course languages work, we share information using it, we can ACT from the words we receive into our brains that analyse them.

And some words are very specific, you know, because that's kinda what makes science works.. Like, The planet Earth, or.. Human, DNA, and so on, not like touch..
just naming different collections of energy, particles.

I already have been creating it, for a long time actually, as a hobby mostly..
But here I have just been looking for if someone has already been doing the same,
apparently the answer is no..

Are you mathematically and scientifically literate enough to understand what we are capable of doing, once words have mathematical equations?
(just in theory)

one amazing thing about it is.. once you create an equation around a word, you can simply test if the equation is true or not by observing the physical object, or an idea, or any word, noun, verb in the actual reality. you know, like.. what sciences do all the time with other theories.

multiple branches. not all yet discovered

OP, the closest thing to what you're asking is probably linear logic or some other kind of modal logic. If mathematicians want to model everyday, real-world phenomena more faithfully that's what they use. Linear logic is a logic that includes a basic concept of action and choice, but its meaning is not completely understood yet.

Well.. thank you for that text, linear logic is not.. kinda what I am looking for, far from it.
As you can see I just suck at getting my point across, not your fault that.

Basically, if you take any word, verb, noun, adjective, we have created those words and they are not very informative, English is a freaking mess more or less,
but math is the way to be -precise-..
a mathematical equation for a word would solve that messiness completely.
Which would be amazingly useful, well you know that already, but still.

In a word: no. It seems you don't understand the limitations of language. Either you are completely precise and leaving something out, or you are vague but you can talk about everything.

Would you like to give an example?

like, an apple?

...

lol, you do know what an apple is...

Is an apple something that is made out of fundamental particles? Do newton's laws apply to it? Of what molecules is an apple made out of?

This is shit sciences have been doing for decades, we can be very precise when we talk about apples. We can not talk about apples precisely, why not?
I don't see a reason why, he's text gives no answer to that.
Because apples exist even if I had no experiences about apples.

I am seriously having a conversation here with an anonymous.. that are we capable of defining an apple using all the information sciences have gathered throughout generations..
I've already been doing it, for a long time,
I'm just asking if anyone else has.

Now, again, just in theory, not even in practise,
can you understand what it means if we equate every word.. in English language, what it would mean in practise?
Just in theory for the sake of it.

Say you have object A, object A can be broken down into a set of attributes S. In S there are possibly dozens of attribute elements, each element is described by a series of encoded values E. As with anything an entity that wishes to understand what you are trying to convey will need to know how to decode these values to build a conceptual model of what you are describing.

linguist here
y'all're absolutely bakas

Yup, that's what I've been doing pretty much.
It's not just describing an apple with mathematics, it's more of a creating a whole theory over an apple, which has predicting powers, so you know.. so the "apple" - equation makes sense.

It's not easy, but it's doable, an apple is a quite simple one here though.

Mostly it's just understanding physics.. when it comes to an apple, or nouns in general. When it comes to verbs, they are rather simpler since they are just particles moving through space, like... running

Try it, it's fun af.

Respect to you, linguist.

But shouldn't we all encourage people to ask questions, all kinds, to encourage them to seek for information, we do like information, keeps us going.

every language is a universal language you retarded cuck

lol, and an apple in universal language of mathematics was.. what again?

Well, apparently this is a... "new" thing.

If you're asked to define an apple mathematically, do you even know where to begin?
Just saying it's impossible, other excuses and giving up, going to argue about it, even though it's possible, since an apple is a physical, a real thing that we can observe?

languages are just abstract symbol combinations that have existential implications.

just like everything (except maybe quantum probability logic, depending on what is true in that mess of reality) can be expressed in binary, everything can be expressed in english, logic, maths whatever. some languages are just of a better design for concisely defining different parts of reality.

Oh yes you are right, english, logic, maths whatever are exactly what they are.

But apparently defining words mathematically is a new thing! Equating words..
Can you understand what that means in practice, the usefulness of it?

Cara :3

Of course touching works, we can define "to touch" as we please. Leave that to the linguists.

What it is in reality, physics, is an another question.

Mathematical writing in itself is already so uniform that the actualy language it is written in doesn't really matter for a reader to understand.

Hell, I can't even speak french or russian, but I can read through mathematical texts written in that language pretty well. Granted longer text only passages are shitty.

Here's the deal OP.

The vagueness of natural languages is not a bad thing. As mentioned, translating something as simple as "this apple" would be incredibly cumbersome to express in your hypothetical language. However, the phrase is readily understand by any English speaker without having to consider things like number and arrangement of fundamental particles and relativistic frames of reference. The difference? Context clues and previous experience. Your language, if at all realizable, would be an over-precise mess that no one would be able to say anything worth talking about in the span of their lifetime.

Binary you fucking robot.

OP give an example of how your hobby language works. A specific example.

Yea sure!

Here's the idea at least, I'll.. I don't know how to give the math, but you can do that yourself after understanding this.
The idea here is to define a word, any word, in an accurate model of reality, so it has predicting powers, kinda like creating a whole theory around a word. We define a word using physics, and.. all the information we have gathered about it, without actually using the word, like of a "guessing game"
Understanding set- and model theory especially helps, but it's not really necessary when we are talking about apples..

This is a very shitty example, but to get the idea, let's take a simple kinda of a time function, from 0 to 1, what ever time unit you want to use. And during 0 - 1 this "something" outputs 3.846×1026 W.
And now you have a very, very good idea what I am talking about, without using the "word" sun. Now there is no debate what the word "sun" means, just how much energy it produces during that time.
And now we could continue that equation by adding what types of wavelengths it produces and so on, the size, a whole theory around it!

But yea, when you are defining sun, it's not absolute, obviously, because.. times change, that's why it's just "a theory".
Factually, mathematically saying it is not wrong to say Sun doesn't exist, because it will cease to exist, like, this moment in this time and space in reality + 1T years (years as we know it)

Sun is a rather easy one to say using maths, it's such an obvious thing to us, just giving me information to me how much it produces energy, and it's approximate distance from point X, where I am is enough.

I'll give a more of an accurate definition of something when I have more time, that is just the idea of it, the usefulness of equating any object, word in reality is an another thing..

Now you know the idea, could you try to begin to define something easy like, "to run" using this information?

Ode to science!