Logic Language and Structure

In recent previous blogs I have examined the elegant concept of computational trinitarianism which is explained here.

About 8 years ago I became interested in natural language as an aspect of knowledge.  Through search and examination I learned about linguistics an became an admirer of Noam Chomsky. I learned much about linguistics.  At one point I thought that if I could do my college eduction all over again I would study linguistics.

A conceptual scheme of objects, their relationships to other objects and the action that relates them explained in an extremely well structured natural language by a subject matter expert is the first step in expressing that fundamental concept is a computer language.  That is true.  All that is needed is a translation of what was originally said in a natural language to a machine language.  The narrative of the natural language expression/description of the concept must be crafted in accordance with rules of logic in order to produce the structure of objects and their relationships in whatever problem domain happens to be the focus of attention.  That natural language narrative draws ideas out of the logic universe as if pulling a rabbit out of a hat from nowhere and the narrative is constructed using the syntax of the natural language rules.  A operating system structure of language syntax rules dictate the application use of words and contribute to a reduction in ambiguity of meaning.  On the flip side of that coin, they enhance precision of meaning.

Translation of an idea that came out of the blue expressed in a natural language is only the beginning of a progression in degree of precision to a machine language where the same idea is implemented in a repeatable pattern (at some level) in a highly defined computer operating system.  As machine intelligence grows the product of processing outcome increasingly becomes a higher level logic function of the operating system and application program and less a specific lower level outcome dictated by rigid design of the application program to simply do a magnitude of computations faster.  Program decision making ability and quality increases as well as quantity of decisions made.

It all begins with the best possible natural language expression of an idea.  Isn't that what the quality of effective communication is all about?  Setting up (structuring) the idea so well that little is lost in the communication and the same idea can easily be assembled in the mind of the receiver?

Speak well and you speak effectively.

My intuition tells me that some natural languages may be predisposed to be a better choice as the means of expressing concepts as the first step in formulating a description of a system that will progress through stages of development to implementation in the computer application domain.  Our own natural language, English,  does the job of formalizing ideas fairly well in general.  It depends on the skill of the user as well as the quality of the tool.  Legal language, medical language, plumbing language, etc. not only use words more precisely but assemble them to convey meaning within a more structured system governing what is said and how it is said.  English is a place where we, the English speakers start.  Maybe it is a relatively poor start that we overcome.  Some do not and communicate at the "you know" level.  "You know" means nothing when it is a stand alone phrase.  A subject with no specific or implied object.  The space between two thoughts that the mouth has to fill up with some sound while the slow brain is assembling the next idea.

A nation with a common natural language that in its common use among the average people of that nation that by its rules of structure enhances the relative quality and effectiveness of higher level conceptual communication has an advantage over other natural languages.  That advantage is doing better what natural language does.

What might that natural language be?

English becomes a better tool for expressing concepts in the hands of a few experts that are exceptionally skilled at using it to initially describe complex conceptual things clearly (and to the greatest extent possible, simply) in a fashion that can be passed to experts in translating that description through progressive steps to computer implementation.  There is a problem when the general population lacks the ability to understand the nature of the concept at any iteration of development beyond the first step, and maybe not even the first step at all.  Populations that use a natural language that facilitates communication and understanding broadly among its people to at least 2nd degree translations toward ultimate computer application and overall among a comparatively greater percentage of the population can also comprehend each subsequent degree of progressive development toward the end stage application have an advantage over populations with a natural language that either has an intrinsic ability to do this and/or has been enhances to do this by education.

What might that natural language be?

What natural language is intrinsically better, more predisposed to think and express logic concepts that facilitate the creation of conceptual structures to serve their society.  The language that has the head start on the education of its general users to become a better tool used by a greater number of people with a higher degree of literacy.

We appear to be a nation that is dumbing down because we are becoming increasingly illiterate at first stage fundamental conceptual expression and understanding and increasingly fewer people get beyond that level to understand second or subsequent levels of abstraction in languages that are beyond them.  Dumbing down is a race to the bottom.

The race to the top is not to be won by the nation that produces the greatest superstars of translating natural language concepts to machine language in our information age but the broadest number of people that can follow and understand the development of our social structure systems through progressions of development that are increasingly becoming formalized to computer applications.

All concepts that we choose as worthwhile begin a progress toward implementation to some ultimate level where rubber meets the road.  Where they do something, where they operate.  Our fundamental concepts are a work in progress.  Progress is a constant state of change somewhere at lower levels beneath the fundamental concept or some lower level supporting concept defined and accepted to be so structurally important that it cannot be changed unless the foundational concept is changed.

Another way to look at the effectiveness and efficiency of a natural language to serve us in its use is its ability to not only be able to follow the development of conceptual structures from the top concept down to where it meets the road but to see what it does where it meets the road and be able to go back up the chain to the parent concept.  To validate the implementation at the lowest level by tracing the structure of the concept back to its origin.

Adding up at the lowest level of what a general concept produces as a real world application result is an accounting control audit "cross footing".  The cross check at the bottom that has to equal the grand total at the top.  A proof of the validity of the entire system. The sum of things at the lowest granular level of measurement units to equal the logic of the the foundational proof.  In the language of math this is precise.  In the language we call natural it is precise to the extent that our natural language is intrinsically capable of precision and the extent we have made it more precise through refining it and educating users to be more skilled in its use.

If the majority of general users can or cannot add up what they experience at the producing level of a concept to prove the basic truth of the establishing concept then the opportunity for sub-version of the entire system to serve another purpose is great. 

The best way to subvert a logic process cross footing validation check to assure that the basic idea logic is in fact working is to shift the bottom up logic analysis to an alternate domain of logic structured on feeling rather than thinking.  There is a logic process to the analysis of feeling.  However, if the feeling is good then the rule in the domain of feeling is don't analyze it just enjoy it.

Junk food feels good.  That is all the analysis required by the common consumer where the Big Mac meets the mouth.  Our natural language, our society that uses it has been framed to produce that result.  A few are beginning to read labels.

If we vote on acceptance of systemic outcome based on what feels good or right at the bottom line level that an intuitive way to validate the system must be valid and working as intended.  Follow the actual structure of the system far enough back up the progression of logic, expression of logic in language and structure that supports a higher level combination to do something in support of the top level concept trinity of these three things would take a genius.  If we trust a true genius that can follow it all the way from bottom to top and top to bottom and tells us it works, trust me, then we better pick a true genius instead of a flim flam artist that will take advantage of feelings of trust in their "truth" rather than proving the truth by our own ability to follow its structure to the source.

Know the truth............

Are all natural languages intrinsically equal in their inherent ability to know the truth and follow it through conceptual structures from a top down breakdown and bottom up assembly design and cross check of operating results vs founding concept objectives?

Those societies that:

Are given a head start advantage by being fortunate to have a natural language that is predisposed to structural precision in the expression and refinement of abstract concepts to applications that serve them.

and (or if they do not get this automatic head start)

are most effective at producing through education a general population that is adept at following logic through structure using its natural language plus more precise language of math and science, specifically computer science that is the means to apply logic through language to structure.........

Rules......

We are not as a society very good at it I think.    We have had time, opportunity and resources to become good at it among a relatively very small percentage of the population that serves (or feeds upon as we are served up to) the greater percentage of the population.

Emerging societies have not have time, resources, or opportunity that we have.  All men are created equal.  That is a self evident truth meaning it does have to be true, it is true.  In the old days of west the Colt .45 is what made all men equal.  Out of luck if you lnly had a knife in a gun fight.  Information was  the new Colt .45.  Then knowledge made information the knife in a gun fight.  The same truth however applies.  Those that use it quicker as well as more accurately win. 

The idea that the general population of an emerging nation may have a leg up in getting ahead to some degree due to its natural language in the modern information/knowledge world is interesting.  If natural languages are equal then I think it is a true fact that the nation(s) that has a general population that broadly understands the complexities of its society as well as the rest of the world will dominate because it takes the majority of the population understanding their society structure to a sufficient degree to control it, otherwise it is controlled for them.

Math and science as understood and used by the general population of a society is a metric measurement of highly structured thought based on natural truths and proofs of truth.

Who is ahead on that score?

Math and science is a language in our society like any other.  Its associated frame of conceptual thinking in complex systems are the domain of subject matter experts in our society, not our society in general.  There are few who can interpret that language to natural language we, the general public can understand.  We either don't care, were not equipped by our education to understand or in fact find the truths of math and science contradictory to beliefs held by a large segment of our society and therefore rejected.

Wealth is in what we know and understand about the structure of our society that can be expressed in a language from natural to scientific we all can understand describing and defining the truth we all can know or at least state to be self evident without need for a proof.

It is my intuitive guess that any natural language that tends to focus on the objects of its structure for meaning rather than the action that implements the relationship between the objects at the sentence/phrase level has an advantage in building conceptual object structures.

Chinese are stereotypically said to be clever.  Might there be some basis to that in that they use a clever natural language with fewer verbs and de-emphasizing at least the quantative emphasis on verbs in their language if not the qualitative emphasis in expressing a thought.  A thought that is more object oriented than action oriented?  Perhaps the use of a character system of written thought contributes to this object oriented approach?

What if Chinese thought at the general population cultural level is more focused on what money is rather than what it does.

Conversely, what if western thought at the general population level is more focused on money does rather than what it is.

Both views are within the domain of Language (Logic, Language, Structure)

Two different monetary systems might result from this fundamental conceptual approach in the domain of Language?

Something else to think about is that our computer system programming is object structure oriented while our natural language is action (function) oriented.

Chinese Python programming language comments here are very interesting.

This also relates to Chinese programming

The potential point being that programming, which is complex at the lowest level, is an extension of the structure of thought at a higher abstract level of design.  If Chinese think more in terms of objects rather than actions this is not a difficult translation for the general population to follow a line of thought at the higher levels of conceptual explanation????

The worldwide supremacy of Chinese programmers is noted here:

The site is a problem-solving platform for some of the world’s elite programmers. It provides coding challenges and helps corporations like Facebook and Microsoft to identify the talent.

Gild, a social networking and skills sharing site for programmers, did a study in October, 2011, examining the core skills of almost half a million programmers via more than one million tests. The study showed that Chinese programmers outscored their American counterparts in logic and math by 20 percent, although they lagged behind in core programming languages.

Logic is the first thing in the  Computational Trinity, then Language and Structure.  They all work together but Logic seems more equal than the other two.. It is the Subject initiator of the relationship.