Groot!

TheMadFool

If you've seen the movie Guardians of the Galaxy you'll be familiar with the character Groot. He's a conscious, talking tree. The thing with Groot is his vocabulary is limited to one word viz. ''Groot''. Whatever the situation he only says ''Groot''. There are intonational variations, perhaps determined by emotion, but his speech entirely consists of the one word - ''Groot''. There is only one person who understands Groot's language - his companion, a fox(?). This fox comprehends Groot and converses with him as he would with a person who speaks normally.

What powers of imagination creative artists have. It's simply amazing to invent such stories.

What interests me is there's a real world twin to the imagined story described above:

To better make my point I'll be using only one field of human inquiry - science. It's the one which has had the biggest impact on our world. Scientific inquiry, if it is to be of any value, has to be quantitative i.e. it has to use mathematics and this requirement has always resulted in productive outcomes. It's as if mathematics is not really a constraint at all. In fact it appears that the universe itself is mathematical.

Now permit me to reduce this real world situation to a brief conversation between man and the universe. To whatever question man asks, the universe replies ''Mathematics''. Groot!

Your comments please.

Michael

The thing with Groot is his vocabulary is limited to one word viz. ''Groot''. — TheMadFool

Not true. Also "I", "am", "we", and "are".

There is only one person who understands Groot's language - his companion, a fox(?)

Raccoon.

Terrapin Station

I believe that mathematics is an invented language we employ to talk about the world. I don't believe that the world itself is mathematical per se.

geospiza

What interests me is there's a real world twin to the imagined story described above:

...To whatever question man asks, the universe replies ''Mathematics''. Groot! — TheMadFool

There is certainly some reductionism going on here. There is something else in common between the two examples you have cited: in Guardians of the Galaxy the author has anthropomorphized a tree, while you have anthropomorphized the universe!

Could you expand on what you intended by the phrase "a real world twin"?

TheMadFool

↪Michael

Oh. I've made a mistake. However, I hope it doesn't spoil my story, the main point of which is the mathematical nature of the universe.

TheMadFool

I believe that mathematics is an invented language we employ to talk about the world. I don't believe that the world itself is mathematical per se. — Terrapin Station

Following your lead, the language is only as good as the information it can convey. What I want to say is if the universe is not mathematical then our invented language would fail to describe it. This is not the case as mathematics has, up till now, seen amazing success in expressing the facts of our universe.

TheMadFool

Could you expand on what you intended by the phrase "a real world twin"? — geospiza

Perhaps my words were poorly chosen. I only wanted to say that there's a similarity between the two (the movie and real life).

Terrapin Station

What I want to say is if the universe is not mathematical then our invented language would fail to describe it. — TheMadFool

Do you believe that the world is comprised of natural language, too?

What about paints?

geospiza

Perhaps my words were poorly chosen. I only wanted to say that there's a similarity between the two (the movie and real life). — TheMadFool

No, I don't think your words were poorly chosen. I'm just trying to drill down to the specific nature of the similarity that you see or the analogy that you are making. On the surface I don't see a great deal of similarity between a science fiction tree-man and the cosmic reality of the universe. But there is obviously something behind your post that you wanted to express. I am trying to understand what that is.

TheMadFool

Do you believe that the world is comprised of natural language, too?

What about paints? — Terrapin Station

What at first seems wrong could on analysis be true. Are we so dead sure that there's no hidden connection between words and their referents and all there is is simply convention?

Also, to answer your question, the laws of nature are mathematical. The laws are quantitative and so mathematics describes them accurately. We can't change the laws of nature by manipulating language, natural or mathematical.

TheMadFool

I am trying to understand what that is. — geospiza

If someone were to answer your every question with the same sentence/phrase/word e.g. ''I am Groot'', what would go through your mind?

geospiza

If someone were to answer your every question with the same sentence/phrase/word e.g. ''I am Groot'', what would go through your mind? — TheMadFool

I would probably think that their ability to speak english was impaired. I certainly wouldn't conclude that "I am Groot" is the only thing worth saying.

Noblosh

If someone were to answer your every question with the same sentence/phrase/word e.g. ''I am Groot'', what would go through your mind? — TheMadFool

I'd think their statements could be infered from their very nature and the situation they are in.
I'd view it as a commitment to authenticity relying on mutual understanding for communication.

Terrapin Station

↪TheMadFool

Your argument was that if the world itself is not x, then x could not describe the world.

Natural languages and paints on a canvas are two other things that can describe the world. Would you say that the world thus must be natural language and paints on a canvas?

Marchesk

I believe that mathematics is an invented language we employ to talk about the world. I don't believe that the world itself is mathematical per se. — Terrapin Station

It is quantifiable, though.

Marchesk

Your argument was that if the world itself is not x, then x could not describe the world. — Terrapin Station

How about, if there was not something related to x that is also true of the world, then x could not describe the world.

In the case of paint, that would be visual light. In the case of math, it would be quantity. In the case of physics, it would be fundamental patterns that appear to be universal. And in the case of natural language, it would be similarities between particulars.

Or something along those lines.

Terrapin Station

↪Marchesk

Obviously the ways we talk about the world are going to have some relation to the world. The error is in assuming that they're identical to the world. That's a rudimentary conflation. More specifically a reification.

Marchesk

Obviously the ways we talk about the world are going to have some relation to the world. The error is in assuming that they're identical to the world. That's a rudimentary conflation. More specifically a reification. — Terrapin Station

So take the nominalism/realism debate about universals. Reifying universals would be mistaking the universal abstractions in our language for universals in the world. But nominalism would be the opposite mistake in supposing our abstractions are arbitrary. That would mean conceptualism would be the proper alternative, I suppose. There's something about the world (or pariticulars) that's universalizable, leading us to form universal concepts.

TheMadFool

I would probably think that their ability to speak english was impaired. I certainly wouldn't conclude that "I am Groot" is the only thing worth saying.[/quote — geospiza

↪Noblosh

Give me one word to describe:

1. life
2. your job
3. your best friend
4. your worldview
5. religion
6. music
7. the universe
etc.
Such requests force you to seek the heart of an issue, sifting through the superficial, the superfluous, the irrelevant and achieve a realization of the real truth. I'm not imagining this because there are many people who seek the truth in whatever field that draws their attention.

TheMadFool

Your argument was that if the world itself is not x, then x could not describe the world.qq

Natural languages and paints on a canvas are two other things that can describe the world. Would you say that the world thus must be natural language and paints on a canvas? — Terrapin Station

Natural language seems to be entirely arbitrary - words and their referents are a matter of convention. I question this view but that's another topic.

But math is not like that. It probably started off as a language but its uncanny ability to describe the laws of nature isn't accidental (as you suggest). While natural language is not expected to be universal - there are so many languages on earth itself - the general consensus among scientists is that math is. Many interstellar messages have been beamed to nearby stars and their content is, well, mathematical.

Terrapin Station

↪Marchesk

In my view nominalism and conceptualism aren't distinct. Nominalism isn't arbitrary. Under nominalism, universals are non-arbitrary abstractions that individuals make, where those abstractions are unique to each individual (in terms of whether they're particulars or somehow numerically identical among more than one individual). Under conceptualism, we can't have anything other than that.

Terrapin Station

Natural language seems to be entirely arbitrary - words and their referents are a matter of convention. I question this view but that's another topic.

But math is not like that. It probably started off as a language but its uncanny ability to describe the laws of nature isn't accidental (as you suggest). While natural language is not expected to be universal - there are so many languages on earth itself - the general consensus among scientists is that math is. Many interstellar messages have been beamed to nearby stars and their content is, well, mathematical. — TheMadFool

Wait, "the cat is on the mat" doesn't describe any objective fact in your view?

TheMadFool

Wait, "the cat is on the mat" doesn't describe any objective fact in your view? — Terrapin Station

What does this have to do with what I'm saying?

Do you think natural language and mathematics are completely identical?

I'll give you an analogy to describe the situation as it is.

We have two languages - natural language and mathematics. You travel to a distant galaxy and find an alien civilization. Which language do you think would be shared by you and aliens?

In fact I don't have to create such an elaborate scenario. Look at us. We have thousands of language which come under the term of natural language. They're not universal and people need translators if we're to understand each other . However, mathematics is universal e.g. Pythagora's theorem is exactly the same whether you're in China or USA. This is what I mean.

Terrapin Station

What does this have to do with what I'm saying? — TheMadFool

Your argument was that mathematics can't just be a language because it (non-arbitrarily) describes the world. Well, so does natural language, so does painting, and a number of other things.

Terrapin Station

We have two languages - natural language and mathematics. You travel to a distant galaxy and find an alien civilization. Which language do you think would be shared by you and aliens? — TheMadFool

You'd have to translate mathematics just as much as any natural language. You need to figure out their words and symbols and syntax etc. just the same way.

What you'd not have to translate is their representational visual art, whatever media they use.

Marchesk

In my view nominalism and conceptualism aren't distinct. Nominalism isn't arbitrary. Under nominalism, universals are non-arbitrary abstractions that individuals make, where those abstractions are unique to each individual (in terms of whether they're particulars or somehow numerically identical among more than one individual). Under conceptualism, we can't have anything other than that. — Terrapin Station

I don't see how that's possible.

Terrapin Station

↪Marchesk

It's difficult for me to comment on "I don't see how that's possible" in the context of my comment, because I'm not sure just what you don't see as being possible.

Concept-formation is something that individuals do. It's a way that individuals think about things--they formulate abstractions, ignoring some details and generalizing others, so that the "same term" (again, it's not literally, numerically the same from instance to instance) can apply to many different particulars. Indviduals do this non-arbitrarily. It's in response to things experienced. And it can't be avoided as long as one is conscious and has anything like a normally functioning brain.

Concepts can not become something more than that, though. Different individuals do not literally share the same concept.

TheMadFool

You'd have to translate mathematics just as much as any natural language. You need to figure out their words and symbols and syntax etc. just the same way.

What you'd not have to translate is their representational visual art, whatever media they use. — Terrapin Station

I see where you're misunderstanding me.

All languages are symbolic (including math). This is true. And symbols being arbitrary we have to translate if two culture are to understand each other.

However, there is something different between the message contained in natural language and math. The laws of nature are mathematical - the numbers that describe them are unalterable. For instance gravity will always be inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects. This element of necessity doesn't exist in natural language e.g. The sky may not be blue everywhere. To further clarify, the objective facts in the universe doesn't affect natural language but they do affect the mathematical formulae describing them.

Marchesk

Concept-formation is something that individuals do. It's a way that individuals think about things--they formulate abstractions, ignoring some details and generalizing others, so that the "same term" (again, it's not literally, numerically the same from instance to instance) can apply to many different particulars. Indviduals do this non-arbitrarily. It's in response to things experienced. And it can't be avoided as long as one is conscious and has anything like a normally functioning brain. — Terrapin Station

I don't understand how humans generalize details in a non-arbitrary way if nominalism is the case. There must be something about certain details that makes them generalizable. That's the problem nominalism has always faced. Similarity between particulars needs to be accounted for somehow.

Terrapin Station

The laws of nature are mathematical — TheMadFool

Right--that's your view, but that's what I'm explciitly disagreeing with, and I'm showing you why your arguments for it so far do not work.

In my opinion it's as absurd as saying that the laws of nature are literally paintings.

I'm not even a realist on laws of nature, by the way. That's not to say that I believe that everything is arbitrary.

"For instance gravity will always be inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects. This element of necessity doesn't exist in natural language"

Yet you just wrote that in natural language. We could create a painting representing that idea, too. When we do, does that imply that nature is literally comprised of paintings?

What we're doing there is reporting something about our interaction with the world, about the way that we think about the world, in a language that we created, in an invention to represent or describe our interaction with and thoughts about the world. That's the case whether we're talking about paintings, natural language or mathematics.

Terrapin Station

I don't understand how humans generalize details in a non-arbitrary way if nominalism is the case. There must be something about certain details that makes them generalizable. That's the problem nominalism has always faced. Similarity between particulars needs to be accounted for somehow. — Marchesk

Before we go further with this, we should probably cement just how you're using "arbitrary." Are you using it with a connotation of "random"?

Groot!

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories