Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Which do you prefer or if neither?

Narrator: But the grammatics of the universe will bear no false syntax, and as the order progresses blindly onwards acts possible are augured out of the broad chaos and by lottery and conspiracy in equal measure are dragged closer to certainty until the possible is made actual and once so the illusion of what is to be is revealed to be what is and always has been.

Narrator: But the grammatics of the universe will bear no false syntax, and as the void progresses ever onward acts augured and seered out of the chaos are dragged closer to certainty until the possible is made actual and once so the illusion of what will be is revealed to be what is and always has been and what could have been is destroyed for the falsehood that it is.

The last one I think, but why ya wana know?

I was just having a bit of difficulty with choosing which one I wanted to keep. I feel like the first passage is more specific as to what I want to say but I think the second is more readily accessible to the average person. I personally prefer the more complex version but if what I'm saying is too vague then it defeats the purpose. Of course on the other hand there's only so much I can simplify the passage before it loses its meaning :(

I can't hold my breath for three minutes under water.
Both could use a little pause to enable breathing

Too many ands and not enough of the grammatics of the universe
hth

Aye I do tend to write the sentences a little long but I think that's a symptom of the style though I'll see what I can do to shorten the sentences.

So here goes a third revised version with more breaks:

Narrator: But the grammatics of the universe will bear no false syntax. And as the order progresses blindly onwards, acts possible are augured out of the broad chaos. By lottery and conspiracy in equal measure they are drawn closer to certainty until the possible is made actual, and once so the illusion of what is to be is revealed to be what is and always has been.

As for more grammatics...well I think the best I can do now is give an explanation as to the passage's meaning (already posted it on another site): The two passages stem from my thoughts on mathematics as being a linguistical philosophy. It goes basically like this mathematics is a language, no one argues that. You can talk to people in it and you can describe real-world events. Philosophy is at its core just a way of thinking. And when people think mathematically they are embracing a particular world view one that is at its beginnings infinitely simple and towards its end infinitely complex and as far as I know infinitely diverging so as to be so broad as to encompass all possible outcomes. Now in mathematics its easy to describe the loss of a tangerine. A man has three tangerines and he loses one. So t= one tangerine. So 3T-1T=2T simple. But how do you describe the feelings of a man who has just received a gift from a friend he hasn’t seen in a long time. What equation accurately defines the chemical processes that take place and eventually diminish and become replaced again? What’s the model of a man who’s come to terms with his mortality and conversely one who hasn’t? As far as I know there are none. And far greater minds than mine I’m sure have wondered this very question, I believe the road to understanding how these equations come about and again I’m sure this idea is not original to me but I think the surest way to reach those mathematical heights is to treat mathematics as a language. It has its sets of rules its grammar and there is a specific syntax which must be abided. Because unlike the spoken word which can have a missing conjunction or an adjective improperly used or really any number of errors without losing the meaning of the work even the very simplest of mistakes in mathematics creates an impossibility and that would be the end of the universe or at least the unraveling of the laws which have governed it thus far. Thus grammar and syntax are just a play on words as the government and the ordering of mathematics as a language.

Simplified as much as I can here’s what it means: The laws of mathematics are a primacy in the universe and all that follows them must be in tune with them or they cannot exist. The broad chaos is the future from which possible events are selected (and if there is the possible than there is its opposite the impossible which has already been disqualified from existence by other earlier acts) in accordance with the laws of causality stemming from both chance and will until out of the vast number of outcomes one is selected and made real thus nullifying all other possible outcomes. What follows after that concerns I’d say empirical philosophy more than a mathematical one but they are intertwined as much as one is related to the other. What its saying is that once something has happened it couldn’t have happened any other way because no evidence of any other way exists.

And at the end of the day with all that said I could still be horrifically wrong in every way but for the moment it seems right. Aye its just an idea I've been toying with lately and as I said this kind of notion is not original to me and I'm sure even this particular manner of thinking about it isn't entirely original either (which is unbelievably frustrating). On another note it turns out that a few (re: actually more than I'd like to admit though some got it) didn't make the connection between grammatics and mathematics so I'll do my best in the future to be clearer.

edited for reposting when X= awake
and T=time

haha alright man I get ya

Okay
Am less of a mathematician than a philosopher, and that is going some

I am never certain how much mathematics actually underpins the nature of things, or as a language, is simply a way of describing the world.

Your assumption that missing bits of verbal language gets the message across is correct inasmuch as those ypos statements with errs are still understood.
Meaning is not so straight forward. What do those tangerines taste like? Well thay taste like oranges! But what do.... etc etc.
We generally have to rely on metaphor and compare a similar known experience to explain things.

Obviously mathematics has an advantage of not being so open to misintepretation as it is more objective.

The laws of mathematics are a primacy in the universe and all that follows them must be in tune with them or they cannot exist

The varaibles that allowed the big bang to occur and produce the universe we have are very finely tuned.
A relatively small shift would have been catastrophic. We therefore have a universe with a given set of rules. However there still may well be universes with different sets of mathematical rules.

Do you know about the infinite universe theory. As I understand it, it posits that there is a universe in which other possibilities take place.
So that while I took a decision to type this reply, there is another universe where I didn't, and another where I typed a different reply cos I didn't accidently delete a load of stuff.

I guess that sort of corresponds with your "broad chaos" in as much as at any point an infinite possible outcomes are available. But rather than the others being nullified, they become other universes.
(think that is how it works)

Hey Chibi mucho denada for responding, I’ve been having trouble getting comments of any kind for really anything I’ve written lately.
Just to address your own comments and to say that I myself am no mathematician though I do consider myself a philosopher (if by definition a philosopher attempts to avoid labor of any kind save that which he enjoys and puts his full faculties towards making such a thing so), I don’t think mathematics underpins the nature of the universe I think mathematics is the nature of the universe.

But I'll ask this does a statement regardless of intent not hold a meaning? Confucius summed it up well enough, if you’re not accurate in what you say then what you mean will not be accurately interpreted. However in linguistics it is not a be all end all if you misspeak and furthermore if you happen to do so you are often allowed to retract or modify your words and the meaning of your words, since of course your words are not the Word of God. The tangerine analogy is a good example of how the spoken language can be general, mathematics on the other hand cannot. They have to be specific or the equation falls apart. You can’t say it’s around .12 you can’t say it’s pi something or another. You have to know specifically each part of a problem and how it interacts with the rest of the equation otherwise it’s meaningless and a false description of something that does not nor ever will exist. The universe we live in is economically conservative, it creates what it intends and no more. How of course do you know what was intended. I don’t know but it sounds good and to me it makes sense.
I am aware of the infinite universe theory, string theory and super string theory. To my understanding as to yours (which may have an inherent problem being that neither one of us seem to fully comprehend the theory) is that the universe is made up of vibrating strings. Beyond that we travel along these strings along with an infinite amount of future possibilities my understanding becomes foggy but again to my understanding it’s that these strings branch out infinitely and these are those infinite universes. But in this universe you have the one outcome. To quote McCarthy,

You can say that things could have turned out differently. That they could have been some other way. But what does that mean? They are not some other way. They are this way.

In another universe you may not have replied to this post and in a universe more you might have written your document in word like I did so that you wouldn’t lose your work but then that wouldn’t be you, would it? It’s someone else making different decisions. The man who decided to save his work is not you because a different set of experiences created the man who would make that decision. There may one day be a time when the universes can interact but I doubt it will be in our lifetimes and even if you could meet your other self it wouldn’t change anything. He would still be the man who didn’t reply and you would be the one who did. You might say that such a difference is trivial, but a life can change in a second much more so in the time to write a post. Instead of replying to me that other man might have gone out for any number of things and on his way he might have met a girl, gotten robbed, heard a song, he might have stayed home even eaten some food and choked and died or felt satisfied and went off to bed. Either way he wouldn’t be you. He can’t be you. Because you made decisions that all led to this. Because you are not some other way. You are this way.


Edit: To modify words

Just the last point for now.
The way it is supposed to work is this. It is the same me typing the reply upto the point of change.
Right now I choose to delete this reply or continue.
I choose continue, so there is a bifurcation point.
The theory holds that there is another universe now where the message was deleted and not sent.
The me in that universe is not aware of me and vice versa.

There will be totally different versions of me based on the changed experiences, like the one that didn't ditch the girl and am now divorced with three kids to support and no time to play with toy soldiers

Because there are all the potential bifurcation points even in an hour (at my age that is a lot of potential me's, what a dreadful thought! ) but since there are an infinite number of alternative universes that is possible.

The issue of maths being the universe I struggle to come to terms with. It means the language is the reality (not necessarily in a dualistic sense)
It is a bit like the Christian Logos and the divine fiat. I find that a difficult concept to deal with.

Intent and meaning are seperate - what I intend to say in a statement may not always be interpreted as I untended the meaning.
Due to subtle shifts in experiences we could argue that there is no exact interepretaion of meaning.
My grasp of semantics and deconstructive philosophy is even worst than my maths

Maths is therefore seen as a more exact and objective language, which makes it compelling and necessary for physics.
Maybe I am wrong here but Language presumes communication.
Which implies a intelligent being.

Although I seem to recall a nice idea by Wheeler who suggested that human intellect has evolved so that the universe can be known by itself.

The way it is supposed to work is this. It is the same me typing the reply up to the point of change. Right now I choose to delete this reply or continue. I choose continue, so there is a bifurcation point. The theory holds that there is another universe now where the message was deleted and not sent. The me in that universe is not aware of me and vice versa. There will be totally different versions of me based on the changed experiences, like the one that didn't ditch the girl and am now divorced with three kids to support and no time to play with toy soldiers

That is how the theory is generally accepted however, the point I’m arguing is that the people who made those decisions are not, have not, and never will be you. They are not other me’s, they are other persons. Because you are exacted of a very peculiar and immutable set of experiences any modification to them even in the most infinitesimally small manner changes you to someone else because YOU did not experience them. That point aside and as yourself stated each variable person does not share consciousness and there is no democracy in the selection of one over another, each exists (if even another does exist) as a separate entity and their paths do not intercept. In truth the suggestion that there might be an election of such nature implies a higher power which unfortunately cannot be proven or disproven with any certainty.

The issue of math being the universe I struggle to come to terms with. It means the language is the reality (not necessarily in a dualistic sense)
It is a bit like the Christian Logos and the divine fiat. I find that a difficult concept to deal with.

I don’t think scripture has anything to do with reality. The way I look at the bible and things religious is that they’re very simply guides by which to live your life by. Take the Ten Commandments, by themselves they are excellent rules to live by and in truth the beatitudes are very beautiful as is the book of Job but they’re not grounded in reality. Their parables and like all other parables the truth of them does not lie in the facts but the meaning. That said I’m not sure math is dually reality. When you put an equation to paper the material equivalent does not (at least to human knowledge) somewhere else appear. We have to apply the equation to the real world. What math is, is a language that describes the force which governs the universe, it is not the force which governs.

Think about Shakespeare, he says: What is a name? That which we call a rose would by any other name smell just as sweet.

In the same way math is only giving a name to the force (and maybe force is a little too supernatural a word but I’m lacking for another) which governs the universe. Even without a name it exists, and exists even if no one knows about it. It’s a constant I suppose though it is said that before the birth of the universe strange things happened, who can know what?

Intent and meaning are not separate, at least according to Merriam-Webster, they are synonymous:


Main Entry: 1in•tent Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: n. tent
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: alteration (influenced by Latin in- 2in-) of Middle English entent, entente; Middle English entent, from Old French, from Late Latin intentus aim, purpose, intent, from Latin, act of stretching out, from intentus, past participle of intendere to stretch out, intend; Middle English entente, from Old French, from Latin intentus (past participle) -- more at INTEND
1 a (1) : the act, fact, or an instance of intending : PURPOSE, DESIGN <suspect him of hostile intent -- S.M.Crothers> <came with intent to kill> (2) : the design or purpose to commit any wrongful or criminal act that is the natural and probable consequence of other voluntary acts or conduct (3) : the state of mind or mental attitude with which an act is done : VOLITION b : an end or object proposed : AIM <used his leisure time to good intent>
2 a : MEANING, PURPORT, IMPORT, SIGNIFICANCE <paraphrase in speech the intent of the communication -- Edward Sapir>; specifically : INTENDMENT 2b b : the connotation of a term



And even though you may have neglected the meaning of your statement a meaning is still carried over and interpreted whether you intended to send it or not. Body language is good example of this. When you’re angry your brows may furrow unconsciously and this sends a meaning regardless of your intent. For this reason I’d say that you’re partially incorrect when you say that there is no exact interpretation of meaning. I know what it means and you know what it means and really from a human perspective it can mean nothing else. It’s a universal expression amongst the species. Can it be faked yes, can it not be recognized? Hard to believe but I’d say yes. So only partially incorrect . Now, going out of body language into linguistics, we can go back to what Confucius said, when you’re specifc and accurate in what you want to say it will not be misinterpreted. You have to factor of course that the person receiving your comments is equally capable of understanding but I don’t think that’s ever out of the question.

Now for the last bit. Math is objective aye, but I don’t believe that it’s necessary for physics or for anything else. I’ll go back to what I said earlier, math is just a description and whether or not it exists in our minds doesn’t influence one bit the force that governs. A different example, the wind blows, if you take its name air is still being pushed around by inequalities in the atmospheric pressure. Take away anyone and anything who could give a name to it and who could perceive it, it still exists. Because it is not dependent on us or our language. Remember mathematics is a language developed by humans, it is not supernatural.
Language does presume communication it also presumes beings capable of communicating. Does it imply a being that’s intelligent, that depends on what you mean do you mean like dolphins or dogs or creatures who have achieved self-awareness?

And again don't worry if I'm a philosopher I'm only an amateur, God forbid a real one weigh in