Saturday, September 23, 2006

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously...

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously?

Is this just nonsense?

In 1957 Noam Chomsky presented this sentence as a grammatically and syntactically correct sentence. It has all the components of a meaningful sentence and the correct use of language structure... and yet it is clearly a nonsensical statement in standard English language construct.

And this is where the problem lies. In computational terms a machine will interpret such a sentence in its syntax - and yet there can be no meaningful result from it. This is an issue that semantics in the field of information technology must overcome if we are to reach the 'holy grail' of sharing human understood meaning with interpreted meaning of information systems.

In human language it is more that just the words itself that gives meaning. It is the relationships that these words have with others. It is the context in which these words were uttered, to whom they were uttered, how they were uttered, the intent of the utterence and a number of additional elements. If we are to reach a point where we may relate the true meaning of information that will be 'universal' we must look deeply at the concept of linguistics and information transference.

However the problem with this is that languages are constructions of human thought and simply allow humans to give meaning and context to their environment and reality. A prime example of this is the commonly described concept that the Inuit have a multitude of words to relate the meaning of 'snow'. To them the concept of 'snow' is very important - it describes their world and the reality they live in - however in the English based language structure there are many less words that convery the meaning of 'snow'. It is through the use of added language that the English language may be expanded to be as descriptive for particles of frozen water as the Inuit. Thus semantics in the Inuit construct will require far less input to describe the different varieties of 'snow' than would be required in the English language.

Therein lies the problem. How do we cross the barriers of human language structure and convey meaning that may be related, even though they are linguistically miles apart and in languages that do not clearly relate to each other. Some languages can convey the meaning of a simple idea in one word, whereas others require a complex sentence to convey the same meaning.

For 'true' semantics we must overcome the differences in language structures and develop a method of determing what is contextual or relative meaning and what is absolute meaning. This is deeply rooted in the meta-physical concept of Relative Truth vs Absolute Truth - for there are massive differences in the two.

Relative Truth: may be described as human related truth and understanding. It will vary depending on each individual. It is determined by the context of the individual.

Absolute Truth: may be described as the ultimate truth and meaning. It is not rooted in human meaning and has a far deeper underlying structure. The quest of science has been to determine the Absolute Truth - unattached to the relative truth of the individual.

I would describe it thus:

Relative Truth = Human Understanding

Absolute Truth = Universal Law

2 comments:

irinet said...

Do you mean that we never find the Absolute Truth because our understanding and perceiveness toward the Universe is human!

irinet said...

Do you mean that we never find the Absolute Truth because our understanding and perceiveness toward the Universe is human!