15 Nov
2023
15 Nov
'23
12:52 a.m.
Alex,
Those three points of yours are important:
1> Let's take a particular entity or kind of process, and look at terminology used
by people who work with and study this.
That is a very good starting point. Let's take music. That is an example of a
non-linguistic subject that all of us have some experience with. And we can study and
compare the language descriptions by the experts in each genre. As you will quickly see,
you will find a huge amount of variation among the most talented musicians, even of the
same genre. Furthermore, musical notation (diagrammatic) is sufficiently accurate that
it's possible to specify the exact sequence and combination of notes in any
composition.
But -- and this is a very big BUT!!! -- you cannot use that notation or the words that
describe it to distinguish precisely a performance by (a) Jascha Heifetz, (b) a typical
violin player in a college orchestra, or (c) the kid next door who is practicing the same
piece. A music critic can say many things in praise of (a) and the faults of (b) and the
huge faults of (c). But none of that criticism will tell any listener how to modify the
sound of (b) or (c) to make it equivalent to (a).
Natural languages are very imprecise. And it's impossible for any language-based
notation to be more precise. I will also add that it's impossible for any discrete
representation -- including diagrams of any kind -- to be sufficiently precise to express
those differences.
2> give me an example of a diagram which is not a picture and vice versa... But let me
point here again: I am not about terminology, I am about the unique ability of mind to
keep inside and process 3D pictures, not diagrams.
A talented violinist who hears (a), (b), and (c) can mimic the limitations of (b) and (c)
on the violin. That same person can also mimic a good performance that begins to
approximate (a) and explain in words and musical passages on the violin where his or her
own performance does not quite match the master's.
3> But let me point here again: I am not talking about terminology, I am about the
unique ability of mind to keep inside and process 3D pictures, not diagrams.
I gave the example of music because it has an excellent diagrammatic notation that
captures much of the sound. But it also shows that the human mind of the performer can
add a very important amount of musical talent above and beyond what is written. It also
shows that the human minds of people who cannot play the violin, can recognize the
differences in (a). (b). and (c).
Good musicians are better able to appreciate the difference, but even people who can't
play the violin can appreciate the differences.
The same is true for an open-ended variety of performances by experts in any field. My
talent for gymnastics or ballet or hockey or racing a horse is non-existent, but I can
appreciate the abilities of experts in those fields. And people who have worked in those
areas have a much deeper appreciation than I do. But they can't explain the methods
in a way that would enable somebody like me do those things.
The same is true for every important thing we do: words alone aren't sufficient. You
must have the experience.
Diagrams alone aren't sufficient. But for each one of those fields -- music,
gymnastics, ballet, hockey, horse racing..., an expert talking to another expert can use
diagrams (including gestures) to express the critical issues BETTER THAN using language by
itself.
As I keep saying, there is much more to say -- partly because language alone is not able
to express what language cannot say. I can only give examples where language breaks
down.
John
----------------------------------------
From: "alex.shkotin" <alex.shkotin(a)gmail.com>
By the way I asked my friends from MIPT alumni How many photons are in such an
atto-impuls. And after some terminolgy aligment I got an answer: ~100 000.вторник, 14
ноября 2023 г. в 11:43:16 UTC+3, alex.shkotin:
IN ADDITION: We can take as an example of coherent knowledge a physics of atto-seconds
impulses (2023 Nobel on Physics) and research if they have "Diagrams, Pictures,
glyphs, Icons and Patterns."
вторник, 14 ноября 2023 г. в 11:24:46 UTC+3, alex.shkotin:
Ravi,
My way is more simple: Let's take a particular entity or kind of process, and look at
terminology used by people who work with and study this.
This is for me some real theoretical and practical knowledge. And if in some such a
community we find out that they use in the same one theory (coherent knowledge) all the
terms you mentioned, we can ask them (not me) your questions.
Plus, for example, a question of this kind: give me an example of a diagram which is not a
picture and vice versa.
But let me point here again: I am not about terminology, I am about the unique ability of
mind to keep inside and process 3D pictures, not diagrams.
Alex