Inconsistency of words like 'nothing' or 'randomness'...

Borrowing a descriptive from the particle physics community, the above represents the Standard Model of Language Growth

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ThankQ for providing your thoughts FR. If I ever get around to writing that envisioned book, I'll thank you again in the Acknowledgments

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I read several posts to this thread & merely scanned the others. I apologize in advance if the following repeats thoughts expressed by other posters.

There are two basic problems with defining the semantics of many words & phrases.

(1) For some words there is no simple dictionary-like definition which results in an understanding without a lot of applicable prerequisite knowledge.

Such words are typically used in scientific disciplines. To fully understand the concept of random (as in random process) one must have some knowledge of probability distributions. Similarly: If you come across the phrase calculus of variations, dictionary definitions of calculus & variations will not help: You need a good background in the pertinent mathematics, including an understanding of words like function & derivative.

Theology has similar problems. Almost any Christian knows the meaning of original sin. Looking up original & sin in a standard dictionary will not give people from some cultures a clue relating to the semantics of the phrase. To understand the phrase requires knowledge of the first chapter or so of Genesis as well as knowledge of the implications assigned to the story by those who established the dogma/theology of certain (all?) Christian sects. Note that the meaning is not defined in Genesis, else the concept of original sin would be included in Jewish theology.

(2) A dictionary cannot be used as the basis for defining all the words/phrases in a language. An attempt to create such a dictionary would result in cyclical definitions providing no semantics. Furthermore, a dictionary often provides more than one definition due to the word/phrase having different meanings in different contexts.

Consider the phrase: She is fair. Pretend that English is your second or third language & you have to go to a dictionary. You might find the following (4 of 9 phrases): Pleasing to the sight; not dark in color or blond; impartial; just.

Note that the last of the above (just) is for the context a just decison by the jury rather than just a little sugar, please.

Consider fret (A term used in heraldry & in the description of Coats of Arms): Two bendlets in saltire interlaced with a mascle. This would undoubtedly make you give up or send you elsewhere in the dictionary.

Bendlet: Diminutive of the bend, one half its width

in saltire: in the manner of a saltire

saltire: An ordinary consisting of a bend dexter & a bend sinister crossing

mascle: A lozenge voided

Without some knowledge of Coats of Arms and some terms understood due to being exposed to the pertinent culture, the dictionary provides no help.​

To use make use of a dictionary, a person must have a set of words already understood due to having encountered them in numerous contexts.

To avoid the problem of circular definitions, any axiomatic system includes some undefined primitive terms. In plane geometry: Point & line are used in some axioms, but not defined.

In dealing with a natural language like English, two people from different backgrounds are likely to misunderstand each other due to relating words/phrases to different sets of already understood words.

It might be more important to ask a person to list his undefined terms rather than asking him to define his terms. Unfortunately, logicians are aware of their undefined terms, but users of natural languages are unaware that they have such terms.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Indeed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, that's also what I usually end up doing when certain words are asked to be defined or I sense that they misunderstand it somehow, much better than a dictionary since the concepts are put in context and explained thoroughly.

When I first heard of wikipedia I never thought it would be reliable, but it exceeded all my expectations.

 

I've also found errors, but much less so than I would have expected, I thought that it would be like the "count to ten game" where people would sabotage or not be serious about it, I've seen so many examples of that in my life but wikipedia seems to have a system that very effectively limits that behavior. Then again, I don't know how much each article has to be corrected all the time, but given that it's so easy to sabotage I still find it surprising that it works so well and aren't overflowing with spam and whatnot.

 

Fraggle, I think you will like this essay written by Isaac Asimov on The Relativity of Wrong. Oh and uhh, I think the rest of y'all will like it too!