Logic
and Grammar have a common root in the very simplest expression possible:
Subject Verb Object = Result
that is, Subject does Verb to Object causing Result
In computer programming there is also a basic structure, and this is most exemplified in the language Lisp, but the order of the three parts is different:
(add 1 2)
Which would evaluate to 3, our Result. Note the ordering of verb, subject and object. In fact, the Subject is 2 and the Object is 1. In english this would be expressed as "Add 1 to 2"
In fact, there is 6 ways you can encode the three elements, and nearly every one is used in some human language somewhere. The Lisp snippet above is an example of Reverse Polish Notation. I suppose this is because in Polish the normal order for these is Subject Object Verb, 2 is the subject and 1 is the object in this case.
This is the easiest form to construct complex patterns out of, here is an example of more complex lisp grammar:
(add (multiply 3 (subtract 5 20) 5)
Result is potentially a subject or object, so you can see that any subject or object can be replaced by a sentence.
There is many more ways to order this structure, here is all 6 (3 items have 6 potential paths linking them all in a sequence):
Verb Subject Object
Verb Object Subject
Object Subject Verb
Subject Object Verb
Subject Verb Object
Object Verb Subject
Note that in some languages, certain orderings predominate over others. In most human languages, Subject always precedes object. Also, in Germanic languages the verb is at the end, German being the most strictly structured this way, but of course not absolutely - infixes are common also.
Mathematics uses Subject Verb Object more often. a + b = c. English also uses this 'infix' operator very often.
Ok, so?
You might be wondering why I am talking about this.
Well, because all human knowledge consists of a bunch of formulas where we know the result, but literally infinitely more we don't know the result, and even more still we don't know the subjects, objects or verbs in these unknown constructions.
What we call 'Knowledge' is where you know the result of a particular interaction between two things. 'Lies' are declarations of a result that does not come from the formula given, if you apply the formula, you can't get the Result.
Did you also notice in my example from Lisp, earlier, that Subjects and Objects can also be Results? This means that all 'things' are processes, until you decompose the logic to the 'atomic', that is, that which cannot any further be divided.
What is the most atomic 'thing' we know of?
Thing!
The concept of a thing, a noun, a process that we (Subject) can grasp (Verb) as an Object. No, not an electron or a neutron or proton or a quark. Thing is the most atomic unit of expression. Thing is like a variable, it has no character of its own, until we load it up with something. When we don't know what something is, it's a thing.
A thing is always a process
If you have exposed yourself to any amount of books on philosophy, especially related to Ontology and Epistemology (the study of the hierarchy of Subjects and their Verbing of Objects, plus the study of how we know that a Thing means some Object being Verbed by a Subject), you will have heard of this idea that all Things are Doings.
There is one thing that is not a process, that is, Thing itself. Thing is a placeholder for a process you do not understand. Thing also has a synonym in the word Being. Be, despite its being disparaged by certain Occultists like Aleister Crowley and Robert Anton Wilson, in fact, there is nothing wrong with using being (as I just did there - is), it's just that Being is really Thing and that means you don't know what it is, or you are filling this Thing up with 'Meanings' and 'Facts' which are the numerous formulas in which the Thing is the Subject.
Being and Thing are concepts that exist outside our experience (well, except maybe psychedelic/religious/dreams), that is to say, when we use these words, we are attributing other potential sentences to the Being or Thing (he can ride a bike, he can code pascal). Being and Thing are not bad things, but they confuse dumb people. Dumb people hear these words and think of stuff like Eternity, and Immutability, both are special kinds of Things that no human can ever encounter (by definition).
You could even say that in this formula:
a + b = c
that '=' is 'being' (becoming), which could also be expressed as 'causes this thing called c'.
Conclusion
I wasn't really sure exactly what I would write about this, but I knew that it was extremely interesting to me, that with this one little tool, you can literally encompass all knowledege. Of course, establishing the difference between Knowledge and Lies can be tricky, and of course Liars benefit from you believing their Lies.
I generally hold a viewpoint of the universe being a mathematically rigorous simulation matrix, like a computer system, but not like the computation systems we know of, but rather something much bigger, that grows in capacity as time passes. Eventually, or, well, never, actually, the Universe becomes Infinite. Infinite is another of these pesty variables like Thing, Being and God. Infinite, Eternal, etc. These are things you can never hold in your hands or witness in action.
The most important upshot of this thought process is that I can point out that you can analyse the words to determine, to some extent, if an expression, or thesis, is false: Is the result an empty abstract variable container like Infinite, God, Being, Thing, or is it something you can demonstrate right here right now (given the preconditions, or the formulas that produce this outcome).
If someone says the answer is (Thing or synonym of Thing) then you can tell them they are Lying because they just admitted they don't know, and are trying to hide it with a tricky label that can be stuck on any tin of stuff. Stuff, there's another Variable word.
The real solution to all the miseries of human experience up to this point in time is really more about people knowing what Things are and not confusing them with Subjects and Objects. If you have the tools, the knowledge, encoded into your memory, about Subjects, Verbs, Objects and Things/Results/Gods/Beings/Stuff, then you can, with enough time spent meditating upon it, decompose all Expressions and determine whether they are just saying that The Answer to Question is Answer in a tricky way that makes you think maybe they know the Answer in fact.
The Opposite of Lies is not Truth, it is Knowledge.
Whether the speaker/writer is merely ignorant or trying to plant Lies into your memory or not, is irrelevant. If the information is not Knowledge and cannot be Applied to decompose Things into more knowledge, then it is either Lies or Stupidity.
Truth is another Variable like God, Thing and Stuff. Knowledge is concrete and can be expressed. Knowledge works. Truth can be worthless because after you evaluate all the expressions contained in it, you can end up with God and then you are back to square one. Knowledge cannot be empty in this way.
Utilitarianism
You may have some background in philosophy and be in the 'mainstream' with an anti-utilitarian position. Above I have made statements to the effect that part of the definition of Knowledge is functional, it produces results. Indeed, that right hand side of the equation from the beginning is predicated on Results.
Utilitarianism is not an arbitrary philosophical posture, it is the only one. If an expression yields a variable on the right hand side, you don't have Knowledge. You are just saying 'I don't know' in a way that is deceptive, by the use of a placeholder.
If the answer is God then it means you don't know.
Knowledge is king. Knowledge is the ultimate Subject, from which is born all other Subjects. If it doesn't produce a result in accordance with claims then the claimant is either deluded or trying to dupe you into giving something to them.
In mathematics, when the formula still contains a variable, the formula is unsolved. The purpose (use) of knowledge is solutions, and any other use is a mental amusement that should not be confused with a formula for creating a known (even if only partially) desired result.
We can't code here! This is Whale country!
Vote #1 l0k1
Go to steemit.com/~witnesses to cast your vote by typing l0k1 into the text entry at the bottom of the leaderboard.
Very interesting mate... resteeming & reading :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation
:)
It must also be related to the slavic grammar of Subject Object Verb. Reversed this is not the same as Operator Source Destination but Operator Destination Source. Reverse the last two and you get RPN, which reverses the subject/object from the reverse of the polish grammar.
I have always been a bit confused about these sequences in computer and human languages, but the intuitive grasp of the process of structuring we learn as we learn to speak, so anyone can understand it, if they try. It's an issue of serialisation.
In mathematical notation you are not limited to a sentence like in english, the relations between parts of an expression are more graphically displayed. x = y/z, assumes that division the quotient comes first. The Object in this sequence is the divisor, because it acts on the quotient. But in mathematical notation the quotient is at the top and the divisor is at the bottom, and the variable is on the left.
I presume this Lukasiewicz was devising schemes for programming calculators, since an operator must input the parts of the operation in some arbitrary order (at minimum out of 6 sequences) into the memory to enable the operation.
Again, thanks for the clarification. I get a kick out of the word-detective puzzle game of understanding something that I only know some part of. My mother is a huge fan of detective stories, I love to do detective work on information, always testing myself to see how much I can derive instead of memorise. Derivations are much faster to absorb, because they are less complex (resequencing, rather than storing new data plus sequence information).
Very good post. And I think you post sheds light on not only the foundation of the semantic web (RDF, etc), but also it's limitation, as the language used to describe the semantic web does not (yet?) allow for triplets (subject->predicate->object) to be described with triplets (like the embedded list example)