[59]                               home                          [61]


Monday, October 11, 2004


Manhattan Project to Integrate

Human-centric Information Production


White Paper on Incident Information Orb Architecture (IIOA) à



Comment, the work being done by Prueitt, Ewell and Tom and Pat Adi is exposing the notion that human language is created from some type of causal “substructure”.  We feel that this exposed hypothesis is similar a conjecture that chemical compounds are created by a substructure of physical “atoms”, and that “physical” atoms are created by some substructure of stings or quantum beables.   The Readware product contains a framework in which to organize information that might be developed about the “substructural ontology” that is part of the set of causes for any natural language, and of any expression of natural language. 


A more universal theory is that all complex phenomena have a specific substructure and a specific set of environmental constraints.  This is the Conjecture on Stratification. 



Communication from Tom Adi


Hi Paul,


This is in response to Richard Ballard's point on Aristotle's view of language.  Richard said:


Aristotle is on record as asserting that language (the association of a particular sound to an object or meaning) is ruled solely by convention alone -- that there exists no "natural" linkages. Frankly, I am with him on this issue. In mathematics you may pose conjectures, but "natural anything" implies a testable empirical finding in nature. What is your evidence? Given the diversity of natural languages, when a common root is provable – just where do you find commonalities across groups that are arguably most remote. If the findings of linkage are tenuous, then so what is the value and payoff in seeking so weak a correlation and asserting that it has consequence? You seem to want being on both sides of the issues of semiotics.


My response is:


1) If language were ruled by convention alone, how can all natural languages serve us all so well?


2) I hold that language is not strictly “created” by humans, any more than the air or the water.  If humans created language, how come they still don't understand how it works?  And why should the speech of humans be excluded as object of natural science while humans are included. 


3) Although the common root of languages is not empirically provable in an exhaustive way, our common DNA structure is an indisputable fact.  What else do we share?


4) The Readware language theory basically states that by examining the contextual usage of Arabic terms in some set of old books, a set of stable axioms emerged regarding how letters relate to real-world contexts.  The nature of these axioms is abstract and the emerging "animals" can only be named in an imperfect way, but the emerging structures have been stable for decades.  I think the axioms build a symmetry group (or something similar).


5) Readware technology used these axioms to order English vocabulary and also create topic structures, and we believe that this is why we excelled at TREC 7 and TREC 8.  This is not enough to claim universality, but it is enough to claim usefulness.


6) I am preparing an Orb (datawh.txt) for these axioms tonight so that one can graphically examine my "barn animals" in action.  Tomorrow, I will include three Readware-processed Aesop fables and some Readware topic and concept structures in datawh.txt.



Tom Adi



Tutorial on the Readware-processes Aesop fables

Will be posted from here when finished