(you may click
the number of the subfile to be viewed, or
scroll down)
This
file contains the following subfiles:
22
- illusion of continuity
23 - bombs
(subfile 22: continuity between path elements)
In physical 3-space, proceeding from one point to another involves a
continuum of intermediate points whose relation to the endpoints is
precisely defined and entirely meaningful. In contrast, it is unlikely
that intermediate meaning-space points between two words in a sentence
– points whose location might be calculated by some simple arithmetic
function - would be meaningful in a similar way. For such points to
acquire meaning would require that the axes in MS be somehow optimized,
and although I believe there is a way to address this, I am not at all
confident that the task can be fully realized (see subfile 41).
(subfile 23: bomb details)
Suppose you are “standing” on the infinitive verb in the fragment “ I
like to eat....”, and that you are awaiting the (grammatical) object.
There could easily have occurred, in previous conversations, several
appropriate objects, for example, apples, pears, bananas, etc.
A bomb is an entity with a direction, a distance, and an “amount of
explosive”. Imagine standing on the infinitive, from which one tosses a
bomb in the direction, forcefully enough to go as far as the required
distance. The bomb disappears in flight (since intermediate points are
not meaningful as they would be in 3-space), reappears at its goal,
and, depending on the generality of the desired result, it explodes
more or less powerfully, “illuminating” larger or smaller regions of
MS. Thus a very large number of actual sentences are fuzzily available
from a single source sentence. In the diagram here, please read a
column as a sentence, and reading across, see words or phrases
comparatively close
in MS:
I
you
we
George
like
dislike
really, really like
sometimes likes
to
eat
to
have
to
sell
to grow
apples single
apples tons of
apples
fruit
Subfile 22 presents the major point about the continuity problem in MS.
We are in the habit of assuming that a vector has properties dependent
upon normal consistency and continuity of whatever Cartesian space is
involved. Even an entirely non-Euclidean space, curved saddle- or
torus-wise, has a dependable and meaningful relationship between
adjacent lattice-points. Neither this consistency nor continuity can be
depended on in MS, and therefore a vector there can’t be, for example,
subjected to decomposition into smaller vectors, nor resolved into
components, with any expectation that these smaller units are exactly
as meaningful as their parent. A bomb is only a start and an end, not a
line segment with mid-points.