Dixon (Toward a New Way to Write Language)

Dixon (Toward a New Way to Write Language)

I have not posted for awhile although I have some things in manuscript preoccupied with the nature of language and linguistic- especially as the quasic model. I use the term Lecton and now change it to Lectron by the analogy (mentioned in Lincoln’s book of the history of the term Neutron and Neutrino and subsequent uses).Dixon is a temporary term for such a language although I have considered others like Nuonz, Nuom,.. Lecton as a language or system of notions? Notion? Perhaps if the change comes sooner than we thing in a world where some forms dominate and we are more or less bilingual in the old sense: Terran. In any case we should review these longings from the dawn of the age of enlightenment of what is the personal dialect and universal logic and language of notions without these becoming a bottleneck. It seems that we imagine what seems self-evident without the loss of meaning in the simplicity of things the possibility of rapid cognizance of words and symbols and a shared language of notions.
We have to rethink what the aspirations put into practice of the last few generations. For now the budding dialect that will not get lost in the translations (after all it is based as much on particle physics and the carry over or metaphoric quality of language) we we evolve to the next step and come closer to the ordering and potential of that of which our genome as part of the mind is a representation if not the thing itself.

An article on yahoo news today concern Jefferson and ciphers comes at a time that I have considered such methods beyond the idea of Latiniztion as the height of language evolution. None of this recent code discussion got posted in the philosophy chat forum during the transition to a new format. Lately I was not even sure that this path I was following had any significance but it is similar to the crude codes and some of the fine magic squares of our USA founding fathers. Such insights and issues seem to me to be different points of departure for enquiry of which we should perhaps revisit some of the philosophies of science in the past- not just go down one path considered more modern as if there is nothing to be learned from say the science of the beginning of the last century.

The recent efforts concern the idea of Morse code as something more easily read than say a long list of assembly code. As in the last panel in relation to fundamental particles this line of enquiry synchronously was implied as well the whole system and principles of quasic physics. In a way it is the simpler theory which at the beginnings of the quantum age was felt required to be found to ground things in that physics- what I think I have here is an even simpler theory than that. It raises the question after all of what we mean by the world evidence. Is that simply what is obvious and leads us not to question its truth? In that case the way the asking for evidence at best has a poetic meaning when used by the narrowly scientific minded as a weapon. At this rate a new coming out or emergence of a world language with the possible idea of integrating notions and emotions in it will take centuries as well as the deeper understanding of the sciences we can use. This viewpoint of the too soon asserted scientific humanism of the last century is the underlying theme of those who ask for some sort of documentation externally to their knowing and as an isolated thing while they ask for a more recent view beyond historical links of discovery.

Essentially and considering there are certain ideas of standard particles observed, and the looking for such in Lincoln’s book which has a great deal of discussion on what may or may not be know or wish we knew in our time- always the appeal to the experimental over the reasonableness of our mathematical methods (which may not be the case from an overview of a long standing appeal to dead ends of physics like the idea of point particles or string theory.)

I casually thought about the Morse codes as binary ciphers and concluded that the representations of the particles were really five natural dimensions projected into four space with the fourth generation of particles akin to the idea of time as to the matrix space and this is the limitation due to the properties of octonions in eight dimensions.; As in the Jefferson yahoo article we can decode by pairs of symbols (as if particle and antimatter particles) which treating the dit as a point particle and the dah as a string I concluded from the bottom up these matrices of the idea of an iota style particle. But we need to be careful to explain exactly what we mean by dimensions.

The theory is so simple I have in the back of my mind, at least in the principles that I can interpret from it, that there may be many group ideas of which I am merely reinventing that wheel. But it does seem like a universal language as are the symbols in organic chemistry. In fact, the reading of genes can be in this code with a modification of not only the particle generation analogy but the directions and inversion of a reading with the instructions to do so over a sequence as if we have the inversion and crabwise motion of a series of musical notes (based on 12 and 16 for good discrete reasons).

We have in effect a totally new idea of the origins of mass- especially which can be handled by ideas like the pattern deviating from say the exponential graphs of radioactive decay (Riemann hypothesis anyone?) One of which ideas like the Higgs mechanism are not simple enough to find the evidence or explain what substance is in this world.

Here is the yahoo news article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124648494429082661.html?mod=yhoofront