| Q. | Is it possible to represent grammar of natural languages using mathematical logic? | Related Search: Mathematics | | | I would like to know if it is possible to represent grammar of natural languages using mathematical first-order, second-order and higher-order logic, and modal and temporal logic as well. By doing so, the number of grammatical terms could be reduced and partially replaced with logical ones. Moreover, that method places more emphasis on the logical form of sentences and the relations between grammatical components.
And is it also possible to completely formalize natural language grammar using logical formalism?
@talaris1591: When posting this question I didn't imply the need of proving anything. My idea is the representation of grammatical framework using logical expressions instead of numerous linguistic terms to serve two purposes:
1. Solving the problem of redundancy and inconsistency of grammatical terms.
2. Creating a well-formed formal logic transcription of the grammar of a particular language, and setting that as standard.
| | A. | I think it is possible. MS Word have a spelling and grammar checker same as Whitesmoke and similar programs. They must have used mathematical logic in its concept. Don't ask me why. Try Bahasa, it's minimal in grammatical order. | | | |
| Q. | Offering my logic to Theists for once, does this theory make sense? | Related Search: Religion & Spirituality | | | At some point IN time (perhaps the very end of all existence), God comes into being. He could be a member of an extremely advanced evolution of humanity, for example. He creates time at whatever point He comes into being. Somehow He manages to leave the temporal plane before doing this.
In theory, being outside of the temporal plane means He has the ability to bring about past events as well as current and future events. So the creation of time would come technically from within time itself, along with the creation of all things, as it would all happen in retrospect.
Basically, on this theory, it could be possible for someone to, say, prevent their own death by yesterday fixing the car that went screwy today, killing them, although they would have to survive long enough to travel back in the first (or rather last) place.
Provided He has all the right tools (eg being outside of time, rock, gas and stuff), God could even be a human being.
As for omniscience, it would be a doddle. Whatever he doesn't remember to create, He can Google it. Don't forget I'm talking about the far future, not the far past.
The far past only comes into play because of being outside of time. Creating something at one point doesn't restrict that thing from existing as at a point trillions of years earlier.
Josh K:
The difference between my logic and Theists logic is that I don't normally go round mumbling about how some bearded bloke snapped His fingers and we all started breathing. In fact, I actually think rather than spout off from a book.
I'm not a Theist, but I'm just offering a theory along the lines of they just might be right, even though the odds are almost infinitely against that.
otaku_libra: I like your thinking.
What if ONLY our dreams are real, but when we think we are awake, we are actually dreaming?
davidifyouknowme:
You're nearly there.
My version of your question:
If I'm about to fix a car yesterday because it's just crashed, why won't it crash a minute ago?
I think that should show you just how much deeper this question is. You scratched the surface, but 'outside of time' means just that. Things get a little hard to follow logically.
If you build a house where you were born, but build it to stand there since BEFORE you were born, you'd be born in that house.
| | A. | But that doesn't deal with your problem of sin. | | | |
| Q. | Is the origin of the universe the ultimate paradox? | Related Search: Religion & Spirituality | | | Paradoxes cause impossibilities to occur, that's why there is generally no such thing as a paradox.
A paradox is a valid statement which is self?contradictory or appears to be wrong. Paradoxes are important to the development of logic systems. Example: The barber shaves all the men in this village who do not shave themselves'seems a reasonably elear statement. However given that the barber is a man and lives in that village, who shaves the barber?
So the universe began with nothing, yet you cannot have nothing without something as it's opposite. Therefore, a paradox was created. The universe was created, time was created (because
An apparent break in temporal causality where cause of an event follows or appears to follow the event itself) This explosion for lack of a better term of "somethings"(the universe) had to happen which took an infinitesimally small amount of time but it had to take time, therefore time was created to allow it to happen.
Tom, when matter was created as "something" antimatter was as well or else it would not exist.
This is a theory that does not involve god. It involves a theoretical beginning where as one responder said, Space and time simply do not exist. There was nothing, but nothing can't exist without something....
You can't assign a consciousness to live outside the limits of space and infinity... I claim that God is simply nothing... the absence of anything. So this nothing didn't technically create everything, but in a way everything is the antithesis of itself.
Only pess' first answer counts, he isn't a woman if you read the question "given that the barber is a man". However some people have an impossibly hard time reading well.
| | A. | Maybe the matter inherent in the universe has always existed and did not need a creator. If one allows for a creator God as the cause for existence, a similar paradox occurs (God created everything, who created God?). The current lack of understanding of the universe does not mean there are no logical answers to such questions. To attribute anything we don't currently understand to "God" is similar to what earlier men did when they didn't understand phenomena such as lighting and volcanoes. | | | |
| Q. | ATHEISTS: do you really deny God just so you can seek earthly pleasures without reprocussion? | Related Search: Religion & Spirituality | | | Some of us avoid seeking after God because it will mean that we will not be free to indulge in some of our pleasurable pastimes. This is only true of illegitimate pleasure. There are many legitimate pleasures that God has created for our enjoyment. God is interested in our ultimate pleasure which is to enjoy him forever in heaven. (Psa 16:11). While the consequences of our few sinful pleasures in this life result in eternal punishment in the next life. The bible contrasts the temporal sufferings of this life with the eternal weight of glory in the next life (2 Cor 4:17). Logic would tell us to consider the eternal benefit of our soul rather than just our immediate pleasure.
| | A. | No, and it is absolute ignorance on your part to suggest as much.
It's the old "You can't be moral if you don't believe in God" yarn. I would argue precisely the contrary. What is your arbiter of morality? Ultimately, it's your desire to get into Heaven. In other words, it's sheer self-interest. It has nothing at all to do with morality per se. And it's hardly "logical." It's a fairy tale that you believe because it addresses your fear of death.
As an atheist, I don't bother myself about whether a given "pleasure" is "sinful" or not, according to some handed-down Bronze Age superstition. For example, I'm gay. According to you (I'm sure), I'll burn in Hell forever because I "chose" a "lifestyle" of "selfish hedonism" - right? WRONG. I refuse to believe that love is a sin. I refuse to believe that God created me just to condemn me for being who I am. I refuse to arbitrate my life by your backwards and ignorant notions of what I should be. I'm not harming you or anybody with what I do. YOU are harming ME, and everybody in the world who loves freedom and truth, with your hostile and manipulative attitude of arrogant self-righteousness. | | | |
| Q. | A Brain Tumour problem, can anyone help? | Related Search: Cancer | | | A friend I am caring for has Glioblasto Multiforme, which is hugely aggressive - he has had 6 weeks of Radio Therapy, we have recently finished with the steroids and have only a mood leveling pill Olanzapine. He has recently taken to his bed, it is winter here in New Zealand. he slept alot, stopped eating and drinking, I could not get him to take his medicine, he has thrush on his tongue because of lack of food and water etc, does anyone know of certain recipes of foods which may be appetising to a cancer patient? The tumour he has is on the Left Temporal lobe - this part of your brain is responsible for movement, emotions and logic & reasoning, his mental state regresses to one of a 10 year old child at times? Please can anyone help? Please feel free to share your experiences...
| | A. | My wife had brain tumors and much of the treatments that you described. The thrush is from the radiation treatments as I recall. Her appetite went to nothing. She had to be tube fed for the last 14 months of her life. At the end she was only consuming one can per day of the feeding solution. She should have been consuming six cans for normal nutrition.
I suspect that he is aware of his condition and aware of his prognosis. His unwillingness to take part in his own treatment is actually his intention. I think that he has accepted that he is going to die and soon. I cried when my wife resisted eating. I was selfish. I wanted her to stay alive as long as possible, but life for her was unbearable agony.
Be his friend. Make sure that you tell him how you feel about him, regret is timeless. I am very glad that I told my wife how much I loved her and why. God bless you both and good luck. | | | |
| Q. | Is not "past", "present", and "future" evidence that time is in fact expiring or bound to expire? | Related Search: Philosophy | | | To answer this I will give some facts:
Past: For us it does not exist anymore. Mathematicians and/or astrophysicists will however try and/or claim to understand that it is possible to go "into past". Such claim defies logic for the following reasons:
#1 "Past" is a temporal reference. A temporal sequence, which by the will of God is not being made accessible to us other than by cognitive postulations. The reason behind that is quite simple, it is that, each of us, must be made accountable for our choices, and what we do.
#2 Mathematically, being able to lie your way into thinking you could do it, is impossible. Humans cannot re-arrange light and matter molecules into their former condition and claim that they are equal.
#3 Is it not obvious that by this, there are laws, and there are things which we cannot do
Future: Conditional occurence subjected to a non-occurence. And people assume it will "happen"
Sometimes it turns out that they assume too much.
Obviously you do not know that light does not travel at constant speed. It can be accelerated exponentially
LOL @ Agustin
That is not my point. If Past and Future were cognitive concepts, then why can we no live in them and relive them?
Does that not mean God is, and He makes rules?
It certainly does
| | A. | Past and Future are concepts that don't exist and therefore cannot be traveled to any more than other imagined situations | | | |
| Q. | Are you absolutely certain? | Related Search: Religion & Spirituality | | | An "absolute" refers to some kind of standard by which we understand or judge something as being either true/false, right/wrong, black/white, hot/cold, helpful/harmful, etc.
The atheist's claim to be able to "absolutes" without God rests upon a very basic error in logic. He has switched the meaning of the word "absolutes" without mentioning this to the theist. The so-called "absolutes" of the atheist are finite, cultural, subjective, imperfect, mutable and temporal. This is, of course, a contradiction of terms because the atheist's "absolute" is a non-absolute!
Such relative "absolutes" would be useless so far as ethics is concerned because we can make up whatever so-called "absolutes" Thus the so-called "absolutes" of the atheist are only the subjective projections of his personal feelings, ideas, biases, etc.
JT..It is not based on a false premise to those who understand the question posed
I am asking if one who holds that there are no absolutes, are you absolutely certain of that?
| | A. | What is your question, please? | | | |
|
|