3 ms·
It seemed to me like the author of the article was playing a bit loose with Wittgenstein's ideas. Isn't the idea that gravity is merely a "translation" of the c
by jveld 11y ago
It seemed to me like the author of the article was playing a bit loose with Wittgenstein's ideas. Isn't the idea that gravity is merely a "translation" of the curvature of spacetime an example of precisely the kind of Tractatus-speak that the language game idea was meant to demolish? Or am I missing something.
- danharaj 11y agoThe idea the author seems to try to hint at is what i would call a Functor if we were talking about Categories: - Language games have structure - Structures can be compared by correspondences/functions - A particular concept in one language game therefore could be transported along such a correspondence into another language game. - We don't have a good correspondence between the language games of biology and physics that allows us to transport "life" from biology to physics. - Or do we!??? P.S. It occurs to me that my analogy with categories and functors is itself a transport between the language game of category theory and the language game of language games.
- jveld 11y ago> It occurs to me that my analogy with categories and functors is itself a transport between the language game of category theory and the language game of language games. Bahahahahaha! Brilliant. If I remember my category theory correctly, wouldn't this mean that you've discovered a Monad between the language game of category theory and the language game of language games? If so, we could create the most incomprehensible monad tutorial yet written! Now there's a real achievement.
- danharaj 11y agoAh no, no monads here i'm afraid :)