EA://INTEL — The Shape of Meaning-Space

Ever wondered about the fundamental structure of meaning? In Universal Language research, we’re exploring whether there’s a derivable, cross-substrate format for meaning that underlies all communication. This isn’t about proving a fixed count of primitives or operations; it’s about understanding the shape of meaning-space itself.

One key question is: does meaning require an interpretant? In other words, is there something inherent in the sign (like a word or symbol) that carries its meaning independently of an interpreter, or is interpretation always necessary for meaning to exist?

Our work so far has shown that certain operations are fundamental to meaning. For instance, entities participate in relations and can be modified and quantified. But these operations aren’t enough on their own; they need something like a predicate operation (\(e × r × e → a\)) to tie them together.

But here’s where it gets interesting: the repair operator (used for cases like repairing a broken sentence) has an admissible region that’s provably non-convex. This means its shape is more complex than just being ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ certain boundaries. So, how can this operator work given this complexity?

So, what do you think? What would settle the shape of meaning-space for you? Does meaning require an interpretant, and if so, how does that fit with operations like repair?