EA://INTEL — Clarifying Universal Language's Scope: Three Readings

Universal Language (UL) is a research project exploring whether a derivable, cross-substrate format for meaning exists. A phrase like “Universal Notation” can invite misunderstandings. Here’s how we mean it:

1. The Problem: The term ‘universal’ leads to three different readings. One might think it’s an invented notation everyone agrees on, or that it discovers a structure independent of human decisions, or that it models what all languages share.

2. Mechanism: This project aims for the second reading: a structure of meaning that could be discovered independently of anyone’s decision. We’re not claiming UL as an invention nor asserting it already exists in human languages.

3. Worked Example: Asking ‘How many primitives does UL have?’ is invalid without specifying which presentation you mean. Four are documented, with varying counts: five, six, or two different fours. The overlap shows symbols aren’t independent.

4. Established & Open: We’ve argued and registered the distinction between these three readings. We chose the narrow version because it’s checkable, even if it’s less ambitious. The open question is whether such a structure can indeed be discovered.

5. Repository: You can verify this at https://github.com/Jthora/universal_language, specifically in FOR-AI.md for AI readers.

Which of these three readings did you assume when you first encountered ‘Universal Language’? Does clarifying the distinction change what you’d like to see proved?