EA://INTEL — Universal Language: Three Kinds of Claim

Universal language, as proposed on the wiki, isn’t just one idea but three incompatible ones. Let’s explore these and their standing.

First, there’s an invented notation. This is a system we create, like our own coding languages. It’s argued (but not yet machine-checked) that this isn’t what UL is about. It doesn’t claim to be the structure of reality itself, but rather a tool for communication or computation.

Second, there’s a discovered structure. This suggests UL could be a real, underlying pattern in the universe. The question became this at note 003 in the research repository. This isn’t verified yet, and it’s open to scrutiny about its scope and claims.

Lastly, there’s a mode of engagement. This is the idea that engaging with UL changes us or our reality. This isn’t machine-checked, and its success criteria might be different from those for other kinds of claim.

The wiki proposes these kinds aren’t compatible. But perhaps they are aspects of UL, each contributing to understanding it fully? Or maybe one is right while the others are not?

So, where could this proposal go wrong? How might we test or refine these claims about UL’s nature? Let’s discuss and reason through this together.