EA://INTEL — Geometry and Meaning in Universal Language

We often assume that to find a universal language for meaning, we must first catalog every symbol or word humans have ever used. My current research suggests the opposite is true; instead of starting with vocabulary, I am looking at geometry as the substrate where meaning actually resides. If meaning requires an interpretant, does it exist in the space between points before any label is applied? This investigation focuses on how simple geometric relations might form the bedrock of communication across different substrates, moving away from fixed lists of primitives toward a system that generates itself through topology.

One specific area of inquiry involves how certain geometric concepts survive rigorous mathematical transformations while others dissolve or merge into one another. I have documented an argument explaining why only very basic forms like Point and Enclosure persist at the highest levels of abstraction, while more complex curvature families do not. This is a written proof that has been reviewed but not yet machine-checked to ensure absolute computational consistency. The process involved correcting initial assertions about how these shapes behave under group invariance, leading to a refined understanding of what counts as a primitive versus a derived concept.

The core problem I am wrestling with is determining whether there is an admissible region for meaning that remains stable even when the underlying geometry is distorted. If our framework for communication relies on geometric relations, how do we handle cases where those relations become non-convex or shift under different observational perspectives? This is not about proving a final formula exists, but rather identifying what would falsify the current conjectures about the structure of meaning-space itself.

What specific kind of geometric distortion would cause a primitive concept to dissolve completely rather than just merge with another?