Re: Information and Natural Languages

   Rafael, you have made some of my previous questions cleared.

>I was trying to say, that=20
>our language has the basic structure of message, as it is directed
>towards somebody else.

   You remind me of Wittgenstein saying that an anatomical unit of
our language is a statement, whatever it may be.
 
>4) Information and time:

>He [Weizsacker] also knows from philosophy that the conception of time a
>a linear sequence of equal points does not take into account not only
>the problem of irreversibility, but also the kind of relationship we
>(!) have to time as tri-dimensional (or four-dimensional, as far as
>we can think the three dimensions: past, presen, future in their
>togetherness).

   A nice point! I would like to interpret what you said in the above
in the following manner. If our concern is on activity of whatever
kind in progress, it must descriptively be in the mode of the present
progressive tense. But, it's very tough to directly face the
present progressive because it has to assume a theory of messages in
one form or another. The standard norm of the discourse is to rely
upon the present tense. At issue is how to reach the present tense
from the present progressive tense. Either through the present perfect
or through the past progressive tense? If one tries to reach the present
tense via the present perfect tense, this may imply the presence of
perfected movement (or progression). And, this may reduce to the
standard Kantian-Newtonian time. But, Weizsacker seems to say more than
that. I am quite curious about it.

   Regards,
   Koichiro

     Koichiro Matsuno
Received on Wed Dec 10 10:26:57 1997