Re: The Very Very First Sentence

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 01:38:51PM -0800, Philippe Caquant wrote:
> I always found it highly exciting to try to imagine a
> language accorded to a world where some or other of
> our main usual concepts were lacking.
You mean like the lack of stars? ;-) Or the lack of a unique system of
time reference?

Recently, I worked out a bit of how the Ebisédi would keep track of time
in a world there is no unique Sun, nor day and night, and where periodic
phenomena are transient, and where every land was different. It was quite
interesting to think of alternative ways of keeping time that lent itself
well to everyday[*] tasks. It was also very interesting, ObConlang, to
realize that many common words we use on Earth simply aren't applicable,
and one has to come up with completely new terms to describe how things
worked. Perhaps I'll post the results of my little "research" into the
Ferochromon sometime.

[*] This term is a bit problematic, as the concept of "day" would need to
be defined first. :-)

> For example, can we imagine a world without anything
> physical in it ? Yes, we can. There wouldn't be
> anything human, nor animal, in it, then, because all
> of them have a physical part.
Hard to say... one could still have noncorporeal personalities
that interact with each other.

[snip]
> Wouldn't be any plants, nor rocks, neither. No sounds, no colors. Could
> be a geometrical 3-d world.
That's still quite physical. A truly noncorporeal world, to me, would lack
the concept of space altogether. One might imagine a world where only
thoughts and ideas existed; they can interact with each other in
interesting ways, but there would be no spatial aspect whatsoever.

> There could be movement in it, we can imagine geometrical forms moving.
To me, anything geometric is physical by definition. Of course, it may
inhabit a world with absolutely bizarre physics,[**] but nevertheless
still physical.

[**] And who's that giggling in the back about Ferochromon physics?? ;-)

> Would there be a concept of time in it ? Hard to say. Normally, movement
> requires time, but is this true with non-physical objects ? Maybe it
> wouldn't be necessary.
If you take, for example, the universe of interacting ideas, there need
not be any time element involved; their interactions would be solely
determined by what they were, with no room for temporal variations.

> We also can imagine a 2-d world, non-physical of
> course, with or without movement. We can also imagine
> a physical world with no time and no movement.
To me, spatial dimensions == physical.

[snip]
> Can we imagine a world with no causes, only random
> phenomenons ? That would litterally be a mad world.
ww', i're 3gij3lii'!

;-)

> Can we imagine a world where time would be
> single-directional (only past, or only future ?)
[snip]

AFAIK, time in our universe is pretty much uni-directional. :-)

Although you could get an interesting perspective if you looked at
space-time as an outside observer: there would be no future and no past in
your reference frame, history is just laid out before you in its entirety.
You would not be constrained to experience events chronologically; you
could simply look at the end and the beginning whenever you wanted to, and
explore space-time in any manner you wish.

<shameless plug>
Of course, one need not push the envelope this far to get to interesting
territory. As the more other-worldly aspects of the Ebisédian conworld
proves, one only has to monkey with physics a little bit to get a very
interesting universe to play with.

For example, the Ferochromon universe (space, matter, and force) is built
of a single kind of material, a kind of universal "quantum" that can
function as space, matter, or force. In their highest state, each quanta
is simultaneously space, matter, and force; as matter, it indwells itself
as space, and is the vibrational force of itself. Several levels of
differentiation exist; the first of which is function--in inhabitable
parts of the Ferochromon, the quanta have differentiated into space,
matter, and force. The "space quanta" form the space in which the "matter
quanta" exist, and the "force quanta" cause interactions to occur between
the "matter quanta".

The second level of differentiation is mode (which will take too long to
explain here), and the third is extent. This last give rise to such
phenomena as the "boiling" of matter, which can cause it to begin to lose
its finite extent and become indeterminate in shape and occupy
indeterminate amounts of space. Similarly, space quanta under certain
conditions can themselves become indeterminate in extent, causing the
concepts of position and motion to become blurred, and causing rigid
objects to be impossible. For the sake of space [pun intended], I'll only
mention without elaboration that the "extent" of space quanta includes
dimensionality as well.
</shameless plug>


T

--
Many open minds should be closed for repairs. -- K5 user

Reply