言語認知物理学

第1話

About speech

Is it not correct when some person says the words “I am a human”? Based on the act of speech being contained in physical phenomena, a person saying “I am a human” is an act of speech as a physical phenomenon. “I am a human” was said from the standpoint of the 1 side of the equation 0=1. Thus, this is not only something actually said by a “human”, but also matches the two methods of the physical phenomenon itself and the act of speech.

So what happens if a person says “I am a human and I am also a dog at the same time”? From the standpoint of the side of the phenomenon, that is, the 1 side, although the phrase “I am a human” is correct, the phrase “and I am also a dog at the same time” appears to be incorrect. However, the existential form as a dog is hidden in a potential world, in other words, it is contained in a zero world where the percentage is greater than 0 and less than 100, and if we understand that only the human side protrudes from the surface of the potential world, this utterance can also be said to be correct.

Next is the case of saying “I am not a human but am a dog”. In this case also, although “not a human” and “am a dog” differ from the reality of “am a human and not a dog”, 0=1 can also be referred to as the contradiction set, and it does not matter whether the state or representation differs from the content of the utterance. Thus, since the relationship 0=1 is inferred between the representation world and the separate potential world, although an actual person is not a dog, the utterance “am a dog and not a human” is not a problem in 0 set theory. Furthermore, the “dog” that is not a human is hidden in potential, and if the human now comes to the surface, then since in the other world it can be thought of as the human is hidden and the dog comes to the surface, even when a person says “I am a dog not a human”, this claim holds within the equation 0=1.

Now, consider the following scenario. What happens for the utterance “Humans can tell any number of lies by using words and can say any number of complete lies unlike physical phenomena which are based on the laws of physics”?

Although I have stated many times that linguistic phenomena always match physical phenomena and do not lie, the above utterance uses the statements “Language lies. It can also violate physical phenomena”. If we assume that the last statement is correct, then we ignore that language cannot violate physical phenomena and although that statement means that language violates physical phenomena, the state is maintained in reality where words violate physical phenomena while at the same time we also get that language matches physical phenomena. Thus, although this relationship is clearly inconsistent, since the laws of physics and the laws of linguistics do not exist from the 0 standpoint in the 0=1 equation, the laws of physics and the laws of linguistics naturally do not need to form a mutual relationship, while from the 1 standpoint, both the laws of physics and the laws of linguistics are required, and the two sets of laws must match. Incidentally, since 0=1, there is also a proposition that an inconsistent relationship is formed by the laws of physics and the laws of linguistics in this inconsistent equation. Although the statement “words can create any number of lies by ignoring the laws of physics and physical phenomena” that I gave earlier is also an idea of the same physical phenomena, the inconsistency of the content of the idea along with the laws of physics ignoring the laws of physics themselves causes the inconsistencies themselves to derive inconsistent linguistic content through language that is already inconsistent with the equation 0=1.

Let us instead consider the case of uttering “I am not a human but am a dog and completely deny the potential possibility and certify that my existential form in my current real representation is tangibly not a human but is a dog”. In this case, since a large difference from the content of the speech as seen up to now is that “completely deny the potential possibility” was uttered, although from the 1 standpoint of 0=1, it is acceptable to say these words as an act of speech based on the laws, saying that something that is clearly a human is a dog in a form that completely denies the part where the existential form of a dog is hidden in potential, if “certify that the tangible representation is a dog” cannot take the 1 standpoint, then it also cannot take the potential side of greater than 0 and less than 100 and what is left is only standing on the side of perfect zero. However, from the standpoint of perfect zero, since the act of speech is a legal act, although the speech was spoken based on the laws, since this precedes the existence of zero itself, as explained earlier, the zero element cannot be spoken about. When language is spoken in only perfect zero, since the act of the language itself has a relationship that is equivalent to 0, the act of speech itself has a relationship equal to 0. Since the act of speech that is equal to 0 completely loses a legal character, the idea “I completely deny the potential possibility and certify that I am tangibly not a human but am a dog” raised earlier completely loses that legal character. In other words, this linguistic phenomenon gives a language without legal character, and naturally the act of speech that does not follow the laws becomes the same as not performing the act itself. Because of this, the side of the physical phenomena that the content of those words means or acts on similarly does not exist as physical phenomena based on the laws of physics. The physical representation in the laws of physics corresponding to this act of speech becomes nonexistent.

Conversely, thinking phenomenologically from the ability to also put into words that words cannot exist as physical phenomena that are completely not based on the laws of physics, this “foundationless speaking” is an indirect method of proof, and it is possible to prove the existence of the zero element that cannot be arrived at absolutely by a method of proof by contradiction.