言語認知物理学

第1話

What existed before the birth of the universe? We could probably ultimately come to the conclusion that there was zero. However, how is 1 created from 0? So I tried thinking about it. When I thought about the set of 100% zeros, statistically 100% zeros means 1. In other words, from the standpoint of the 100% side, it means existence and reality. Let us look at an analogy. Is it possible to have a situation where a chef provides a dinner when they have absolutely no food ingredients? The chef is only able to give their customer a plate. This standpoint is the view that the set of 100% zeros is nothing more than 0. However, on the customer’s side, it is possible to find the thing called dinner. This is because if the zero set is 100%, then it definitely exists probabilistically according to probability theory.

Since language is always based on the laws of physics, language itself also cannot defy the laws of physics. The content that is spoken must also match nature, which is always governed by the laws of physics. For example, if I say that I am Taro, then a person called Taro exists but at the same time I could have said that I am not Taro. When we consider the latent possibilities, then although it is the same I, the I who is not Taro can be thought to exist under a hidden phenomenon. The universe is the set of 0, and the set of 0 is somewhere in the range between 0% and 100%. If it is 0%, then it is certainly 0 and does not exist, and if it is 100%, then it certainly exists, so being in the range of greater than 0 and less than 100 shows the possibility of potential existence in which the existence of contradictory language is hidden.

Therefore, I would like to think again in association with words. Language is not able to lie. The reason for this is that linguistic phenomena are also a subset of physical phenomena, and linguistic phenomena that are governed by laws of physics cannot violate the corresponding physical phenomena. Because of this, if all linguistic phenomena also always include potential phenomena, then we can assume that there is a corresponding phenomenon somewhere. So what happens when we utter an inconsistency? It would appear that both “I am currently writing this paper in Japan” and “I am currently writing this paper in Australia” cannot hold at the same time. However, what we call zero is analogous to an identity that holds no matter which values we substitute into it. Since the fundamental 0 is not intrinsic, it is also possible to have a state where Australia and Japan overlap as the same place, and there is no distinction between Australia and Japan. The phrase “I am writing this paper simultaneously in Australia and Japan” holds in the set of zero theory.

Since the universe is based on the laws of physics, linguistic phenomena are also based on physical phenomena. Therefore, for content uttered using language, the corresponding physical phenomenon must exist somewhere. In other words, language must always be true in some world. Then, surely we can say that the statement “We can know about the absolute fundamental zero” is true. Although the earlier assertion that language does not lie is the assertion that both linguistic phenomena and physical phenomena share the common point that they are based on physical principles, since the “absolute 0 fundamental 0” is thought to precede even the existence of the laws of physics themselves, then even if linguistic phenomena are based on the laws of physics, because the corresponding laws of physics do not have an absolute zero side, if the content of speech is from the standpoint of fundamental 0, then absolute zero is thought to be outside the laws of physics, and the act of speech based on the laws of physics is naturally thought to not be able to utter the absolute fundamental zero. The act of speech “I know fundamental 0” alone can be judged to be false.

My theory is a theory that attempts to simultaneously explain the world that exists from the world that does not exist based on a fundamental zero by taking it as values from 0% to 100%. Thus, I am speaking about that fundamental zero that cannot be spoken of from the start in terms of the fundamental zero that does not exist. If we assume that it is absolutely impossible to speak about fundamental 0, then my theory is completely wrong.

However, would that not be inconceivable? Even if we assume that linguistics is governed by laws, and we assume that the first fundamental 0 precedes fundamental principles and physical principles, since it is thought that a transition occurs from the set of fundamental zero on the language side, speaking about zero on the language side is possible if zero forms a language itself.

If we think about it, since language, which is governed by physical laws, is able to speak a zero that does not have laws, a language speaking about zero means that the fundamental 0 is contained in those laws in practice. In other words, a person speaking about zero simultaneously derives the relation “laws equal 0”, i.e., 0=1.

Although the thing that has always been a problem in the language of cosmology is what existed before the big bang, which gave birth to the universe 13.8 billion years ago, if we tentatively let this be 0, since existence cannot be created from perfect 0, then it is thought that it was not fundamental 0, but rather there was a small amount of something and that the universe expanded from that something. However, if there was something, then since we cannot explain where that something came from, the distinction between 0 and 1 is extremely inconvenient in terms of a unified explanation of the entire universe.

If language is unable to speak about a perfect fundamental 0, then since the words speaking about zero will always be judged to be false, we must clearly distinguish between language and 0, in other words, we come to the conclusion that 0 does not equal 1.

Although anyone can state “I can speak about perfect 0”, the standpoint of judging this phrase to be false is the same standpoint as 0 does not equal 1. However, if we take the standpoint that it is possible to speak about it and the spoken content is true, then it is true that 0=1. From the standpoint of linguistic cognitive physics, or the linguistic cognition theory of physics, the entire universe can be explained using the principle that the same physical principles act such that judging whether the content of language is true or false always matches the physical phenomena without performing any physical experiments. Since physics assumes that everything is observable and observes things that actually exist, if we assume that it holds that things that exist equal 0, then everything that is observable is actually the same as nothing existing, and all of the individual laws of physics and various theories are hypotheses that explain phenomena or empirical theories. The absolute definition is 0=1, and all of the individual theories are thought to be partial explanation theories that are contained within the density of 0. In other words, existence is hidden in density potential, and any number of worlds exist at the same time. This can be thought of as the composition of several waves or a composed function, where the function that happens to come to the surface is our world, and if it protrudes out from the side of the potential world, then it appears at the surface in the form of “our” world. However, if we think of “that” world as the center, then our world is hidden in the potential. Thus, a kind of relative relationship is formed.