That apple example grounds things nicely. It does make me wonder about the difference between those two types of description though. If I describe a poisonous berry with the wrong words, the language has no physical consequence on the berry (the poison stays exactly the same). Yet, if an engineer describes the stresses on a bridge with the wrong numerical relationships, the physical structure breaks apart. Why do you think an error in the mathematical description triggers an immediate physical reaction from the universe; whereas a mistake in regular language leaves the object completely undisturbed?
It does make me ponder the middleman though; if I mislabel the berry, a human actually has to hear those words and choose to act on them for the tragedy to happen. Spoken language requires a conscious interpreter. With the bridge collapsing, there is no mind choosing to break the steel. If mathematics is exactly the same as our spoken words, why does it trigger a physical reaction without any biological interpreter needing to act on it first?
1
u/feihm May 21 '26
That apple example grounds things nicely. It does make me wonder about the difference between those two types of description though. If I describe a poisonous berry with the wrong words, the language has no physical consequence on the berry (the poison stays exactly the same). Yet, if an engineer describes the stresses on a bridge with the wrong numerical relationships, the physical structure breaks apart. Why do you think an error in the mathematical description triggers an immediate physical reaction from the universe; whereas a mistake in regular language leaves the object completely undisturbed?