What is empty space? Is it nothingness? Is it actually possible to have true nothingness? Could empty space be to us what a block of glass is to a ray of light?
How big is the universe? Does it have a hard edge? What lies outside the edge? What would you see if you went close to the edge and tried to stick your neck outside? Most likely some einstein will come up with a law (or already has) something like:  ”the closer you get to the edge, the harder it will be to get to the edge” and so on, the way they all go.

If empty space inside the universe is nothingness, then what do we call whatever is outside the universe? Is “outside the universe” an oxymoron?

Just like we need bad people to know who the good people are, just like the word “up” would be meaningless if there were no “down”, similarly the word “inside” has no meaning if there were no “outside”. So, if there is something such as “inside” the universe, there has to be something “outside” it as well.

Now, maybe that “something” that is outside is actually “true nothingness”, to keep things congruent. Just like we use the number zero to represent the absence of a quantity, we could use the “true nothingness” of outside the universe as a cosmic zero, a cosmic null, a cosmic void.

But note, if the stuff that’s outside the edge is true nothingness, it means the stuff inside the edge cannot be. It means the “empty space” we see between the stars cannot be nothingness. It is something that we *perceive* as nothingness, because perhaps that empty space is the reference baseline upon which our universe is built..it is the true origin of our actual co-ordinate system.

Looking at this from another angle, if the universe consists of scattered bodies of matter, where the intervening space is true nothingness, then it means that there is no interaction between the bodies. Hence it makes no sense to aggregate the bodies into a “universe”. Rather each body ought to be treated as its own universe. But, because we know that there *is* interaction between the bodies, implies that there *is* something in the space between the bodies that allows for transmission of information, hence it cannot be nothingness. Leading us to a fundamental assumption I am making: That it is not possible to transmit information non-destructively through nothingness.

The moment a piece of information is injected into a blob of nothingness, the blob ceases to be nothingness. Why should the nothingness allow the information to be transmitted in a linear path from one edge to another? Why won’t it just eat up and absorb the energy comprising the information to satisfy its own hunger, to reduce its own vaccuum pressure? Therefore, to  transmit a bit of information across a distance in space, there *must* be a substrate which allows/enables that transmission.

There is a possible fundamental flaw in the entire approach, i.e considering the universe to be finite to start with. If the universe did have an edge and there were nothingness outside, then the propensity to expand to fill the void would always be greater than the propensity to contract back against the void’s will. Also, if the universe exists and is finite, and there is nothingness outside, then the net result is positive. Wouldn’t it make more sense if the universe were positive, and the stuff outside is negative, resulting in a net zero? Which would then mean that the area outside is just another universe with its polarity reversed. Maybe the edge between these two universes is consequently dynamic, oscillating back and forth causing a cyclical alternating change in the sizes of both positive and negative universes. To me this provides a more acceptable scenario where everything is “occupied”, rather than having to endorse the concept of “nothingness” existing on its own.

There is also another option. That our single universe is infinite. The scattered bodies of concentrated matter represent the positive, and the empty space in between is actually the negative, resulting in a net zero. Again, this argues that the empty space between the bodies is not actually nothingness, rather it is some kind of negative existence that we cannot see. But it does allow for transmission of information non-destructively.

So, either way, if  existence exists, it must be infinite. Nothingness cannot exist. If it were to exist, it cannot be nothingness.

Then comes our own role. Do we exist merely because we do? Because we must? Or are we a fluke? Is mankind’s existence having any effect on the path of the universe at all? If we were the goal of existence, why would the rest of the universe even exist outside the solar system? Does it really exist? Is it all my imagination? Should I even care?

All I know is, whenever I exit highway 280 on Wolfe Road and pass the TGI Fridays on the right, my cheeks begin to ache from the salivary projectiles shooting inside my mouth. And I just have to stop by and get myself a nice full rack of baby back ribs, glazed with jack daniels sauce and a mug of beer to go with. The universe may not be ready to spill its secrets yet, but it sure as hell makes one heavenly dish. How can I not exist?

Lately while doing research on automated language translation, I’ve come to realize that there isn’t a clear, concise, well accepted definition of human language itself. A quick check on google reveals the wealth of interpretations. So then, kindly, let me proffer one more.

Language is the serialization of thought.

The term “serialization” should be ready accessible to programmers et al. For others, a quick explanation is in order. Serialization is the process of taking a complex (e.g wide) entity and transforming it, re-constructively,  such that is can be passed through a much simpler (e.g narrower) channel. A typical requirement for correct serialization is the ability to de-serialize the serialized data to result in exactly the original entity.

A very simple analogy would be “serializing” a bunch of untidy children through a narrow gate, one child at a time. The only caveat being that, if the serialization process was perfect, then the children would regroup on the other side in the exact same configuration as before the serialization started.
Once the concept of serialization is clear, the intent of my definiton of language should also be clear, although you may or may not agree with it.

If we go along this line of thought (pardon the pun), a corollary immediately follows:

Language is the ultimate compression engine.

Why?

If we believe that human thought is one of the most complex phenomena known to us, and if language allows serialization of a complex thought into a small compact representation that can be communicated and stored in a myriad of ways, and ultimately easily de-serialized by target humans to reveal the original thought, then the corollary must be true.

When one thinks hard to solve a problem, it is likely he or she uses bits of language in self-communication to focus attention on particular aspects, annotate the intermediate results, and proceed one by one onto higher level steps. Although the most revealing flashes of insight most likely occur during a moment of unbounded “massively parallel” thought, knowledge of language undoubtedly plays a role in allowing the thinker to carry out elaborate thought experiments.

In primitive cultures (or in someone never exposed to the concept of language), undoubtedly the enterprising inventors of that time devised their own methods of mentally labelling specific ideas with individual symbols, and then using those symbols to ease the task of deriving higher level constructs.

Also, if the above corollary holds weight, I think it has some additional fantastic implications.

This means that if we were to one day achieve “brain dumps”, or “downloading a brain” and their ilk, the best format to allow accurate storage and re-construction would be plain text! If the brain could somehow be tricked into emitting a high speed lecture on its current and past states, then the language best suited for that would be the mother-tongue of the brain’s owner. Nothing else we conceive will probably ever come close in accuracy or compactness.

Of course, this does not bode well for automated machine translation attempts. To be fully successful at that task, implies the ability to de-serialize a piece of text into the original speaker’s thoughts. If we accept that human thought is one of the most complex or mysterious activities known to mankind, then we are accepting that automated machine translation is a pipe dream for many years to come.

On the other hand, if the code of language does get cracked soon, will it mean that human thought is not so complex after all?