YMS: “But that defines horse

YMS:
“But that defines horse in terms of other Things: that slippery chain of metaphors and metonyms eventually leads to no-thing.”
So, in other words, we can define ‘horse’ without referring to ‘no-thing’ — a term, by the way, you have yet to explain, and one that does not occur in the dictionary (so even dictionary makers don’t use this mythical word of yours).
To see how far removed from reality this idea of yours is, try explaining to a child what a horse is. You will find that at no point will you refer to ‘no-thing’.
Moreover, is there anything that is, has or could be defined by reference to ‘no-thing’ (especially if we do not yet understand ‘no-thing’)?
“Since there is no intrinsic connection between signifier and signified the only real reference is to historical locutions – every word is meaningful only in the context of where it has last/usually been used, and is thus a metaphor for itself. As I’m sure you’ll know, denotations are actions of naming, simply to refer to a cigarrette is to enact the fact that the object in question is like unto the object previously referred to by the term cigarrette.”
You seem to think all words are names. They aren’t..
But, how does this provide the proof I requested? Here it is again:
“I’d like to see the non-metaphorical proof (which, if you are correct, will have to be written in a non-human language) that “human language…[is]…ultimately metaphorical.””
Now, if all language is metaphorical, then so is your ‘proof’ (which you unwisely expressed in language). This means that your ‘proof’ isn’t a proof.
On the other hand, if your ‘proof’ is literal, then not all language is metaphorical (since at least this ‘proof’ is not metaphorical), and hence your ‘proof’ isn’t a proof after all.
Either way, your ‘proof’ is not a proof.
“They can be connected, over time, but, if space/time is absolute, then not synchronically. However, that does no disprove connection (or, rather, interconnection), if I were tied to you by a (very long) piece of elastic, that was incredibly stretchy, we could go our whole lives without ever feeling any effect from such a laggy band, except one day, after many years, when it reaches its limit. We would still have been connected for all that time.”
Once again, this is not so. The light cone argument shows that they can’t be causally connected, ever.
“Now, as for connected, I would say I’m using it in the sense that my actions will have an effect upon another object through transmission: connection does not have to be direct or immediate. Or, put another way, I equate connection with casuality, which, in the context of the big bang theory means everything is connected in common cause and its transmission through the cosmos.”
So, you are using ‘connected’ to mean ‘causally connected’ — your problem is now to show — as opposed merely to assert or assume — that everything is now causally connected with everything else in the entire universe, and for all of time.
Good luck gathering the almost infinite amount of data you will have to collect to prove that one!
“She would be right, in a banal sense, that since the humans I interact with are connected to the web, and I can (and do) use it through them, I am connected regardless of whether I am in possession of a portal or not.”
In that case, save yourself some money and cancel the engineer’s call. Or, throw your phone away. After all, even without a phone, you are connected with everything in the universe, including the internet, and your friends.
In fact, you could ruin the entire internet and phone economy — for if this good news got out, we could all throw our phones and computers away. Even without them we would still be connected to the internet and to one another.
“And I think you need to re-read it, those points are synchronous space/time co-ordinates of absolute position, in the ‘real’ universe, over time the effect does spread, and, if the universe is limited, then all points in space will be eventually effected by an event in space/time.”
Well, as far as I can see, this will never happen; here is the relevant section (bold added):
“Because signals and other causal influences cannot travel faster than light (see special relativity), the light cone plays an essential role in defining the concept of causality- for a given event E, the set of events that lie on or inside the past light cone of E would also be the set of all events that could send a signal that would have time to reach E and influence it in some way. For example, at a time ten years before E, if we consider the set of all events in the past light cone of E which occur at that time, the result would be a sphere (2D: disk) with a radius of ten light-years centered on the future position E will occur. So, any point on or inside the sphere could send a signal moving at the speed of light or slower that would have time to influence the event E, while points outside the sphere at that moment would not be able to have any causal influence on E. Likewise, the set of events that lie on or inside the future light cone of E would also be the set of events that could receive a signal sent out from the position and time of E, so the future light cone contains all the events that could potentially be causally influenced by E. Events which lie neither in the past or future light cone of E cannot influence or be influenced by E in relativity….
“Keep in mind, we’re talking about an event, a specific location at a specific time. To say that one event cannot affect another, that means that there isn’t enough time for light to get from one to the other. Light from each event will eventually (after some time) make it to the old location of the other event, but since that’s at a later time, it’s not the same event.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
YMS:
“I don’t need to prove that, since I’ve never asserted it.”
Here is what you posted:
“If light is everywhere (and when) at once, then we are all simultaneously bathed in the same universal sea of light, which touches us all.”
This is indeed a hypothetical proposition, the truth of which does not depend on the truth of the antecedent.
But, this is what you posted before that:
“It was a source, IIRC, for where I got the notion that light could be everywhere at once.”
Now, it seems to me that you are trying to support your claim that light is everywhere all at once in order to support your other idea that everything is connected. In that case, there doesn’t seem to be any other way you could support the consequent of the above hypothetical than by asserting the truth of the antecedent.
If that isn’t the case, and I misinterpeted you, I apologise, but I hope you can see that this was the only way I could make sense of your enigmatic/metaphorical prose.
“So much for linguistic philosophy.”
Well, this has nothing to do with linguistic philosophy, but has more to do with your enigmatic way of expressing yourself.
In fact, a crash course in Linguistic Philosophy would help you express yourself more clearly.