[inphovore]

You are on to something.

This may be the hundred billion dollar industry of the future (forget quantum coding, the qubit is a dead end.)

I admit I have devised a practical linguistic system with long term dreams of similar goals. I wonder how many closet nerds have done the same.

Features of this (conceptualized) linguistic system

- differentiation between an abstract assertion and a specific instance (and identity)

- complete articulation of subjective scoping (all systems are interoperations of subjective scopes)

- distinction between a terminal and non-terminal “fact”

- expansive handling of “truth” and “truthiness”

I call this the “Objectified Systemic Language” and it’s really about assertions and relationships and less on linear logic.

While logic and rules and constraints do come into things, this linguistic approach would postulate assertions and find resolve among potentials.

For instance, one might define morality as “do not destructively interfere with that which is inculpable”. Along with more intrinsic definitions of destructive interference, and culpability a competent learning system should work out that any circumstance in which one subjective destructively interferes with another subjective (without a lawful right for instance) is BAD.

I find intelligence to be more like chemistry, and we deceive ourselves as to the rational sequential order of our own intellectual processes.