Re: There is no logic here either: meaning is not compositional! (Was: Chicken and egg, with curry?)

On 03/04/2025 13:34, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

On 03/01/2025 21:04, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

A word is not a locution (not an idiom), and a dictionary is not an
encyclopedia: that is, *meaning is not compositional*!  Contrast with
the by now ubiquitous paradigm of compositionality from a foundation,
i.e. bottom-up from some fixed ground, with closure in category theory,
the other side of the same coin: and in spite of decades of warnings
from actual linguists, not to even mention the philosophers:

Or the pedagogists, or the anthropologists, or the cyberneticians.

indeed, from that point of view, what I am saying is pretty basic.
 But, preparing for my Nobel article, I have spent a week now looking for
"something else" in the mathematical and mathematico-logical literature,
namely, a genuine mathematisation, if not formalisation, of some notion
of "encyclopedic compendium" ("floating co-definitions"?), and I just
cannot yet find or see any of it... can you?
 Ah, the good old Leibniz and what a Monad actually is, or a
Characteristica Universalis.  Or, a seed and the plant...
 "It's a long way, back to where we were."

Or, number vs numeral.
Or, spatial vs temporal.
Or, structural vs ...?
But there is no such thing as a theory that is not a concrete theory:
even the most abstract category theory, to be a theory, is a synthetic
theory (I am learning).  So, there can be no numbers in a theory...(?)
Maybe I am pushing it too far: I am not sure.  What seems sure is that
compositionality is surely important but cannot be the only dimension.
Julio