[jveld]

It seemed to me like the author of the article was playing a bit loose with Wittgenstein's ideas. Isn't the idea that gravity is merely a "translation" of the curvature of spacetime an example of precisely the kind of Tractatus-speak that the language game idea was meant to demolish? Or am I missing something.

[danharaj]

The idea the author seems to try to hint at is what i would call a Functor if we were talking about Categories:

- Language games have structure

- Structures can be compared by correspondences/functions

- A particular concept in one language game therefore could be transported along such a correspondence into another language game.

- We don't have a good correspondence between the language games of biology and physics that allows us to transport "life" from biology to physics.

- Or do we!???

P.S. It occurs to me that my analogy with categories and functors is itself a transport between the language game of category theory and the language game of language games.

[jveld]

> It occurs to me that my analogy with categories and functors is itself a transport between the language game of category theory and the language game of language games.

Bahahahahaha! Brilliant.

If I remember my category theory correctly, wouldn't this mean that you've discovered a Monad between the language game of category theory and the language game of language games?

If so, we could create the most incomprehensible monad tutorial yet written! Now there's a real achievement.

[danharaj]

Ah no, no monads here i'm afraid :)