[Pompidou]

> any abstract word can be broken down into simpler words which in the end describe some spatial relationship

What if my computing model rely on quantum phenomenon ? Maybe some of them don't have good visual representation. But it's a guess. I don't know...

Regarding the global idea of your comment: what about languages such as J it APL or BQN ? In such languages each character is an atomic part of algorithms (in j, two characters are used to implement dynamic IF for instance. One character only is used to define the dimensional depth of each part of algorithms). In this way, iversonnian languages can be seen as general and pure visual representation of algorithms once you consider each J or APL character as an arbitrary glyph.

[andoando]

Well consider this: There is some set of words which describe quantum physics perfectly.

If what I am saying is true (that human language maps to transformations of space-time) then this theoretical computer should be able to represent quantum phenomena.

Im not familiar at all with APL or BQN but I think I understand what youre saying. I think the main point here isnt simply that you can represent programs visually, but that the visuals do exactly what you see. A "combine" instruction for example would literally be the visual of two objects with empty space transforming to the two objects being together.

[Pompidou]

I love yout idea regarding language. I would check more deeply this idea. If so, I should examine 1) if language denote reality (maybe language is something else, like mutuallity of inner representation of reality, wich is different thant reality itself). If so, 2) if language can describe reality (maybe it will always miss some part). If so, 3), the sign (the written language) has to be able to fit to language (I don't know if we have the proof that language is 100% reductible to written language - think about written irony who let the reader sometime in absolutely indecidable choice, while in spoken situation it's clearly irony). It's a very vast subject ! Thank you for all the questions you raised in my mind.

[andoando]

Its been a wild ride thinking about this. Start paying attention to how many times you use spatial relations to talk about abstract things that seemingly have nothing to do with physical reality. Even in programming we often use language like "Run x THROUGH y, if it COMES OUT as z GO BACK to...". One can imagine a visual representation where x,y,z are just differently colored balls representing some other structure in space/time, with the x ball going through the y ball, and coming out as some other ball which moves back to something in the opposite direction.

Everything that happens happens in space and time, so it makes total sense that we have this common denominator of reasoning spatially that ties together images, written language, and sound.

I don't make a distinction between "reality" and the mental conception of reality. By all pragmatic takes, my mental experience IS reality. Anything beyond the means of observation may as well not exist.

Now as to the question of whether language can represent any mental conception, I am not so sure, but merely being enough to represent any physical system is plenty, and of this ability I am sure. Surely if I show you a video of any random thing happening, you can describe in some words EXACTLY what is happening such that another person can recreate that state perfectly. Without any abstractions you could give a description of every single object/pixel in your view, and with "higher" level abstractions like "everything is moving" you can create a lossy representation (which is often enough depending on as depending on the purpose, we don't always care about the actually state of the exact state of system, but rather that it possesses some property. "Something is moving" vs "nothing is moving").