Natural Language in its Purest Form

"A change in language can transform our appreciation of the cosmos."

-Benjamin Lee Whorf

In Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science, Werner Heisenberg describes the concepts of natural language as a representation of reality and even goes so far as to say that it gives us an “immediate connection to reality” (171). He worries that the precise axioms and definitions used in scientific language interferes with this connection and is sceptical about its ability to transcend the actual. These obstructions became even more complicated when quantum theory fundamentally changed our understanding of reality in the early 20th century because it introduced an element of possibility to physical phenomena which altered the way we understand the cosmos and our sense experience on earth. Heisenberg claims that by basing our understanding upon the natural language “we can be certain to touch reality” (172). However, if reality itself contains an element of possibility according to quantum mechanics, how can we say for sure that our language is touching something that may or may not be there? Natural language is helpful insofar as it can be a channel of communication between the earthly and spiritual realms. In theory, it can offer us a sense of connection with the spiritual world. Though natural language is no more than a closed system* in and of itself considering that any living soul that cannot speak (or speak the language) cannot participate in this system.

Let me explain.

Like science and religion, natural language is a tradition that has been constructed. A social construct so to speak. And although social constructs are widely accepted and often

allusive, they have very definitive boundaries which have been designed to keep knowledge and followers of this knowledge contained within a certain area. To put it plainly, they can be controlled and anything that can be controlled can also be manipulated. This means that natural language has the potential to take us further away from reality if we are not careful. Ironically, Heisenberg offers us a prime example of how natural language can be

manipulated within his argument in favour of natural language when he states that “we must be sceptical about any scepticism with regard to this natural language and its essential concepts” (172). Here we have an influencer who is persuading his followers to be cautious of those who question the limits of natural language because this scepticism runs the risk of undermining other closed systems like religion. Contradictory to this, Heisenberg acknowledges the very real possibility that the “human ability to understand may be in a certain sense unlimited” (172) which suggests that he is also cognizant to the limitlessness of reality itself, or at least what we understand about reality. Moreover, he repeatedly refers to language as “natural language” in this book, which implies that our languages grew "naturally" in nature, when in fact, they did not. In truth, they grew from something (the human species) that grew from nature which means that, at best, they can give us a second-hand connection to reality. These contradictions within Heisenberg’s argument remind us that we need to be cautious of our “natural” languages because they have fabricated (human-made) limits. We must be wary of these limits because our capacity for thought far exceeds these boundaries that have been circumscribed for us. And while it may be true that our languages can “touch” reality (as Heisenberg says), we will always need words that push past these boundaries of tradition. Words that transcend the actual. We want to caress reality, not merely “touch” and poke at it.

Since nature speaks most strongly through movement, body language needs to be

considered our most natural language. There are simply no words in existence that could do

justice to the most phenomenal thoughts we think or the most profound feelings we feel.

However, this is not a design flaw, but rather a testament to the mystical powers within nature herself. The good thing about modern physics, is that it has taught us to be sceptical of the “natural” sciences (i.e. mathematics, physics, chemistry), better referred to as “classical physics” due to their conventional design. Heisenberg argues that “concepts of mind, of the human soul, or of life” (169) became quite lost in the 20th century because our “natural sciences” were developing (or at least trying to develop) within an “extremely rigid” and narrow framework (169). Consequently, these confining systems slowed the development of nature (as one whole) because as Heisenberg says “natural science turned into technical science; every advancement of knowledge was connected to the question as to what practical use could be derived from it” (169). This meant that most scientists were focusing their attention on material causation specifically while abandoning the sources of causation that acknowledge the soul and the purposiveness of the universe (therefore, the purposiveness of our being as well) which arguably could have encouraged the development of nature throughout the last century rather than stalling it. Alternatively stated, scientists were no longer feeling nature, they were merely observing it whilst using the “refined tools that technical science had provided (169). As a result, “the masses” were presented with a mere representation of reality rather than reality itself, or in Heisenberg’s words “idealizations”, in which our “immediate connection with reality [was] lost” (171) through such “precise definitions”. This is not to say that there were not achievements and advancements made within the different branches of science during this time-period however, as there were many useful accomplishments worth recognizing of course.

Furthermore, it is not our natural language that inhibited this growth for it is not our

natural language which allows us to feel nature. It is our bodies that allow us to feel nature because our skin is our largest and most powerful sensory organ. This organ has been specially designed to perceive certain kinds of stimulus in nature so that we may better

adapt to the changes around us, and admittedly, the biology used to describe these cellular processes is yet another closed system itself. This is particularly concerning because according to Heisenberg “most of the progress made in biology in the past hundred years has been achieved through the application of chemistry and physics to the living organism” (92) which ultimately means that we have been using two closed systems to understand another closed system that seeks to explain the life in us, rather than us. In a way, our natural tendency towards closed systems is symbolic of the truths that will always remain beyond the reach of our sense experience. Arguably, our capacity to touch, see, smell, taste, and hear came after our capacity to feel. And while it may be a bit far-fetched to claim that plants and trees can hear us, it may be possible that they can feel us, or at least feel our energy. This communication is transferred through body language since it is our expression through energy and movement that connects us most directly with reality. Because reality was more likely energy before it was energy and particles and because it is the experiences that wrap around our soul that we feel most intensely, and which bring us a higher understanding of “life” in general, wouldn't you agree?

Lastly, we need to account for the subjectivism within natural language by admitting to its deficiencies. Quantum theory has taught us that there can be error in our observations about the world and if there are errors in our observations about the world, then there is error in our language processing as well. If the probability function is being applied to atomic events then it should be applied to our sound energy too. But in a wider context. Rather than deducing language to a mere “communication system” or a branch of artificial intelligence, we should be nurturing our capacity for speech and sound and use these gifts to connect with nature in more meaningful ways for the following reason. If reality is in fact, contradictory like quantum theory suggests, so must be our methods we use to study it. And though there may be some who find “the enormous and extremely complicated

experimental equipment” (Heisenberg 33) needed for research in quantum physics “impressive”; in addition to listening to sounds very closeup and measuring the individual particles of sound using advanced quantum microphones to take measurements, we should be listening to the sounds of nature from an owl’s earshot as well. A distant perspective yet remarkably sensitive and exact. In other words, we need the local and global perspective in our search for truths to account for the dualism that exists in the cosmos. Heisenberg notes that in modern physics, it is now more convenient to speak of “matter waves” than of “particles” especially when dealing with radiation emitted by the atom” (50). He says that “by means of its frequencies and intensities the radiation gives information about the oscillating charge distribution in the atom, and there the wave picture comes much nearer to the truth"(Heisenberg 50) than what we can see and touch ("the particle picture”) and if this is the case than it is possible that language does in fact offer us a representation of the truth which may be our next best option after feeling in the case of knowing reality. However, the problem remains that natural language is by no means an objective system since any living souls that cannot speak the language are bullied out of the conversation by default. Conversations that affect the evolution of their species and their chances of survival. This subjectivism must be accounted for.

For better or worse, our species speaks for the trees. We speak for the plants, the animals, each other, the water, the stars, the planets and everything in between. We speak for things that could easily be closer to reality than we are. However, if speaking means speaking through language then we need to remain sceptical of our proxy power over the cosmos because anything that holds the potential to twist reality, cannot and probably should not touch it. Language is something that can be manipulated, therefore, we cannot expect it to give us a direct connection with reality. It can be a medium, yes, but it still needs to be regarded as a persuasive tool or a deceptive instrument that can be used to discuss issues which concern the living organisms it seeks to persuade and deceive. We need to acknowledge our advantage and start feeling nature’s body language so that we may better understand her yearnings as well as her needs.

Sincerely,

Heather

*A closed system is a system that does not interact with other systems. Typically, its specifications are very rigid so as to

prevent interference from other networks. Language, science, religion and the specific systems within these systems (e.g. Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Judaism, Islam, Christianity etc.) and the subgroups within these specific systems (e.g. Egyptian Arabic, Gulf Arabic, Maghrebi Arabic, Algebra, Mandarin, Wu, Yue, Demotic, Standard Modern, Pontic, Geometry, Calculus, Atomic Physics, Nuclear Physics, Biophysics, Analytical Chemistry, Biochemistry, Hasidic Judaism, Sunni, Catholicism etc.) are all examples of "closed systems".

"I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."

-Dr. Suess

Note: This post was inspired by my very gifted 225/325 LBST class with whom I had the pleasure of studying with this semester. Together, we attempted to deconstruct this fascinating piece of writing by Werner Karl Heisenberg (1901-1976) who was a very inspiring and talented German theoretical physicist.

Works Cited

Heisenberg, Werner. Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. London.

George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1958. pp. 32-176.