11 seconds no timeouts <| sep |> I have a long story to tell about being an Outsider in a Utah community that is run by direct descendants of BY and would have to be the twice slimed or having had the second anointing TBM and how devastating their veiled contempt for nonchurch people can be . I would write out this story today except I want to focus on gratitude on Thanksgiving . My partner and I got out alive and for that I am grateful . Not being dramatic our lives were threatened repeatedly and we were stalked . It could have been much much worse . Also because I am not exmo , I ' m not sure anyone here wants to hear this story . It is LDS related but not from an exmo POV . <| sep |> English is invented . Period . You do not discover a new language . Early prototypes for language were basic symbols , which evolved to more complicated symbolism the symbols begin to mean specific things , and eventually developed more as the human brain grew more complex . I . e . we gained the capacity for more abstract thought , and our language reflects it . Even in contemporary theories of metaphors we learn that humans have a terrible grasp on abstract concepts , and therefore use more concrete ideas to represent the abstract ones this is the heart of what a metaphor is . E . g . COLORS ARE EMOTIONS a collection of metaphors is denoted by caps lock as a convention . You ' re feeling green today , or blue . I ' m red with anger , etc . We don ' t know how to talk about emotions well , so we map the concept onto colors and associate a color with an emotion . Of course this isn ' t to say that colors are the ONLY way we describe emotions . Indeed , the George Lakoff even suggested EMOTIONS ARE LIQUID . This is meant to highlight that we ' re inventing language as we go . Accurate predictions about the world are not made with a language . We can use language to describe the world , but we cannot use the structure of language to make a predictive model of the world . Iinventing a word like FLABARG has zero predictive qualities . Even an invented sentence structure noun verb noun verb verb adjective noun adjective has no predictive power regarding the world . FLABARG TABLE VORGOPULUS BUNTARK PORATICK has zero meaning and makes absolutely no predictions . It ' s hogwash . Sure , I can suggest FLABARG is a noun and follows the rules of a noun it pluralized to FLABARGS , has a gerund FLABARGING , etc . I can even convince people to use it and prescribe it a definition . But I ' m not predicting anything . I ' m using the logical structure of language to invent new language , but I ' m not saying anything about the world . Now moving on to mathematics . Is it a language ? This is an open question . It has the structure of a language , it has recursive options like a language , and welldefined rules . It evokes meaning and there is even some debate regarding the beauty of certain mathematical expressions , much like language e . g . poetry . However math fails the criteria to be a language on a few fronts . Where ' s the metaphors ? Every language has metaphors . Some people suggest math does have metaphors ~ aubrympublications 2009 metaphorsinmathematics . pdf . Unfortunately I don ' t have the depth of math knowledge to assess whether this is a good conjecture . However I do have enough background to bring up another point of contention can we communicate about anything we want with math ? Can I tell you how my day went , what I ' m feeling , and what I want for dinner using mathematics alone ? I ' ll even issue a challenge to you I want your entire reply to my comment to be given in the language of mathematics . Every other language has this feature , why doesn ' t math ? Don ' t get me wrong , I ' d love to view math as a language , but I don ' t think we can do it in good faith . Lastly , I ' d like to posit why this entire notion of whether math is a language is missing the overarching point . What ' s the point ? Your original statement math isnt any more or less mystical than sanskrit . Firstly , I disagree with the word mystical here , and I also disagree with the notion . Sanskrit is a tool a language used to communicate . Math describes Nature and even has predictive power . Newton invented Calculus to describe planetary motion . Math was invented to describe Nature . Beautiful . However , Complex Numbers were discovered . Little did we know , many years later , Shrodinger would develop an quantum mechanical evolution equation which shook the foundation of physics forever . Implicit in Shrodinger ' s equation was i , the imaginary number ! It seems even though this discovered aspect of mathematics seemed to carry little to no meaning , eventually we linked it to a physical notion quantum mechanics . Regardless of how we interpret QM , the fact remains that it describes Nature and really well ! and requires complex numbers . BTW , without QM , we wouldn ' t have computers ! As I ' m sure you know , as your flair is theory of computing . Now this has a few deeper consequences what does this imply about the connection between math and physics ? A chicken and the egg . it seems as math becomes more developed , we ' re probing into the very structure of reality . And this brings me around to my original point regarding language language has no predictive power . Math does . Group theory and Lie Algebras can describe the Standard Model of physics . We can extend these models adding more dimensions , and test these models at the Large Hadron Collider , colliding protons at nearly the speed of light v 0 . 999999991 c . Some of these models will fail , only one can be right . The entire collection of these are Beyond Standard Model theories , or BSM for short . Each of them makes predictions supersymmetric particles is a very appealing one . There are other models , like strings . Not as appealing , but they are a model . Now sure , I see your immediate contention but we can also use ordinary language like English to describe what we think will happen e . g . Heat death of Universe . But again this is a description . BSM theories make explicit predictions about the structure of nature , e . g . at high energies , super symmetric particles spring into existence and these particles pop right out of the math ! Regardless of what we call them , they exist in the mathematical framework . Call them squarks or cooties or FLAGART doesn ' t matter . They exist in the framework , and we can test its existence . Good enough argument ? Hopefully my unique stance with a BS in math physics , as well as a minor in Linguistics provides deeper insight . TLDR English is invented , not discovered . Math is more mystical than Sanskrit mystical is a poor word here , so I ' ll say math has a deeper connection to Nature than Sanskrit ever could .