The photon "is" a wave.

or

The photon appears as a wave when constrained by certain instruments.

E-prime is a modification of English which removes the verb 'to be'.

So I appear as a person when viewed in a certain way?

The photon "is" a particle.

See the contradiction? Robin "is" a girl. Robin "is" a boy.

"isness" sets the brain into a midieval Aristotlean framework and makes it impossible to understand modern problems and opportunities.

The photon appears as a particle when constrained by other devices.

Standard English = Aristotlean Metaphysics

E-Prime = Operational/Existential formulation

Joe is a Communist, Mary is a dumb file-clerk, the universe is a giant machine, ect.

Dr. Albert Ellis has taken to writing in E-Prime.

Operationalism - the philosophy that tells us to define things by operations performed.

The software can change the functioning of the hardware in radical ways.

The wrong software guarantees wrong answers.

John is unhappy and grouchy.
John appears unhappy and grouchy in the office.

John is bright and cheerful.
John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.

Maybe, the photon "is" a wavicle.

Operationalism throws ontology out the window.

Or maybe it just appears to.

Because an ontology is a theory of existence. How can you have an ontology if you can't express "to be" in language? All ontology is thus overthrown for phenomenology. What kind of philosophy is that?

To be or not to be?

That is the question.

Can an ontology of everything not be expressed using a different, yet similar, mathematical formula?

Operationalisation - before a study can begin, a fundamental question must be
dealt with: How do I measure what I am interested in studying?

Using a different formulation without a difference in meaning is rather pointless in that it can only increase confusion, not decrease it.

Suppose I want to express the following in operationalist terms:

"The answer to your question is seven."

Then I would say:

"The answer to your question appears as seven."

That doesn't seem helpful.

You seem "appear" to be restricted by the singular term "appear" in articulating your thoughts, rather than developing any of the verbal potentialities that exist in the vernacular matrix.

The selection, organization, and interpretation of sensory input and translating said data into something meaningful and expressive.

I'm just saying midieval Aristolean dialectic "is" outdated in today's post-modern world and how interference within the verbal transmission of data relinquishes one to 17th and 19th century classical mechanical modes of thought, although adequate at initial level becomes an inappropriate form of wave transference.

On the same wavelenght, tuned in to the right frequency.

You seem "appear" to be restricted by the singular term "appear" in articulating your thoughts, rather than developing any of the verbal potentialities that exist in the vernacular matrix.

The selection, organization, and interpretation of sensory input and translating said data into something meaningful and expressive.

I'm just saying midieval Aristolean dialectic "is" outdated in today's post-modern world and how interference within the verbal transmission of data relinquishes one to 17th and 19th century classical mechanical modes of thought, although adequate at initial level becomes an inappropriate form of wave transference.

On the same wavelenght, tuned in to the right frequency.

Sorry for the echo, I was logged out.

Sensation "is" the stimulus of the sense organs. (the trigger effect)

I know that transferring as established a dialect as Standard English, engrained in to our cognizant mechanics for many centuries, into a new verbal form of dialect may be impossible, however the point remains that Standard English operates under the wrong frequency.

What (how) does the use of Standard English trigger in the post-modern brain?

You could nail down your argument by giving one example of a thought that can be expressed in operational terms that can't be expressed in conventional terms.

I thought that I had with the first two examples.

The first example, a "metaphysical" or Aristotelian formulation in Standard English becomes an operational or existential formulation when rewritten in English Prime.

Clearly, written in Standard English, "The photon is a wave," and "The photon is a particle" contradict each other, just like the sentences "Robin is a boy" and "Robin is a girl." Nonetheless, all through the nineteenth century physicists found themselves debating about this and, by the early 1920s, it became obvious that the experimental evidence depended on the instruments or the instrumental set-up (design) of the total experiment. One type of experiment always showed light traveling in waves, and another type always showed light traveling as discrete particles.

Quantum theorists proclaimed in despair that "the universe is not rational" (by which they meant to indicate that the universe does not follow Aristotelian logic.

If we look, again, at the translations into English Prime, we see that no contradiction now exists at all, no "paradox," no "irrationality" in the universe. We also find that we have constrained ourselves to talk about what actually happened in spacetime, whereas in Standard English we allowed ourselves to talk about something that has never been observed in spacetime at all -- the "isness" or "whatness" or Aristotelian "essence" of the photon. (Niels Bohr's Complementarity Principle and Copenhagen Interpretation, the technical resolutions of the wave/particle duality within physics, amount to telling physicists to adopt "the spirit of E-Prime" without quite articulating E-Prime itself.)

The Aristotelian universe assumes an assembly of "things" with "essences" or "spooks" inside of them, where the modern scientific (or existentialist) universe assumes a network of structural relationships.

I think the problem is that E' is a subset of E so that any statement in E' is automatically a statement in E, making proof (that E' is necessary to complete expression of reality) impossible.

I'm not following your line of thought here Rick.

Maybe as a result of the way the information has been presented (in Standard Enlish as oppsed to E-Prime).

In other words, huh?

No. Maybe I'm not getting it, but isn't E' just E with the verb "to be" (and all its forms) deleted? Doesn't that make E' merely a subset of E?

E(Enlish)-Prime as a subset of the english gestalt, as is Standard English?

Yes, a slightly tweeked/modified version of the English dialect that allows for better communication and transmission of fundamental ideas and thoughts.

Just what effect does a lesser magnetic field and higher vibratory rate have on us?

The wave of the future....

Emotions trigger specific biochemicals, which influence the chemical voltage and frequency of cells, to which molecules such as DNA respond. Therefore it is possible for our emotions to act as "switches" for "turning on" options within our DNA to make new amino acids (reports of spontaneous mutations are on the increase) in preparation for an evolutionary leap.

In Writing Degree Zero (1953), Roland Barthes states that the use of language has undergone a process of decreasing transparency. In the classical age, language was a transparent vehicle that conveyed a unified bourgeois consciousness. Today writing bears witness to the absence of universals.