Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
Could the characterization of the level of ABSTRACTION, on which the "hypothesis"/"statement" is "written" (using the means of the "natural language") serve indirectly as (at least) one of such quantative measure/criteria (for the purposes outlined below) ?
The higher level of abstraction in the expression then it is:
1) More difficult to verify it using "experimental data"
2) More difficult to judge it by "common sense" (if someone
wishes to use it in lack of 1) ).
3) More prone to logical mistakes due to inherent complexity
????
Alex
***********************
Gary,
What I'm looking for in all this is a way to improve the level of automation
for natural language applications. So an objective/subjective dichotomy would be better if it could be measured, predicted, calculated, and otherwise algorithmically determined. It doesn't have to be a validated measure, just
so long as it is useful.
Given such a measure, we could organize ambiguous interpretations into
those that are more objective versus those that are more subjective. That ranking would be useful, presumably, in working on utterances.
JMHO,
Rich