Shape

161 Starting Over
appear. In fact, syntax and semantics are pretty much alike without words—neither is
usefully engaged when shapes are involved. To do shapes the way I want to, you have
to open your eyes to everything that seeing implies. It’s the ambiguity that counts. The
shape
is three squares, true enough—its semantics gets it right—and much more of equal
value, too.
My protagonist isn’t the only one to prefer the security of shared (definite) meaning
to the open-ended uncertainty of more. In the quotation that opens this part,
George A. Miller—an early cognitive scientist—tries the nifty formula
ambiguity ¼ noise
And Miller and my protagonist may see eye to eye. The message seems clear in the din
of agreement. They want to communicate with the received semantics in the way
they’re supposed to—what’s meant is what’s understood. There’s no reason for ambiguity.
Still, it’s easy to misunderstand if there’s too much noise. This is a problem in
the shape
that’s two squares
or four triangles
But twin variations seem perfectly manageable—I know how to count the variations in
shapes like this that contain nested squares and concealed triangles. And this may be a
way to measure semantic information with respect to a given vocabulary. What’s more,
the variations are fun to play with and something to explore. Only there’s no end of
K’s. There are uppercase ones