We human beings are fully and irrevocably foreign to the Divine world since the first humans, Adam and Eve violated the covenants of God. This situation remains today according to the Judaeo-Christian tradition and the Catholic Church to which the authors adhere. Yet all people, starting with Abraham, are radically invited by Divine Discourse to think, to pray and thus to chat to the Almighty and to each other. Because the authors are part of the universe of human chatter, we faced a challenging task when we decided to study Divine Discourse with mankind. So let us do it now and here.
I was beside the Master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence, at play everywhere on his earth, delighted to be with the children of men.(Proverbs 8:30-31)
Human language is the gift of the Divine. Biblical Hebrew is an impressive proto-Semitic reminder: lean, but best preserved and transparent fossil of the proto-Semitic language, the language known today only as of the hypothetical source of historical reductions to old and modern Semitic languages.
This remarkable excellence of Biblical Hebrew is, of course, the upshot of its status as the sacred language of the Jewish people: since at least the last 3500 years, Biblical Hebrew was particularly attentively preserved by Jews and, during the last 2000 years, by Christian Gentiles.
In particular, we believe and have demonstrated it in a series of articles 2008-2019, that Biblical Hebrew is the simplest, best preserved, and most faithful living linguistic testimony, about 6000 years old, of the proto-Semitic language. The birth of the proto-Semitic language was followed by subsequent emergence, growth and multiplicity of new non-logographic languages (different thus from the ancient Egyptian or Chinese languages) accompanied by appropriate 20-30 letters alphabets expanding from the first proto-Semitic alphabet.
The newness and sacredness of this proto-Semitic language, never manifested independently in pithy writings, were, according to important hints of the Genesis (Hebrew Bible), much more particular and momentous than those of its remainder, Biblical Hebrew, notwithstanding the general and extremely rich spiritual heritage of the Hebrew Bible.
Our Linguistic Approach
Generalizing our linguistic approach and leaning on hints of the Hebrew Bible, we develop here the Judaeo-Christian intuition of the Divine Discourse, of which the proto-Semitic language and Biblical Hebrew were linguistic «footprints» creating the Biblical and post-Biblical frameworks for Divine prophecies. Later, the Divine experience of the New Testament and the Church have prepared us to receive during the last 20 centuries Jesus Christ – the Divine Word that “was God” (John 1:1). Today, however, the great majority of the educated Humanity are enjoying and investing into the flourishing Human Chatter, free of any references from and to the Christian Divinity, and successfully negating any «Divine».
Finally, we will verbalize here and address the most recent Catholic Divine Discourses, with their origins and particular kinds exceeding all possible human notions, realities, ideas, and understandings, as such notions developed in, and were borrowed from the universe of the Human Chatter.
Much has changed, in a most radical way – and for better, since Wigner’s highly influential pronouncement, with the miracle of the profound epistemological, conceptual, and formal entanglement between Physics and Mathematics rapidly spreading to natural sciences at large. As a matter of fact, we are witnessing today how the accelerating process of “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” (the title of Wigner’s talk) becoming an even more stunning reality – as in the case of Biology, to give just this example, suggests the title of a keynote address at the 2003 Symposium on Accelerating the Mathematical-Biological Linkages (Bethesda, Maryland): “Mathematics is Biology’s Next Microscope, Only Better; Biology is Mathematics? Next Physics, Only Better.”
The underlying and, to some degree, driving the present inquiry assessment concerning the eventual quadruple entanglement between Linguistics and Mathematics / Physics / Biology could be stated in a similar way: “Linguistics is Mathematics and Physics Next Biology, Only More Comprehensive and More to the Point; Mathematics, Physics, and Biology are Linguistics? Next Enlightening Metaphors and Models, Only More Penetrating, Eloquent, and Effective.”
Fittingly, our inquiry – in its emergence and evolution – has followed a well known, even if not so well understood scenario redolent of the emergence and development of some most important, both major and minor physical theories of the last four centuries, from Newtonian Physics to John Bells interpretation of the EPR argument in Quantum Theory.
A New Mathematical Interpretation
Ontologically, such theories are inspired by, and are providing a new mathematical interpretation to a theoretical or conjectural identification, based on an experimental (real or of the Gedankenexperiment nature) discovery – accidentally stumbled upon, or long-awaited, or cleverly invented, or just “coming out of the blue” – of a distinct, apparently minor but formally strikingly transparent, beautiful, well- structured and yet manifestly paradoxical phenomenon – the theoretical-experimental germ of the future theory.
In the case of Isaac Newtons Mechanics, such as “germ” was the mysterious Keplerian laws of Celestial Mechanics, whereas Albert Einstein’s Special and General Relativity theories were “growing from the germs” of Albert Michelson’s and Edward Morle’s most perplexing to the physicists experimental discovery of the isotropy of the speed of light and, respectively, the empirical fact of the numerical equality of the inertial and gravitational mass of bodies, the equality viewed by Newton – without bringing it into question – as the elemental foundational axiom of his Theory of Gravitation.
As to Bell’s theory of quantum nonlocality, it owes its very existence and utmost utility, both theoretical and experimental, for Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Information Processing to Bell’s most transparent, and yet extremely counterintuitive solution of the EPR-paradox, i.e., of the Einstein- Podolsky- Rosen Gedankenexperiment which has been ingeniously designed to expose a seeming inconsistency of Quantum Mechanics – and in consequence to baffle the best physical minds for more than a quarter of the century, until John Bell’s restoration of Quantum Mechanics? ontological and formal integrity.
Formal, Logical Analysis
The ontological germ of our program of the solution of the E&ENL Problem will be our rediscovery in the oldest among well preserved linguistic fossils of strikingly perfect mathematical structures outdoing the best artifactual Assemblers. And as in the case of the physical theories mentioned above, it is Mathematics who enters in the most decisive way our ontological linguistic fray, to bring to it some interpretative clarity. Surprisingly, Mathematics intervenes here not in one, but in several distinct epistemological ways. The interplay between epistemic and methodological aspects of our linguistic study and the mathematical/physical metaphors, models, formalisms introduced, developed, and applied therein, represent undoubtedly one of the most important, radical novelties of our approach – second only to our far-reaching, paradigmatic, and counterintuitive program of solution of the E&ENL Problem. In this context, it is most instructive to read the following witness of the fruitfulness of a similar interplay, albeit on a lesser ontological scale, between Mathematics, Metamathematics, and Philosophy:
To some, the precision of a formal logical analysis represents the philosophical ideal, the paradigm of clarity and rigor; for others, it is just the point at which philosophy becomes uninteresting and sterile. But, of course, both formal and more broadly philosophical approaches can yield insight [into a pure mathematical conundrum]: philosophical reflection can inspire mathematical questions and research program, which, intern, inform and illuminate the philosophical discussion.”
With the discovery of biological evolution in the XIXth century, the question, “Why and how came it to existence, and how it evolves became for natural and cognitive sciences as legitimate and important as the much older type of questions, known already to Greeks: “How is it built and how it functions?”
It is also a much more difficult question, taking in account the fact that the origins of what we deem worth to investigate today are hidden in a distant past, when humans either not yet existed, or were uninterested, or unable, or both, to leave to us their testimonies about the events of interest to us. (One wonders if in some distant future researchers would not complain about our inability or unwillingness to adequately report on events of height importance to our intellectual progeny.)
It is this absence of a humanly recorded evidence – even in the presence of well discernible archeological traces – which makes the inquiries about emergence and evolution so difficult in the first place. And yet, the history of the emergence and evolution of modern Mathematics, fundamentally free from this genetic obscurity, could shed some light on the emergence and evolution of natural languages.
There exists, however, another, even more, fundamental difficulty affecting emergence and evolution inquiries, a major obstacle of both methodological and epistemological nature, and it was mathematicians who have identified this obstacle in their characteristically idealistic and rigorous way – rigorous exactly because idealistic. This difficulty concerns the very nature of what we usually understand under the term scientific explanation.
Informally speaking, such an explanation has been traditionally expected to be a conceptually faithful, relatively rigorous, and reasonably formal deduction- simulation of the emergence and evolution processes according to some well defined basic and pertinent to these processes laws satisfying the similar conditions of faithfulness, rigorousness, formalization, and local incremental causality.
It is this universal assumption of incremental causality – let us call it here The Generalized Epistemological Reductionist Hypothesis of Local Incremental Emergence/Evolution Causality, GERHoLIE/EC Assumption (for short ) – that such laws together with corresponding deductive procedures should always exist, which is contested by some revolutionary in their epistemological implication physical and mathematical discoveries of the last century. In Physics, they were the discoveries of the Big Bang and quantum non-locality. In Mathematics, Kurt Godel?s, Alan Turing’s, and others theorems – strictly speaking, valid only in fully formalized, rigorous contexts – demonstrating the incompleteness of some theories and the undecidability of some problems, especially those of consistency.
This said, we are neither questioning, nor underrating here the importance, utility, and eventual explicative efficiency of the mainstream, favoring incremental causality approaches to the problem of evolution of natural languages.
 Edouard G. Belaga. In the Beginning Was the Verb: The Problems of Emergence and Evolution of Language in the Light of the Big Bang Epistemological Paradigm. Rivista di Filologia Cognitiva (Cognitive Philology), vol. 1, n◦ 1, 2008.
 Nicholas Wolterstorff. Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks. Cambridge University Press (1995).
By Dr. Edouard Belaga, Dr. Ekaterina Belaga