Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Sure it is. Consider the same question in multiple languages. As one uses more precise language in an attempt to establish a correct response, the likelihood of the terms being misunderstood grows greater. I don't imagine there's anyway to measure the divergence.

Just because of the cultural/language dixconnect, there's always going to be an element of uncertainty, the degree of which is indeterminant, no matter what the sample size is. I'd expect to see this, anyways.

"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire

by papicek (papi_cek_at_hotmail_dot_com) on Tue Apr 21st, 2009 at 10:43:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But in the case of Heisenberg, 1) there's not only a way to measure the uncertainty but there's a formula for it; 2) the uncertainty principle applies only to individual instances of attempted simultaneous measurements - if you have the luxury of repeated measurements on a sample the uncertainty goes away.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 21st, 2009 at 11:01:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Semantic differential is - at least was - the way to measure "meaning" across languages/cultures.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Tue Apr 21st, 2009 at 03:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series