Introduction: Echoes of a Century-Long Question

A century ago, Wittgenstein declared in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world,” establishing the foundation for the powerful notion that “language determines thought.” For a hundred years, this proposition has influenced countless disciplines from the philosophy of science to anthropology, shaping our understanding of consciousness and reality. Today, however, we see parallel challenges to this notion emerging from two seemingly distant fields.

In early April 2025, Dutch physicist Gerard ‘t Hooft received the $3 million Breakthrough Prize, science’s highest monetary award. This prize recognizes his groundbreaking contributions to fundamental particle physics, particularly his insights into gauge theory and the Standard Model. However, in an interview with Scientific American, ‘t Hooft did not dwell on reflections of past achievements but instead expressed his explicit dissatisfaction with quantum mechanics interpretations, calling the standard interpretation “nonsense.” He suggests that the current mathematical language of quantum mechanics may be limiting our true understanding of physical reality.

Meanwhile, in the field of civilization studies, the X-Challenge series has introduced the revolutionary concept of “knot-tying cognition,” fundamentally challenging the deterministic role of language on thought and proposing that consciousness actually precedes language. These two seemingly distant research areas share striking structural similarities in their questions. This paper attempts to explore the possible dialogue between these two modes of thought, examining how different disciplines express insights into the same deep problem through their respective languages.

📌 Methodological Note

This paper attempts to explore the thought resonances appearing in two different fields from a cross-disciplinary comparative perspective. It should be specifically noted that ‘t Hooft’s theory belongs to the realm of physical ontology, while the X-Challenge’s analysis belongs to the field of civilizational cognitive theory, each with different academic trajectories and theoretical pursuits. This paper compares them side by side to explore possible structural dialogues between different disciplines, rather than suggesting direct academic influence or connection between them.

I. A Century of Critique of the “Language is the Boundary of Thought” Concept

Before discussing ‘t Hooft’s quantum criticism and the X-Challenge’s civilizational response, it is necessary to review the development and critique of the powerful notion that “language is the boundary of thought” over the past hundred years. This concept has shaped the direction of countless disciplines in the 20th century and profoundly influenced how we understand the relationship between consciousness, thinking, and language.

1.1 The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Language as a Prison

In the early 20th century, anthropologist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf proposed the concept of linguistic relativity, later known as the “Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.” This hypothesis suggests that the grammatical and lexical structure of a person’s language affects or determines their way of thinking and perception of the world.

The strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis—linguistic determinism—holds that language completely determines thought, and linguistic categories limit and constrain cognitive categories. This view was widely popular in linguistic circles before World War II, suggesting that people cannot think beyond the limitations of their own language. As Simply Psychology describes the hypothesis: “Language restricts our thought processes—language shapes our reality. Simply put, the language we use shapes the way we think and how we see the world.”

1.2 Wittgenstein’s Border Declaration

Concurrently, Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein made his famous assertion in his 1922 Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.”

This declaration became one of the most influential propositions in 20th-century philosophy. Wittgenstein’s view implied that language not only limits our expressive abilities but also our thoughts and understanding of the world. Language became a cage for thinking, suggesting we cannot think or perceive the world beyond the boundaries of language.

Wittgenstein’s later thinking evolved toward the concept of “language games,” emphasizing the role of language in social interaction, but the notion of “language boundaries” had already deeply penetrated intellectual thought, influencing an entire century of conceptual development. As The Philosopher’s Shirt blog notes: “Studies have shown that individuals who have different color categories in their language tend to perceive and remember colors differently, highlighting the influence of language on perception.”

1.3 Beyond the Language Predicament: Consciousness Precedes Language

Recent decades of research have begun to question the extreme version of linguistic determinism, gradually recognizing that consciousness actually precedes language. From an evolutionary and developmental perspective, primitive forms of consciousness—perception, emotion, and basic cognition—existed in humans and other higher animals before language ability developed.

As Montemayor and Haladjian argue, while language is uniquely human, consciousness, at least in its basic experiential form, likely exists in many species and evolved earlier than language.

💡 Thought Experiment: Non-linguistic Consciousness

Imagine the moment just after waking up, before you’ve begun thinking in linguistic forms, yet you’re already aware of light, temperature, your body’s existence… This is a pure state of consciousness before language intervenes. Physicists sometimes use similar “pure perception” to re-examine theoretical concepts that have become habitualized.

If we accept that consciousness precedes language, then language is no longer the limiter of thought but rather a tool for extending consciousness. This perspective fundamentally changes how we view the relationship between language and thinking. Schleichert, in studying the relationship between language and consciousness, points out that understanding the term “consciousness” requires finding a set of statements about this term that are generally accepted—a “normative expression.” This indicates we must go beyond language itself to understand consciousness.

This recognition provides a common theoretical foundation for ‘t Hooft’s criticism of the mathematical language of quantum mechanics and the X-Challenge’s language reconstruction theory.

II. ‘t Hooft’s Quantum Criticism: The Limitations of Physical Language

‘t Hooft’s academic career has always been closely related to the interpretation problems of quantum mechanics. As the 1999 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, he is renowned for his pioneering work in gauge theory. However, in recent years he has become increasingly dissatisfied with the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics and proposed alternative views in his 2016 book, “The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.” His criticism of quantum mechanics focuses on several aspects:

2.1 The Limitations of Mathematical Formalism

‘t Hooft believes that while the current mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics is successful in calculations, it has fundamental defects at the explanatory level. In a recent interview, he stated: “I think the physical world itself is a very ordinary one that is completely classical,” suggesting we need to return to a more basic deterministic description.

💡 Thought Experiment: Mathematical Map and Physical Territory

Imagine an explorer successfully traversing an unknown region with a precise map. Every prediction on the map matches the actual situation, yet the explorer feels uneasy—because the map doesn’t tell him why the mountains are distributed in this way, why rivers flow along these paths. This is how ‘t Hooft views quantum mechanics: a precise map that doesn’t explain “why.”

2.2 Questioning the Physical Reality of Superposition States

‘t Hooft strongly criticizes the physical reality of quantum superposition states. In his April 2025 interview, he explicitly stated: “I’d argue that superpositions of states are not real. If you look very carefully, things never superimpose. Schrödinger asked the right questions here: You know, take my cat, it can be dead; it can be alive. Can it be in a superposition? That’s nonsense!”

2.3 Ontological Exploration of Deterministic Variables

‘t Hooft argues that there may be more fundamental deterministic variables behind quantum mechanics’ probabilistic description. In his interview with Physics Today, he explained his cellular automaton model, a completely deterministic computer model consisting of multidimensional grid cells updated according to certain rules. He believes this deterministic model may be a more fundamental approach to understanding quantum phenomena.

III. The X-Challenge Response: From Superposition States to Knot-Tying Cognition

When we distinguish language from cognition, we discover that language is not the boundary of thought but a symbolic expression of consciousness. Language is not merely a communication tool—it captures and preserves fleeting states of consciousness, like tying a knot to secure memory. The knot, as a simple physical representation, transforms into a symbol—a tool for preserving and transmitting meaning. These symbols evolve into language, a structured system beyond mere communication. Language, with its abstraction and subtlety, constructs complex cognitive frameworks, forming multidimensional meaning systems that can both adapt to new contexts (dynamic) and maintain their core (persistent). Through this process, humans progress from basic representation to profound intellectual and spiritual exploration, opening up richer worlds of consciousness, cognition, and spirituality, connecting individuals, families, groups, and society in shared understanding.

💭 Language’s Knot—Weaving Meaning in the Storm of Consciousness

Under a storm-ravaged sky, a sailor, hands weathered by years, tightly ties a knot. This knot, simple yet resilient, remains steadfast amid fierce winds and waves—it is not merely an intertwining of rope but an anchor of meaning. Language, like this knot, is not the boundary of thought but a symbolic web of consciousness, a tool for fixing fleeting thoughts in the flow of time.

The knot, initially just a concrete action, gradually evolves into a symbol—a tool for preserving and transmitting meaning. These symbols, over time, weave into language, a multidimensional network beyond words. Language is not only a communication tool but also a cognitive scaffold, weaving perception, abstraction, and knowledge into complex structures. However, just as no two knots are identical, no thought is static. Each idea, each perception, exists in a fluid state, shaped by currents of uncertainty and interpretation.

Uncertainty is not a defect but a force. It drives curiosity, sparks creativity, and compels us to continuously refine and reshape knowledge. Language thrives in this uncertainty, connecting meanings, transforming perspectives, and constantly adapting between individuals, families, communities, and civilizations. It is a network of knots, constantly expanding, constantly evolving, with new threads woven into the tapestry of understanding.

3.1 The X-Challenge’s Knot-Tying Cognition Model

From the perspective of civilization studies, the X-Challenge series introduces the revolutionary concept of “Knot-Tying Cognition.” This concept indicates that human cognition is not a passive superposition of information reception but an active process of constructing meaning amid uncertainty.

Knot-Tying Cognition emphasizes:

1. From States to Process: Human cognition is not a “storage of multiple states” superposition but a process of “tying knots in uncertainty”
2. From Passive to Active: Only living beings can “tie knots,” actively constructing meaning amid chaos
3. From Mechanical to Alive: AI can superimpose states but cannot “tie knots”—because it lacks free will and does not participate in meaning generation

Imagine a child facing tangled ropes. Superposition thinking would say: “The rope simultaneously exists in multiple possible states.” But knot-tying cognition says: “Let’s actively tie a knot in this chaos, creating certainty.” This is the essential difference between humans and pure computation.

3.2 Language Transparency and Knowledge Democratization

The fourth volume of X-Challenge discusses “how the black-boxing of professional language inhibits knowledge innovation,” arguing that “true civilizational progress requires transparency and accessibility of language systems.” This view also finds echoes in the philosophy of science—when scientific language becomes overly specialized, it may hinder rather than promote innovation.

3.3 Reverse Engineering from Language to Consciousness

One core proposition of the X-Challenge is that we need to perform a kind of “reverse engineering”—returning from existing language systems to more primitive states of consciousness, then reconstructing language structures that can more fully express these states of consciousness. This approach forms a structural correspondence with ‘t Hooft’s attempt to return from mathematical formalism to physical essence.

IV. The Black Box Language Predicament: From Mathematical Formalism to Professional Knowledge Walls

Both quantum physics and civilizational language face the “black box language” problem—specialized terminology and mathematical formalism may obscure rather than reveal underlying reality.

4.1 ‘t Hooft’s Critique of Mathematical Formalism

‘t Hooft’s criticism of quantum mechanics is essentially a questioning of the black-boxing of scientific language. In his interview with Scientific American, he stated: “If you believe right from the beginning that quantum mechanics is a theory that only gives you statistical answers and never anything better than that, then I think you’re on the wrong track.” He further explained that quantum computers’ tendency to make errors precisely indicates our need to seek more fundamental, error-free deterministic variables.

4.2 The X-Challenge’s Concern for Knowledge Democracy

From a broader civilizational dimension, the X-Challenge points out: “Black box language creates authority, not understanding; creates dependency, not innovation.” A healthy civilization should not allow its most fundamental cognitive frameworks to become symbol systems understandable only to a few experts.

💭 Cross-thinking: The Two Sides of Specialized Language

The history of science shows that the development of specialized language is both a result of scientific progress and a potential obstacle to scientific innovation. Major breakthroughs in fields like physics and biology often accompany language paradigm shifts. ‘t Hooft and the X-Challenge echo each other on this point—when language becomes a wall rather than a bridge, knowledge development becomes restricted.

V. Structural Resonances: A Dialogue Between Physics and Civilization Studies

Although ‘t Hooft’s theory is grounded in physical ontology and the X-Challenge’s analysis is based on civilizational cognitive theory, they display some noteworthy parallels in structure:

Aspect	‘t Hooft’s Physical Critique	X-Challenge’s Cognitive Response
Consciousness and Language	Physical reality precedes mathematical description	Consciousness precedes linguistic expression
Language Form Critique	Questions whether Hilbert space formalism captures physical reality	Questions whether existing language structures adequately express full cognitive potential
From Passive to Active	From accepting quantum mechanics’ probabilistic interpretation to seeking deterministic variables	From accepting language-defined cognitive ranges to actively participating in meaning construction
Black Box Problem	Mathematical form obscures substantial understanding of physical processes	Professional knowledge systems’ opacity inhibits innovation
Theoretical Pursuit	Seeking more fundamental physical laws	Exploring more open language structures
Evaluation Standards	Experimental verification as the ultimate criterion	Civilizational evolution as the assessment framework

This structural parallel does not imply direct connection in specific content but reflects common thinking patterns that may exist across different disciplines.

VI. Reconstructing Problem Generation Mechanisms: From Ontology to Cognitive Theory

6.1 ‘t Hooft’s Call for New Questions in Physics

‘t Hooft criticizes contemporary quantum physics for merely repeating variants of old problems, arguing: “We don’t lack answers, but good questions.” This view points to a core issue in the philosophy of science: scientific progress requires not only the ability to solve existing problems but also the creativity to pose new questions.

6.2 The X-Challenge’s Proposal for Language System Updates

From a linguistic perspective, the X-Challenge proposes: “We fail to ask new questions because our language system is incomplete.” This view binds “scientific questions” and “civilizational language” in a deeper system, suggesting that language updating may be a prerequisite for cognitive breakthroughs.

🔍 Academic Extension: Kuhn’s Paradigm Theory

Thomas Kuhn, in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” points out that scientific paradigm shifts often accompany fundamental changes in problem awareness and language systems. From this perspective, ‘t Hooft’s and the X-Challenge’s views can be seen as observations of different aspects of the harbingers of a “paradigm shift.”

6.3 Exploring Consciousness Beyond Language

If consciousness indeed precedes language, then directly exploring states of consciousness may be a path to breaking through language limitations. The fifth volume of X-Challenge discusses this possibility: “Some scientific breakthroughs may not occur through improving existing language but through developing new states of consciousness. And these new states of consciousness would subsequently give rise to new language forms.”

VII. Escaping the Cognitive Maze: Methodological Juxtaposition

Though from different disciplinary backgrounds, both ‘t Hooft and the X-Challenge explore methods to break through existing limitations in their respective fields. Comparing them side by side, we can see some complementary thinking directions:

7.1 ‘t Hooft’s Physical Ontology Path

‘t Hooft has consistently sought bridges between quantum mechanics and deterministic theory in his research. His cellular automaton model attempts to demonstrate that seemingly random quantum behavior may originate from more fundamental deterministic rules. This exploration embodies his relentless pursuit of renewing the language of physics.

7.2 The X-Challenge’s Civilizational Cognitive Theory Path

From the perspective of education and civilizational development, the X-Challenge proposes: “Future civilizational progress may need to start from the education system, cultivating a language ability that can simultaneously accommodate deterministic thinking and open thinking.”

💡 Thought Experiment: From Children’s Language to Scientific Language

Imagine an education system that doesn’t teach children to accept existing language classifications but encourages them to create new language structures to describe their experiences. What kind of scientists would this education cultivate? What questions would they ask? Perhaps, breakthroughs in future quantum physics will come from those who can transcend current language limitations.

7.3 Consciousness First, Language Follows

Acknowledging the premise that consciousness precedes language provides a possible breakthrough path for science and civilization: perhaps we should first expand the boundaries of consciousness, then develop corresponding language structures. Whether physicists explore physical laws through intuition and thought experiments, or the X-Challenge explores new civilizational language through knot-tying cognition, both can be viewed as practices of this “consciousness-first” approach.

VIII. Conclusion: Beyond the Prison of Language

For an entire century, from Wittgenstein’s “the limits of my language mean the limits of my world” to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’s linguistic determinism, language has been viewed as a prison of thought. However, ‘t Hooft’s quantum criticism and the X-Challenge’s knot-tying cognition concept together suggest that this notion itself may have become an obstacle to scientific and civilizational development.

‘t Hooft’s critique reminds us: “We should no longer be satisfied with statistical answers.” After receiving the Breakthrough Prize in April 2025, he emphasized: “Scientists refuse to abandon this idea: quantum mechanics is some kind of supernatural feature of particles that we will never understand. No! We will understand, but we need to take a step back first.” This stance represents physics’ eternal pursuit—not merely describing phenomena but understanding essence.

The X-Challenge’s response tells us from another angle: “We must fundamentally rethink the relationship between language and cognition to break through current cognitive boundaries.” This proposition points to a key issue in civilizational evolution—how language can maintain stability while allowing innovation.

The science of the future is not merely a rearrangement of equations but a holistic reconstruction of language, logic, structure, and institutions. True breakthrough is not creating new computers but enabling the next civilization to truly possess “the ability to pose new questions.”

This is the dignity of science. This is the power of consciousness. This is the future of language.

---

References

Billings, L. (2025). Breakthrough Prize winner Gerard ‘T Hooft says quantum mechanics is ‘Nonsense.’ Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/breakthrough-prize-winner-gerard-t-hooft-says-quantum-mechanics-is-nonsense/

Breakthrough Prize. (2025). Breakthrough Prize Announces 2025 Laureates in Life Sciences, Fundamental Physics, and Mathematics. https://breakthroughprize.org/News/91

Chalmers, D. J. (2023). Could a Large Language Model be Conscious? Boston Review. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/could-a-large-language-model-be-conscious/

Chalmers, D. J. (2024). Could a Large Language Model be Conscious? arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.07103

Colombatto, C., & Fleming, S. M. (2024). Folk psychological attributions of consciousness to large language models. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2024(1), niae013. https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2024/1/niae013/7644104

MDPI Blog. (2024). An Interview with Nobel Laureate Prof Gerard ‘t Hooft. https://blog.mdpi.com/2024/11/26/an-interview-with-nobel-laureate-prof-gerard-t-hooft/

Montemayor, C., & Haladjian, H. H. (2016). Consciousness and Language. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-consciousness/201608/consciousness-and-language

Nordquist, R. (2024). The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Linguistic Theory. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/sapir-whorf-hypothesis-1691924

Peper, A. (2022). A general theory of consciousness II: The language problem. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 15(1), 182-189. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9361756/

Physics Today. (2017). Q&A: Gerard ‘t Hooft on the future of quantum mechanics. https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/online/5262/Q-A-Gerard-t-Hooft-on-the-future-of-quantum

Schleichert, H. (1989). The Relationship Between Consciousness and Language. In: Brown, J.R., Mittelstrass, J. (eds) An Intimate Relation. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 116. Springer, Dordrecht. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-2327-0_22

SelfAwarePatterns. (2019). Chalmers’ theory of consciousness. https://selfawarepatterns.com/2019/07/07/chalmers-theory-of-consciousness/

Simply Psychology. (2023). Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis). https://www.simplypsychology.org/sapir-whorf-hypothesis.html

The Philosophers Shirt. (2024). Wittgenstein on language and thought. https://the-philosophers-shirt.com/blogs/philosophical-dictionary/wittgenstein-on-language-and-thought

The Quantum Insider. (2025). Nobel Laureate Says Quantum Mechanics Is on The Wrong Track. https://thequantuminsider.com/2025/04/09/nobel-laureate-says-quantum-mechanics-is-on-the-wrong-track/

Utrecht University. (2025). Gerard ‘t Hooft receives Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. https://www.uu.nl/en/news/gerard-t-hooft-receives-breakthrough-prize-in-fundamental-physics

Wikipedia. (2025). Linguistic relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity