The Two Most Incorrigible People Who Are Friends

Dear Chris,

And so it begins... we have finally fell into ontology and epistemology... the most vile of debates.

First off, I would like you to define "I" and "love" in any other language, any language you choose, wholly and absolutely.  If you can then you win.  I give you the crown.  And I will be the first to fund and then buy the book you write on it.  And then buy you a new car every year the rest of your life.  If you can't then your argument is weak for this reason: the concepts of love and "I" are entirely subjective, and you experience them only because of the how, here's the kicker: and because of this these ideas are incommunicable.  You can communicate to the object of your love the how, but you cannot wholly explain the experience.  That is the reason for the term love, and why it really has no synonyms and one of the shortest definitions in any dictionary.  It is a vague, ambiguous term and is only used to denote someone's experience with someone else (the object of love) in the most indirect way possible.  We use "I" all the time, and in our usage (the subject noun usage) mathematics would easily represent you as a single variable.  Now, to say that mathematics could define "I" in it's entirety, the summation of all things that make you "you", would be a feat.  But, it's the idea of a state space I like to refer to: all variables that make you and all the variables defined over the course of your existence.  But to do this requires knowledge of yourself, complete knowledge.

But lets jump back to languages.  All languages are merely symbols, meaningless objects, which represent abstract concepts in the mind.  From English, Spanish, German, to Music, to Art, all of these are symbols which cause our minds to formulate abstractions and ideals in our heads.  So to say that any language actually defines anything would be ridiculous.  The thing, for lack of a better word, that defines objects is knowledge. 

Back to math as a language.  Assembly is the lowest level language I know of in computers as well.  Any program written in a higher level language can be (and is, realistically, when interpreted and compiled) written in assembly.  I could just as easily represent English, or any other written language, using mathematics and write a nice equation or set up a nice matrix to represent each word, and from there summon up abstract knowledge from the reader (or really the person calculating).  I could even put this on a nice graph, and given that you are knowledgeable enough in my math representation, you could read it like a book.
Music: I could use math to describe a beautiful symphony. 
Art:  I could use math to draw a beautiful picture, to sculpt a beautiful figure.

[This reminds me of that The Mercury Program song "It's a Data, Learn the Language"]

I guess what makes me think math is the lowest level language known by man (perhaps not even in the same hierarchy of other human languages like written language, music, art, but I'll make the assumption that it is) is that it wholly and absolutely defines ideal concepts.  Knowledge emerges from these concepts, and all other languages use this knowledge to summon abstracts.

I thought maybe a weakness in my argument would be that other languages can define mathematics as well, but then I realized it only strengthens my argument, because then all languages would be inseparable from mathematics.

Tear me apart,
Kyle

PS Ontology and epistemology suck, because no one knows anything for sure, and somehow my comment on math was really an inquiry into "what can we really know?"