this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2026

210 points (95.7% liked)

Funny

15749 readers

406 users here now

General rules:

Be kind.
All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

kersploosh@sh.itjust.works

example@reddthat.com

VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works

210

It be like that (lemmy.nz)

submitted 4 months ago by cm0002@suppo.fi to c/funny@sh.itjust.works

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

While qualia are not directly communicable, even they are labelable. All that can be differentiated can be labeled, if only by reference to its differences from other things (or other relations to other things). And if something cannot be differentiated, then there’s no need to have a word/label for it.

We don’t have separate words for red-green and yellow because we perceive them the same way. If we ran into aliens that didn’t, then it’d be relevant to create a word for it, and I just did by calling it “red-green”

When we need a word for something new we create one. And sure sometimes it takes science a while to refine definitions, and yeah, in natural languages words have really blurry definitions which obscures communication, but that’s not a property of the universe or a fundamental flaw in all languages, just our limited experiences and non-formal languages.

Point is: all that is relevant to be communicated via language could be communicated via some language.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

The universe is eminently describable with language - thats the whole point of mathematics.

[–] kozy138@slrpnk.net 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Okay. Describe a flower using mathematics. It better entail every detail of the flower and all of its virtues.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Oh you seem fun. The vast body of mathematics describes flowers, from growth patterns to genetic structure to the effect it has on human neurology when observing the colorful patterns made by them. However I am curious; please explain what a virtue is!

[+] arnitbier@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Do you mean the person who tried to use a cliche'd gotcha as a result of their misunderstanding of what mathematics is? Or me who was unimpressed by the aforementioned cliche'd anti-intellectualism in their comment? Because there is no nuance here that I have missed - they pulled out the deeply tired idea that mathematics, which is a descriptive language, has not yet comprehensively described all of what constitutes a "flower" and thus cannot conceivably do that - which is a patently absurd requirement that belies an utter lack of understanding of the fundemental purpose of mathematics or the function of language in general.

[+] arnitbier@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

"Oh I see you actually responded to what I was saying - I'm not here for a discussion or to be wrong, I'm just here to be smugly superior, so I'm just going to ignore that" - you, apparently?

If you want to discuss the ideas here feel free, I do enjoy doing that, but jeeze I hope you're drunk posting because this is deeply embarassing behavior...

edit:

Man, taking the insults and victim blaming to the DMs, you are way too into this.

Edit 2:

I am looking forward to the apology for your behavior.

Edit 3:

Gonna be real there hamdogger, I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

Edit 4:

Mmm...hmm.

Edit 5:

Yeah...

Edit 6:

Appended without comment.

Edit 7:

Nah, man, this was fun but it's getting boring. Pease puddins' to you.

[–] kozy138@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

I sort of meant it more as a joke.

But what I was telling to portray, is that there are an infinite number of 'parameters', if you will, that a flower contains. And sure, mathematics can describe each of those parameters. But we will never be able to quantify it completely, as there are an infinite number of ways to relate flowers existence, and to any and every other 'thing' in the universe. Even if the mathematics is still there as the underlying building block.

Just like I can language to 'invent' or 'discover' a new sentence in order to describe anything and everything. But I won't be able to describe it completely, as there are an infinite number of ways to describe something.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's not: see Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I am at a loss as to what they have to do with this, do you mean to say that the universe is not exhaustively describable?

[–] WhiteHotaru@feddit.org 3 points 4 months ago

Wittgenstein: die Grenzen meiner Sprache sind die Grenzen meiner Welt.

[–] cholesterol@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

>Using words to undermine using words

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And then there's people thinking if we feed computers enough language, they will be able to solve everything

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

If we can simply train these machines on all the writings of straight white first-world men, then they'll be free of all bias and produce only objective facts!

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yuuup. And then we turn the words into numbers and run a few bajillion matrix multiplications on em to produce some sentences that bear a similarity to the sentences we make, and go “omg! It can navigate the nature of the universe the same way a human does!”

Also, MFs in the comments relitigating privacy of consciousness and Mary the color scientist lmao

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 1 points 4 months ago

No, language is trying to sort the water.