It is part of the problem though, it’s actually THE problem here.
You can use normal language to describe anything that would be of use to me, anything relevant about the world that I do not understand, in some cases (e.g. an invention) real-world examples would also be required, but in others (e.g. a theory), words, almost by definition ought to be enough.
I don’t suppose you or be able to explain a quantum computer to a caveman.
No, and a caveman would have no use for them.
I’d instead try to explain brick making or crop selection or reaching high temperatures using clay or maybe some geometry (?)
But if your claim is “What I have here is a technique so powerful that it’s akin to inventing computing in prehistoric times”
Then it begs the question: “So why aren’t you emperor of the world yet?”
That was not part of the original problem.
It isnt.
It is part of the problem though, it’s actually THE problem here.
You can use normal language to describe anything that would be of use to me, anything relevant about the world that I do not understand, in some cases (e.g. an invention) real-world examples would also be required, but in others (e.g. a theory), words, almost by definition ought to be enough.
But anyway, as far as I can see we’re probably in part talking past each other, not due to ill intention, and I’m not exactly sure how, but I was recently quite immersed reading the comment chains here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mELQFMi9egPn5EAjK/my-attempt-to-explain-looking-insight-meditation-and && https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tMhEv28KJYWsu6Wdo/kensh, and it seems like we’re probably talking past each other in very similar ways.
Why not say so, then?
Most people don’t know how their phones work.