Rough day, huh? Seriously though, you’ve got a thesis, but you’re missing a clear argument. Let me help: pick one specific thing that strikes you as nonsensical. Then, explain why it doesn’t make sense. By doing that, you’re actually contributing—helping humanity by exposing “long-form gibberish”.
Just make sure the thing you choose isn’t something trivially wrong. The more deeply flawed it is—yet still taken seriously by others—the better.
But, your critique of preemptive psychologising is unwarranted: I created a path for quick comprehension. “To quickly get the gist of it in just a few minutes, go to Section B and read: 1.0, 1.1, 1.4, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.”
At its heart, we face a dilemma that captures the paradox of a universe so intricately composed, so profoundly mesmerizing, that the very medium on which its poem is written—matter itself—appears to have absorbed the essence of the verse it bears. And that poem, unmistakably, is you—or more precisely, every version of you that has ever been, or ever will be.
I know what this is trying to do but invoking mythical language when discussing consciousness is very bad practice since it appeals to an emotional response. Also it’s hard to read.
Similar things are true for lots of other sections here, very unnecessarily poetic language. I guess you can say that this is policing tone, but I think it’s valid to police tone if the tone is manipulative (on top of just making it harder and more time intensive to read.
Since you asked for a section that’s explicitly nonsense rather than just bad, I think this one deserves the label:
We can encode mathematical truths into natural language, yet we cannot fully encode human concepts—such as irony, ambiguity, or emotional nuance—into formal language. Therefore: Natural language is at least as expressive as formal language.
First of all, if you can’t encode something, it could just be that the thing is not well-defined, rather than that the system is insufficiently powerful
Second, the way this is written (unless the claim is further justified elsewhere) implies that the inability to encode human concepts in formal languages is self-evident, presumably because no one has managed it so far. This is completely untrue; formal[^1] languages are extremely impractical, which is why mathematicians don’t write any real proofs in them. If a human concept like irony could be encoded, it would be extremely long and way way beyond the ability of any human to write down. So even if it were theoretically possible, we almost certainly wouldn’t have done it yet, which means that it not having been done yet is negligible evidence of it being impossible.
“natural languages are extremely impractical, which is why mathematicians don’t write any real proofs in them.”
I have never seen such a blatant disqualifaction of one’s self. Why do you think you are able to talk to these subjects if you are not versed in Proof theory?
Just type it into chat gpt:
Which one is true:
”natural languages are extremely impractical, which is why mathematicians don’t write any real proofs in them.”
OR
”They do. AND APPART FROM THAT Language is not impractical, language too expressive (as in logical expressivity of second-order-logic)”
Research proof theory, type theory, and Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC) before making statements here.
At the very least, try not to be miserable. Someone who mistakes prose for an argument should not have the privilege of indulging in misery.
We do not know each other. I know nothing about you beyond your presence on LW. My comments have been to the article at hand and to your replies. Maybe I’ll expand on them at some point, but I believe the article is close to “not even wrong” territory.
Meanwhile, I’d be really interested in hearing from those two strong upvoters, or anyone else whose response to it differs greatly from mine.
The statement “the article is ‘not even wrong’” is closely related to the inability to differentiate: Is it formally false? Or is it conclusively wrong? Or, as you prefer, perhaps both?
I am very sure that you will hear from them. You strike me as a person who is great to interact with. I am sure that they will be happy to justify themselves to you.
Everyone loves a person who just looks at something and says… eeeeh gibberish...
Especially if that person is correctly applying pejorative terms.
Rough day, huh? Seriously though, you’ve got a thesis, but you’re missing a clear argument. Let me help: pick one specific thing that strikes you as nonsensical. Then, explain why it doesn’t make sense. By doing that, you’re actually contributing—helping humanity by exposing “long-form gibberish”.
Just make sure the thing you choose isn’t something trivially wrong. The more deeply flawed it is—yet still taken seriously by others—the better.
But, your critique of preemptive psychologising is unwarranted: I created a path for quick comprehension. “To quickly get the gist of it in just a few minutes, go to Section B and read: 1.0, 1.1, 1.4, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.”
Here’s one section that strikes me as very bad
I know what this is trying to do but invoking mythical language when discussing consciousness is very bad practice since it appeals to an emotional response. Also it’s hard to read.
Similar things are true for lots of other sections here, very unnecessarily poetic language. I guess you can say that this is policing tone, but I think it’s valid to police tone if the tone is manipulative (on top of just making it harder and more time intensive to read.
Since you asked for a section that’s explicitly nonsense rather than just bad, I think this one deserves the label:
First of all, if you can’t encode something, it could just be that the thing is not well-defined, rather than that the system is insufficiently powerful
Second, the way this is written (unless the claim is further justified elsewhere) implies that the inability to encode human concepts in formal languages is self-evident, presumably because no one has managed it so far. This is completely untrue; formal[^1] languages are extremely impractical, which is why mathematicians don’t write any real proofs in them. If a human concept like irony could be encoded, it would be extremely long and way way beyond the ability of any human to write down. So even if it were theoretically possible, we almost certainly wouldn’t have done it yet, which means that it not having been done yet is negligible evidence of it being impossible.
[1]: typo corrected from “natural”
“natural languages are extremely impractical, which is why mathematicians don’t write any real proofs in them.”
I have never seen such a blatant disqualifaction of one’s self.
Why do you think you are able to talk to these subjects if you are not versed in Proof theory?
Just type it into chat gpt:
Research proof theory, type theory, and Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC) before making statements here.
At the very least, try not to be miserable. Someone who mistakes prose for an argument should not have the privilege of indulging in misery.
The sentence you quoted is a typo, it’s is meant to say that formal languages are extremely impractical.
well this is also not true. because “practical” as a predicate… is incomplete.… meaning its practical depending on who you ask.
Talking over “Formal” or “Natural” languages in a general way is very hard...
The rule is this: Any reasoning or method is acceptable in mathematics as long as it leads to sound results.
I’m actually amused that you criticized the first paragraph of an essay for being written in prose — it says so much about the internet today.
There you are — more psychologising.
Now condescension.
Okay I… uhm… did I do something wrong to you? Do we know each other?
We do not know each other. I know nothing about you beyond your presence on LW. My comments have been to the article at hand and to your replies. Maybe I’ll expand on them at some point, but I believe the article is close to “not even wrong” territory.
Meanwhile, I’d be really interested in hearing from those two strong upvoters, or anyone else whose response to it differs greatly from mine.
The statement “the article is ‘not even wrong’” is closely related to the inability to differentiate: Is it formally false? Or is it conclusively wrong? Or, as you prefer, perhaps both?
I am very sure that you will hear from them. You strike me as a person who is great to interact with. I am sure that they will be happy to justify themselves to you.
Everyone loves a person who just looks at something and says… eeeeh gibberish...
Especially if that person is correctly applying pejorative terms.