The only reason we disagree about anything is because language is not as precise as maths

The only reason we disagree about anything is because language is not as precise as maths.

Doesnt that defeat the purpose of using english, or chinese, ect?

why is language so shitty?
is there a way to phonetically speak maths and maintain or even surpass the standard of effective communication?

Attached: E463924F-6B5A-4323-9969-149005323AD7.jpg (250x226, 5K)

>The only reason we disagree about anything is because language is not as precise as maths.
I disagree.

Just write it down or draw it if you want to express something a bit more precise via "mathematics".
The purpose of everyday language is pretty much to sidestep all the tedious definitions and proofs. And by just assuming a bit of blur, you still get most of the message across. It saves a lot of time.

What is the sq rt of 9? Obvious answer is 3 but its actually +/- 3. Even if we "speak in maths," what happens when I like -3 and you like +3?

What happens when I assign the color purple of a value of 6 and you assign it a value of 79?

>What happens when I assign the color purple of a value of 6 and you assign it a value of 79?
Then you're not speaking the same language, which I think was OPs point.

What if you like purple more than I do? If we are supposed to have the exact same thoughts, then that is not a matter of language.

Also, you missed the first part.

Languages need to come to terms with emergent phenomena with 99% accuracy in under 1 minute.

Math cannot do this. Say you were in hiroshima, first ever war nuke. You need to morse a special message to Emperor Hirohito describing the scale of conceptual horror the Americans just unleashed, and you have two minutes before you lose consciousness. Math cannot cope with extinction level emergency; this is its failure. It did not develope organically, so it has no flexibility.

Lets say 1 is yes/male, 0 is no/female. Now tell me what a trap is in one word so a boomer can get the idea with 95% accuracy. Inb4 NO U, "faggot" is my answer.

Lets say sadness is expressed -2.

How many functions lead to -2? f(divorce)= -2 for me, but maybe not someone who is in a toxic marriage.

Real life has many functions that dont wind up with the same answers; this is why math cannot sub for language.

>Also, you missed the first part.
The first part didn't make any sense, so I ignored it.

>What if you like purple more than I do?
I'm inclined to agree with you, but to play devil's advocate: one could say that's there's not neccesarily a disgreement there. If I like purple more than you do, we could just agree that this is the case, and then there is no disagreement.

sorry guys i thought this was /sci/

Don't be shitting up /sci/ with this kind of shitposting.

The capacity to express 1 or 0 suggests variation in the first place dude.

Your "challenge" is called a false dichotomy.

Basically you suck at imagining hypothetical situations

>The only reason we disagree is because language is imprecise

OP, the primary reason people disagree is because we live in a world where things are finite, even in today's modern consumer culture. All arguments really stem from the fact that everyone on the planet has evolved to be self-centered. You're looking out for your own survival, listening to your own internal monologue, and making decisions that benefit you and your family, whether you realize it or not. Everybody else is pretty much rolling along doing the same thing - but we all have different interests and we all have different families, so what one person wants is naturally not the same as what another person wants. Thus we have to argue about who is right and who gets what they want.

So you're saying disagreement, and arguing is an essential component concearning the allocation of earths resources.

Not OP, but my problem has always been that society seems to randomly change the meaning of words and sentences at the drop of a hat, and even being literal 100% of the time does nothing to help you get your point across.

The amount of times I've told someone "it doesn't matter to me" as a response to someone asking which of 2 restaurants we should go to, is infuriating. The sentence is extremely simple, with a very clear cut meaning, but because some cunts are too retarded to use the language properly, it now means "I'm angry over the fact that you dont know what I want".

Fuck you people. You know who you are. Stop raping the language. It works just fine if you dont arbitrarily change the meaning for no fucking reason.

>society seems to randomly change the meaning of words and sentences at the drop of a hat
This is what it feels like to get old.

There are things in math and physics that people don't agree on. You clearly haven't studied maths much

Attached: 242361f43bbb52a80665c0e99273026a.jpg (600x379, 27K)

That, if you remember from your high school reading, is precisely the rationale behind Newspeak. If you remove the words to express opposing opinions from the language, people will stop holding them. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. People don't agree because each of us is an individual with a different worldview. The best that you can do is to make people ignore this through fear.

But it does sort of work that way. Our thought patterns and world views are very much influenced by the language we have to express them.

Except that "Newspeak" assumed an overly simplified thought process. Shit, even with our current language, saying "great" or "sure" can mean both a positive and a negative thing, exclusively through the tone of the word spoken.

English is actually quite good, as languages go, at dealing with scientific specifics. The problem is that most of our interactions involve things we are not absolutely sure of what we want to say in the first place - feelings, physical sensations, beliefs, etc.

That's why civilizations invented poets - to use their special talents to find exactly the right words when the rest of us can't

Well, how else would you do it? The only person who can be trusted to accurately represent your own point of view is yourself. We’ve already had plenty of opportunity to see that most or all elected offices contain some degree of corruption, and that elected officials usually use their offices to pursue their own projects on the side rather than work for the benefit of their voters.

The only way everything can be some small semblance of fair is if every single person can speak their own point of view freely, so that every single persons view is represented. Of course there’s still going to be conflict about WHO gets what they want, since everyone can’t get what they want at once. But it’s the closest thing to fair.