[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 161 KB, 500x500, 1388370835897.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6259004 No.6259004 [Reply] [Original]

Why is it impossible to come up with something that is absolutely indescribable? And I mean literally indescribable.

For instance, when attmepting to imagine a fictional universe, world or reality with different laws of physics, state and properties, one will still be able to describe it, breaking it down to similar things in our reality, comparing it and categorize it into things with already know and have experienced with our mind.

tl;dr It is literally impossible to invent, create or come up with something absolutely new that is no way, shape or form related to things in our existence, things we can experience or know of, because we could describe them with things we already know of and have experienced. So in a sense we are bound to this world, reality (whatever you want to call it) and cannot escape it or create a new one.

>> No.6259008

But the universe is infinite, which means there isn't anything out there that we don't have in out universe ;)))

>> No.6259028

>>6259008
>But the universe is infinite
Are you sure about that?

>> No.6259038

>Why is it impossible to describe something indescribable?
...
...
...do you really need to ask that?

>> No.6259042

>>6259004
>not making a universe in which it's possible to describe the indescribable.

>> No.6259071

>>6259038
Yeah sorry if that sounds weird, but that's more or less it. However, the consequence kind of striked me which then seems to be that our minds cannot imagine everything and imagination isn't infinite. One can only imagine things that one can describe.

>>6259042
I'd like to see that.

>> No.6259076
File: 37 KB, 212x270, 1388372879150.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6259076

>>6259004
Describe the indescribable... row row fight the powah?

>> No.6259098

>>6259004
>Why is it impossible to describe something that is absolutely indescribable.

>> No.6259105

Try an acid trip. A lot of people try to explain sounds with colors and the like, and get frustrated when non-tripping people fail to understand.

>> No.6259133

OP doesn't even understand the concept of tl;dr.

>> No.6259166

Behold:

Define object A as being indescribable.

I have just come up with something (object A) which is indescribable (literally!)

>> No.6259192

>>6259166
object a is object a.

/post

>> No.6259219

>>6259133
Sorry I got carried away and forgot that I wrote tl;dr.

>>6259166
Yeah but what do you think of when "defining object A". What do you think of when thinking of "Object A"?

>>6259105
I don't quite think that's what I am getting at.

>> No.6259231

>>6259071
>One can only imagine things that one can describe.
You can describe a hypercube precisely, everything about it, but you can't imagine it.

You can imagine a 3D projection of a hypercube from different angles, but never a hypercube in all its 4D glory.

>> No.6259320

>can only imagine things one can imagine
>can only do things one can do

I think you're onto something OP.

>> No.6259337

>>6259166
That's just the indicator of it, not the actual value.

>> No.6259338

>>6259334
As long as you are imagining it, you can describe it.

>> No.6259334

I am imagining something indescribable right now.
Only...I cannot explain it to you?
Happy now?

>> No.6259345

>>6259338
if you humans didn't have a feeling like sadness, and just one person in the world got sad, how would he describe that feeling ?

>> No.6259348

Nothing can be indescribable, because the act of calling it "indescribable" describes it. Bam, paradox.

>> No.6259362

>>6259345
"I do not feel good"
pretty fucking simple

>> No.6259370

>>6259219
I'd describe if I could but gosh darn it if that thing ain't defined as being indescribable!

>> No.6259375

>>6259362
> describe a feeling
> it feels like not X
You know the point of describing something is to have someone else comprehend it right ?

>> No.6259413

>>6259345
That's the problem. Or is it the way our brain and mind are developed in such a way that thinking without language just doesn't happen anymore? If I knew what sadness is, but didn't have language to express it verbally, how would I describe it? With my hands? With my facial expressions? With sounds?
But let's keep the language aspect for a second: I think >>6259362 is right when it is about describing it in a language or way everyone naturally understands. I think language (and this in a very general sense) gives us the ability to describe things in much detail, more so than without.

>>6259348
Interesting. Or just semantics?

>>6259370
Oh well, yeah you're right but then you haven't really thought about anything but just defined something unthought of as literally indescribable. There was no attempt to think of the unthinkable.

>>6259375
That's right and his post could be comprehended by others who also speak the same language but didn't know what sadness is. Now if you were to explain and describe sadness to someone who doesn't speak any language, it would be more tricky but you'd probably try to find similarities between you and the other person, i.e. whether you both are humans, share the same sensory organs and then you'd try to convey the idea of sadness by body language.