[hnfong]

Russell's paradox speaks of logical contradictions. Language is full of logical contradictions, but it's fine to us (not to logicians though).

Similarly Gödel speaks of consistent proofs in logical systems. His incompleteness theorem talks about either a system has statements it cannot prove (but they can expressed!), or is inconsistent. Since natural language is probably not that consistent, the whole issue is moot.

It should be possible to show under some loose conditions that all natural languages are "Turing complete". Even the halting problem does not impose a problem -- we're really not interested in telling whether long-running computation halts in natural language. The expressivity is guaranteed by not insisting on strict consistency in language.

(PS: the situation changes where there is a mandate to only speak things that are "correct", for example, censorship. Now you get into the realm where something might be technically "correct" but the decision algorithm is imperfect and does not allow you to speak that truth)

> is there any possibility for the "existence" of a concept that could not be successfully communicated at all, say between a human adult and a 5 year old child, or the the adult and an advanced alien being?

I don't think so as long as the concept is constructed from physical objects or shared emotions/feelings.

There is a problem with something that can only be subjectively felt though. Let's say some alien can see the X-ray spectrum. How does the alien communicate to humans what the colors look and feel like?

But this is kinda off-topic.

[nonrandomstring]

> There is a problem with something that can only be subjectively felt though. Let's say some alien can see the X-ray spectrum. How does the alien communicate to humans what the colors look and feel like?

This is the kind of thing I'm thinking of, it's an old philosophical chestnut in epistemology.

Godel and Russell are relevant because we can always look for meaningful statements that can be well formed under wone system but not under another.

> But this is kinda off-topic.

I had theory about that. It's so _on topic_ to be discussing the nature of language itself in a time when the biggest festival in town is "Large Language Models". Nobody so violently attacks a comment unless it hits a nerve, And I don't want to believe that my fellow HN commenters are simple racists. I think some people worry about basing the computing work on something as precarious and pluralistic as language. And they'd be right to.

[stickfigure]

> This is the kind of thing I'm thinking of

I think you're focusing too much on language. If two humans (who experience similar things) can communicate, they'll figure out how to express themselves. Hell, they don't even necessarily need language.

The problem with a human and an alien trying to communicate is not that they speak different languages. The problem is that may experience different things (xrays, slitheryness, whatever).

I don't think a Japanese human is so different from a (say) English human.

[nonrandomstring]

> If two humans (who experience similar things) can communicate, they'll figure out how to express themselves.

An important point of agreement. Human experience absolutely transcends language (late Wittgenstein language games). Ninety percent of interaction being non-verbal has been a pet issue of mine throughout the post-pandemic descent into remote work, and a videoconf culture.

> I don't think a Japanese human is so different from a (say) English human.

Of course not. It's not the tangible differences that are of interest so much as why geographically separated groupings that are ostensibly the same beings, select and amplify certain features of human experience, and downplay others. That cultural development is complex and intricate. It encodes bits of history like old power relations, common achivements or sufferings. That information gets handed down by language as much as epigenetics.

The reason I am focusing a lot on language is that we're in an "age of language models". The dominant ones are English. But English is a particular way of structuring ideas about the world. This is something we should be paying close attention to, and almost any time people mention "AI" these days the topic is really about language.

BTW I am neither Japanese nor overly interested in their culture, except in a mildly curious and positive geeky way. It's probably coincidental that the last two topics I commented on here, which were "disappeared", involved Japanese culture. Probably. I'm sorry if what I said came across wrong, but it really gave me pause for thought about latent racist undertones here on HN. Probably best to forget about it now, but I'll be keeping an eye on that.