Idk, this is just some rant post but this thing keeps fucking happening to me, it just happened to me. I will find out someone online or someone whose work I’m interested in or someone I was talking to is essentially and irreversibly reactionary

I’m sure the guy who makes these is also fucking brainwormed somehow but there’s a XKCD comic about the constructed language “Lojban” that I’ve been learning that goes like this:

[Cueball and Black Hat are having a conversation.]

Cueball: If you learned to speak Lojban, your communication would be completely unambiguous and logical.

Black Hat: Yeah, but it would all be with the kind of people who learn Lojban.


And it’s so fucking real. Just ughhh idek where to begin, so lemme start “here” as in Lemmy or the libiverse. The only other Lojban speaker I could find on here is on the fucking furry porn instance we aren’t federated with lol. Btw, I forgot this person’s pronouns and I don’t even wanna go look at this person’s profile again (you will see why) so I will do this, sorry: le furry porn instance Lojban speaker ku goi ko’a (I bind free variable “ko’a” to refer to this person)

But I was like, okay, ko’a seems kinda off (ko’a translates everything ko’a says from Lojban to English even though ko’a is Amerikkkan and speaks English natively) but that’s fine, I like weird, weird is often good, ko’a is autistic, I’m autistic, maybe I will message ko’a and say hi. Then I go to ko’a’s linked Github profile and find out ko’a is a literal fed, as in ko’a openly works for intelligence services . Not even getting into ko’a’s other brainworms here but I read ko’a’s stuff a while ago

Okay, there’s no speakers I want to talk to here, fine, fine, it’s very obscure, I was lucky to find the fed on here if anything. So I go to the chat/IRC and find out it is infested with insufferable techbros who DON’T EVEN SPEAK PARSABLY VALID LOJBAN, one of whom is basically an open misanthropic blue fascist, who believes in like… an unelected Democrat monarch to control the stupid masses or something

Regardless, I was asking some questions about my ongoing translation of “Combat Liberalism” in there, talked with someone for a while who was at least helpful but then my account on [unspecified platform bridged to the IRC, I’m sure you could find but whatever lol, there’s nothing publicly visible] was reported for spam and then I was no longer allowed to speak in any groups. The only thing I can think of for why this happened is some lib, too cowardly and too pathetic to disagree with me in the open, mass reported everything I sent and got my account basically temp-banned. Wild right? Yet somehow not unexpected. Also pointless cuz I just logged on to the real IRC and kept my conversation going lmao. Oh and btw, ko’a is in the chat too ugh

Okay, okay, whatever it’s fine it’s fine, I should expect this. What about the people on the Wiki or in the Logical Language Group that, is at least supposed to, develop(s) Lojban? So I was reading through some of the articles and profiles on the wiki and they are much better. Then I somehow ended up at the personal website and blog of an LLG member, who was once the lead person or president or whatever of LLG to read about his takes on libertarianism and the age of consent among other things I forgot . Or I read the takes of the insufferable Randian logicians on the wiki which somehow are often okay on limited aspects of the language yet they are also Randians who should be purged

This is not the first time this has happened to me, this basically constantly happens to me cuz of my weird nerd interests who I must share with some of the worst people on the planet

It’s so fucking exhausting dealing with these overwhelmingly white, massively techbrained, toxic, insufferably

Idk, there seem to be some people in the community which are cool but yeh

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context

Yeahhh :(

Lojban has lots of problems beyond even the community, like not enough formalism (this is being worked on though, new developments recently). Btw, the only thing about Lojban that is unambiguous is its grammar. It’s kind of a misconception which imo is not made clear enough to new speakers or even just people who know of Lojban. The grammar being unambiguous is VERY nice but yeh, it’s a long story but the goal of the project was never semantic unambiguity even if there is/was a group of people in the project with that line (and ofc one of the Randians on the wiki and in LLG still continues this line lol)

It’s a lot to get into but briefly, I also think a semantically unambiguous and suitably-useful-for-irl people-language is impossible (and in perfectly consistent formal systems even completeness of a system is provably impossible along the arguments of Godel or whatever lol) but I think some kind of restricted unambiguous formal Lojban could exist parallel and in dialogue with a spoken Lojban possibly, idk, we’ll see if the various attempts ever materialize (la brismu* is new and kinda huge though: https://brismu.systems/)

Although imo this is basically the general AI problem lol

*:

:3

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Haha why whenever there’s something related to formalization the category theory people show up.

Bicategories are pretty weak so i think the necessary to do a lot of big ass proofs to reconcile taxonomic definitions will quickly become a pain point (see OOP spaghetti). And of course some things must be unprovable due to godel incompleteness. If you don’t need to be formal, i guess its nice to have a provable grammar like that, but its not technically any more correct.

Unambiguous grammar is stilll cool.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Yeahhh lol, tbh I think some kind of alternative approach would be best for Lojban but I respect the attempt regardless

Am still a beginner to all this stuff, don’t really know anything but I feel like some kind of paraconsistent, modal system would be more appropriate for a language that is supposed to help people communicate without it being painfully formal but ofc idek what that could mean for Lojban. It just seems like many of the grammatical structures can’t even be formalized in the classical way. Like if I assert P and you assert not P and we both believe our assertions to be true, wtf does that mean to the uhhh universe of discourse or whatever? In a classical definition I guess the whole thing explodes but idk, that’s barely even the fuckin beginning lol, I wrote a little bit more about this here: https://hexbear.net/post/3947645 but it’s a whole mess beyond that. I just think we have to have some way of either managing these contradictions or making them not matter cuz we split up worlds or whatever. Idk what I’m saying ofc, I’m just one of the dumber nerds

So much of the “logic” of this logical language is vibes-based, which is okay practically I guess, the language still functions between people, but leads to many people having very different takes on Lojban (dialecting). The LLG or the language development committee explicitly refuse to rule on stuff like this too, cuz it would make entire classes of Lojban interpretations incorrect (which I agree with doing, as long as MY interpretation is considered correct ofc :3)

Are you big into logic or math? Would love to talk more but I gotta go eep

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

not hugely into it i just had some math friends in college, so i’m also a dumb nerd. the more general your model, the weaker it will be. If we allow contradictory statements, what goal have we even accomplished. I’ll read your other post later and reply any thoughts :)

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

For me, a language which is effective at conveying logic is the most I could ask for.

A paraconsistent system where where individuals can have different universes of discourse would have no analytic statements. Instead, I think you are looking for Jaskowski’s discursive logic, which formulated in modal logic.

have you read quine’s two dogmas? It’s pretty relevant. With respect to the bear goo problem, the confusion seems to arise due to expecting an analytic statement. Whether the bear goo is lo cribe depends on facts about the world (how disintegrated the corpse is, for example) i.e. the universe of discourse, as well as linguistic facts (the sense meaning of lo cribe). The question of xorlo seems to come down to the metaphysical position on the distinction.

A final thing i would point out, is that there is a good reason sets aren’t the exact formulation of lojban: see russel’s paradox. This is a problem which intuitionistic logic “solves”, which sees usage in proof assistants like coq and lean. The univalent foundations project is a very cool rabbit hole. Category theory/categorical logic is also a way of formalizing outside of sets.

permalink
report
parent
reply

chat

!chat@hexbear.net

Create post

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

Community stats

  • 1.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.8K

    Posts

  • 65K

    Comments