Quite true. Not impossible though. One of the marvels of human language in general is that it *can* express very complicated concepts, just by adding another word here or there. [I include mathematics as language; it has a words and a grammar and can express complicated concepts as well. Many things can transfer between, some concepts are relatively unique to each grammar system].
Language at its root is analogies built upon analogies, refined and hewn from birth on up, so it’s *possible*, I believe, for nearly any concept to be explainable _in some form_ to another, via some comprehensible analogy.
It may switch into a language of motion, or experience or music for example, rather than mathematics or logic or words.
Not everything translates perfectly though. But most things, I believe, can be.
What I like about what you’re working, basically _could_ end up amounting to a revision of Chomsky, as the written/spoken language is *full* of paraconsistencies… unlike Logic which, due to what I believe is historical accident [one guy’s writings happened to ‘catch on’ in the West in a big way when it did and influenced… I dunno… 2000+ years of assumptions about the basis of a capital T Truth…] – has been rather limited to what I think of as Boolean [only because I learned about Boolean logic LONG before I heard of any Greek philosophers… and also Boolean is a more accessible form for most minds but fundamentally expresses a similar concept of Excluded middle]…
I don’t _hate_ the excluded middle… but I almost do. I’m GRATEFUL in that it’s taken us as far as it has.
But what if it did not happen? What if many-valued logic systems were the norm in the West instead, while all other historical events remained similar? I can only imagine how the birth of computer systems would have been improved, had we not been tripping over this ridiculous notion of XOR.
It’s ultimately ridiculous because it doesn’t reflect reality. It’s merely a convenient , easy to use shorthand for, “Left hand _or_ right hand BUT NOT NEITHER NOR BOTH NOR SOMEWHERE INBETWEEN [and if so, we mustn’t ask where inbetween because THAT’S IN THE MIDDLE WE’RE EXCLUDING]” and entirely excluding picking something up with your feet. Or leaving it on the ground. Or the object being a figment of the imagination.
Oh well. [there’s my embodied cognition bias showing]
More limitations of mathematics: Why is Pi so damned long? Because they’re trying to fit an object that’s NOT a line into a mathematical system that ultimately analogizes to a line. The number system BREAKS, leaving a long crack that never seems to end.
Yet we keep trying to compress reality into this one dimensional line using our current mathematical system, devising new and clever ways to fit reality onto this limited template that ITSELF merely analogizes to line on a piece of paper… and a line is a figment of our imagination due to the nature of our brains having to compress reality into simplified patterns because they’re too small to take in the uniqueness of the Universe…. _sigh_ sorry. Ranting.