3 ms·

While I think you have an excellent point, I believe what most people mean when they say “not quantifiable” is “not fully quantifiable” as opposed to “completel

While I think you have an excellent point, I believe what most people mean when they say “not quantifiable” is “not fully quantifiable” as opposed to “completely indescribable”. I think this phrase reflects acceptance of the underlying principle behind Gödel’s Incompleteness and the Halting Problem.

whatshisface 8y ago
>I believe what most people mean when they say “not quantifiable” is “not fully quantifiable” as opposed to “completely indescribable”. Describing something and quantifying it are not distinct actions. If you think you can make any progress at all in describing something, then you are doing the same thing as those enigmatic "quantifiers." The only reason it seems different to say "this apple is red," versus "this apple weighs a half pound" is because people are a lot more handy with colors than fractions.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  Quantifying requires numbers, while description does not. I find your comment lacking (description), but I don't have a meaningful numeric value handy for how much so (quantification).
  - User1020 8y ago
    Sounds to me like those against "measurement" are too lazy to argue to make their point or don't want to have their views challenged. That may be fine in isolation, but we are a community trying to solve problems; opinions ("lacking") are useless in this realm.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    >Quantifying requires numbers, while description does not. That statement is equivalent to, "Uantifying requires words that start with U, while in complete contrast Wuantifying requires words that start with W." Granted I should have said, "not meaningfully distinct," but the point is that the only reason there appears to be a boundary between Uantifying and Wuantifying is because there is one group of people that know a lot of W-words and almost no U-words, and another group of people that know almost no W-words but many U-words. Each group thinks they see a "material" boundary while in reality the only distinguishing line is edge of their own familiarity.

whatshisface 8y ago

>I believe what most people mean when they say “not quantifiable” is “not fully quantifiable” as opposed to “completely indescribable”. Describing something and quantifying it are not distinct actions. If you think you can make any progress at all in describing something, then you are doing the same thing as those enigmatic "quantifiers." The only reason it seems different to say "this apple is red," versus "this apple weighs a half pound" is because people are a lot more handy with colors than fractions.

dwaltrip 8y ago
Quantifying requires numbers, while description does not. I find your comment lacking (description), but I don't have a meaningful numeric value handy for how much so (quantification).
- User1020 8y ago
  Sounds to me like those against "measurement" are too lazy to argue to make their point or don't want to have their views challenged. That may be fine in isolation, but we are a community trying to solve problems; opinions ("lacking") are useless in this realm.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  >Quantifying requires numbers, while description does not. That statement is equivalent to, "Uantifying requires words that start with U, while in complete contrast Wuantifying requires words that start with W." Granted I should have said, "not meaningfully distinct," but the point is that the only reason there appears to be a boundary between Uantifying and Wuantifying is because there is one group of people that know a lot of W-words and almost no U-words, and another group of people that know almost no W-words but many U-words. Each group thinks they see a "material" boundary while in reality the only distinguishing line is edge of their own familiarity.