This video has broken into a whole new level of conlanging. These 7 symbols aren't just words; they're the elementary particles of semantic meaning, which have to be combined into atoms and molecules to come anywhere near describing macroscopic objects.
@@callyral i am not a linguist or conlanger, but even machine code is more redundant, since it has several ways to achieve the same thing, like , , , . (because, know, it has to be actually practically usable) What it's really similar to is an esoang called SUBLEQ, which is a version of assembly, reduced to a single instruction, SUbtract and Branch if Less than or EQual to. It takes three addresses in memory (A, B, C), subtracts A from B, stores the result in B and jumps to C if the result is negative or zero. (To make the esolang any useful there are also some predefined addresses in memory where you can input and output information)
@@Nzargnalphabet "baby don't hurt me" might be something like: "the lifeform that is similar to but is not in reality a lifeform that has existed for a short time and gets bigger over time does not cause this lifeform that is the speaker to become less in a way that is not real but is perceived as being similar to really becoming less."
That's why it was a clay hut with 7 stories and the people who built it fought because all of them wanted the top floor and they stopped talking to each other because they were pissed.
This somehow feels like a sequel to Goptjaam, it breaks linguistics at such a fundamental level that it is genuinely impossible for a human to use this. You could probably use IO to communicate to aliens from an alternate dimension or something.
Fantastic work- but one question. Don’t < and > function more as Syntax than Words themselves? That would reduce the complexity to 5 words with 2 necessary syntactical entities! Edit: An idea, though its introduction would reduce the cursed-ness of the minilang. Representing bracket contents as levels of exponents (shifting words up) would greatly increase readability while removing the bulk of brackets.
tinyBF only has 4 operators. Though it's also pretty trivial to prove every Turing-Complete language is equivalent to a brainfuck variant and vice versa. It'd be... interesting to see a conlang using just universal quantification, existential quantification, conjunction, disjunction, bicondition, and negation but... not only would that give immediate weird issues like sentences only having semantic meaning if they and their context are true, it's been about a century since the linguists and philosophers working on making a perfectly logical language like that made the big discovery: It's impossible lol.
@@cyborgninjamonkey you don't need all that, either Peirce arrow or Sheffer stroke suffice for a complete propositional logic system. Either of the quantifications should be enough for the first-order logic because !∃!x = ∀x and !∀!x = ∃x. What do you mean by the perfectly logical language? A human language? Because the Turing-complete stuff works on NAND (or NOR) already. I wonder if Calculus of constructions or the Type theory in general can help us design the ultimate conlang.
Lojban' to and toi are words, but syntactically they serve as brackets, so... I think the difference here if they are pronounced or not: in the natlangs parentheses are not audible even though present in the written speech, unlike in Lojban where they are real words.
@@user-tk2jy8xr8b This is pedantic, yes; rigour, though... That's not first order in the absence of a definition of "=". That's a mental puzzle I've killed a lot of time toying with, hehe. The "perfectly logical language" I refer to would be the efforts of Bertrand Russell, A.N. Whitehead, et al to create a perfect logical language alongside the endeavor of correctly creating the Principia, which remains unfinished on the grounds that the authors discovered around volume 3 that it was literally impossible. I skipped over the arrow and stroke mentioned at the beginning... I simply have enough notation in my head already and the first-order forms of Peano arithmetic and ZFC are plenty for me in a space that gets undecidable relatively very quickly anyway.
This is like when you're a kid and you have a dictionary and you think about what would happen if you kept expanding each word into its dictionary definition
I apologize for repeating the "monkey brain" jokes so much, and making thin video, honestly, unnecessarily longer than it should be. This is also a CCC3 submission and I do not actually claim that this language is "the best"; even if you define "the best" the way I did in the video, you can probably make this conlang better. This was originally purely a minilang, not necessarily an interuniversal one, which is why it has stuff like numbers (which aren't required to exist in other realities) and the vague concepts of + and - like representing future and past even though that doesn't make sense at its base. And I know you somehow have to communicate the instructions on how to speak this language to another universe before speaking it, so no, the goal of interuniversality is only half serious and I don't think it can be achived in any way. I am also sorry for saying too much "you would never understand" stuff. Most of the time, i could have explained it; however, that'd make the video even longer if i had to explain every word's function. I do not claim that only i can understand it or anything like that, i too often struggled with translations and had to simplify the final one, but i did attempt to at least somewhat explain the conlang and how it works, with examples partially broken down. I will attempt to avoid leaving it vague and seeming like i just want nobody to understand anything, and try to break down concepts when it's viable.
don't be sorry, the monkey jokes were fire and the repeated "roasting" (couldn't find a better word) kinda reminded me of GLaDOS lmao something like this has been on the backburner for a long time, I thought it was impossible since there is no rule to how words are defined, I thought about using ML techniques to find the basis vectors for word vector embeddings but the way you have done it is just so much more clever I still can't believe someone has done it, holy shit
i argue that numbers exist functionally within every system of things that exist because they derive from fundamentally qualities of logical computation itself.
in most kinds of logics, the inexistence of inexistence is the same as existence (one can use double brackets "" so this is unambiguous) this kinda reminds me of when I tried to define "green" using the universal core vocabulary
But intuitionist logic is the exception, and that one is the one where you can actually do some pretty cool stuff when it comes to automation of reasoning :')
I am sorry, i’m not going to watch the video right now because it’s too massive but I’ll try to will watch it when I have time, for the first 8 minutes I have been fascinated trying to process all, I just need to tell you that this is not only a cursed conlang, but one of the 5 greatest conlangs created in the 2020s, even in this whole century (2000-2024), I know this is too much text, but congrats! I wish you win
I love the idea, but the video could be 30 minutes shorter without all the "you puny human" jokes Also, at 39:33 , i disagree , as "hi" is like saying "i acknowledge you exist"
To be fair yes, since sometimes people greet each other without starting a conversation Also sorry for the length of the videoI just didn't think it would be that long even with jokes inserted
This is walking one some thin ontological ice. I know it probably isn't meant super seriously but there is indeed room for discussion about your universal assumptions :)
As a lifeform, I formerly existed in the universe where I did not know this information and now exist in the universe where I do know this information 👍
why did this video made me lock tf in and helped me "connect" multiple dots regarding my various personal projects? its something about the things you speak about. i know this isnt going anywhere but as you keep talking i feel like my thought process is being aided in some places. i was in a thinking slump but listening to you go on and on, things just started clicking, not even being ironic
This is utterly fascinating! I hope in the future you create some sort of documentation that has all of this information more readily available to look at. More diagrams, more tables, more explanations, more more more! I'd LOVE to see that someday. Subscribing to hopefully see that happen!
I was thinking of something like this the other day. I envisioned a conlang where any people communicating would chain together hypothetical statements (qualified by the specified knowledge/logic system) and a fundamental part of the language would be the ability to "rotate" though an abstract n-dimensional state space. This would have to be described before any statement it would modify, and then some continuous feature (pitch? color?) or a discrete approximation would allow the person to shift/modify/rotate the statement through the "state space of all possible meanings" relative to an agreed upon metric, sort of like a tensor-based language within David Lewis' modal realism. Your conlang is much more meta, and I have no idea how to actually implement mine, but just thought I'd mention it since we seem to be thinking on similar paths lol
@@interbeamproductions Wait can that be used to describe stuff? I thought it was also only a programming language. Are you talking about the Curry-Howard correspondence i.e. programs are proofs?
@@aaronspeedy7780 The fact a computer can execute this language does not mean it's not an actual language. If you can use it to communicate ideas with another person, then it's a language, and you can definitely use this to communicate any idea you can imagine.
Yeah I just need to try to describe what spacetime is somehow and this language is already ambiguous enough. At the level of work I have put into the translation, at least, which loses tons of information, I think you *can* describe something less ambiguously but it'd be very hard. But hey it's a cursed conlang I don't think any of this year's submissions are normal.
@@m.i.c.h.oYes, but no words in IO are pronounced and they function weirdly meaning syntax/content distinction isn't really useful and both are inherent parts of the language. Though as another commenter has suggested you can define existence (+) as the inexistence of inexistence ( or ), and I also think you can just refer to objects as IDs attached to the concept of essence (information) or maybe existence, so you can still take the word count down to 5. And if you also somehow define X through I, you can bring it down to 4 words and only 2 of them are content. But that's just speculation.
Personally I'd define Kelvin as 'hundredths of the distance between the boiling and freezing points of water, starting from absolute zero,' but that could be even harder for all I know.
55:20 another idea for proper nouns would be to define the Unicode standard (somehow) and then say that it is the string represented by [sequence of codepoints, which are all numbers] in Canonical [Composed/Decomposed, doesn’t matter, but you would have to specify, pick your poison] Form in the Unicode Standard
for the language it, to speak/writing it more easily to have a character than can be used to define a concept or a unit of text as an id and then use the character and its id to have represent the concept or the object (O), will shorten it significantly. it could prevent constant repetition of the full descriptions
Lojban employs brackets. Base 2 isn't the smallest, the smallest is base 1 where you encode numbers by literally writing them: I, II, III, IIII, IIIII, etc. It's too inefficient, but it's the only natural way to represent count: by counting. Surprisingly, the final literal translation is something very familiar to the lawyers. I know IO is not supposed to be used for real, but if we assume its usage for some sort of interuniversal communication - how do you describe the meaning of every symbol to the "aliens"? Lincos has some plan at least. What's the syntax? Phrase ::= Subphrase | Subphrase Phrase; Subphrase ::= Word | ''; Word ::= 'I' | 'O' | 'X' | '+' | '-'? You know you can do without brackets, right? Take a look at the smallest Turing-complete programming language Iota: it encodes the "ι" combinator as 1 and the syntactic grouping as 0. It's much more readable to encode them as i and * respectively though: compare 010101011 and *i*i*i*ii (which is (i(i(i(ii)))) which is the S-combinator), the latter is certainly clearer. This way you can reduce the language to 6 symbols, but it'll become essentially a binary tree.
Ah, I remember setting out to work on more-or-less the same idea once (explicitly as a way to parody the cringy “minimalist” conlangs, such as Toki Pona, by doing exactly what they do but better), but I'm sure glad someone did it instead of me xD P.S. That definition of the second is one of the most stilted, unnatural, overcomplicated, ass-backwards sentences I've ever seen written in a natural language; of course it's confusing. Something normal, like “the second is [equal to] the time during which a caesium atom undergoes 9,192,631,770 unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transitions”, is much easier to parse (and doesn't try to shoehorn the definition of the Hertz into that of the second for whatever godforsaken reason).
I don't think toki pona is cringe though and this conlang wasn't made as a parody but rather as its own thing just vaguely inspired by the idea of minimalism
So according to my high school science class the metric system has a set of standard weights that the system is based on. Not like “made to fit the measurements” but like “if you were to add too many extra molecules you would disrupt the entire metric system”. This means that at all times the weight of a gram as a unit of measurement is the weight of a specific sphere kept in a vault (somewhere on France I want to say?) and if you can give that object an ID you can describe anything as being equal to however many of that gram sphere in weight. Whether or not that is shorter than the alternatives I’m not sure but an interesting thought
Ah makes sense. But since you would have to define the time you’re referring to the object in anyways because space time is a single concept you can just make sure to put it as the time when it was first made, right?
22:00 “we can’t use time in a normal sense, that’s not real, that’s just human bias” **uses + for future and - for past, simultaneously breaking own convention
I am one of "those who have endured until the very end" Overall it's a pretty good video and conlang, maybe a couple things could be better, but "better" is subjective anyway so idk It's certainly the best attempt at a minimal/universal language I've ever seen. Good job
An idea: you can use ASCII for IDs 1) we need numbers, but we have them. is 42 for example 2) we need (meta) sequences, but you can just encode that with depth level. so a string "ABC" is so here's a good id (please comment if you decode it): ``` ``` And I needed an encoder/decoder for these ids So I figured that Haskell would be a good fit for this 1) both functions take a string, so wrap the thing you want to pass in "thing" 2) both functions are point-free, to make it more unreadable ```haskell encode = (foldr (((("")) .) . ()) "" . map (fix ( ec -> bool ((:) (bool '+' '-') . (== 0) . (`mod` 2) rec . (`div` 2)) (const []) (== 0)) . ord)) decode = (map (chr . (fix ( ec -> bool (const 0) ((+) (bool 0 1) . (== '+') . head (2 *) . rec . tail) or . (flip map "+-" .) ((==) . head)))) . tail . words . (>>= (bool (: []) (const "> ") (== '
I don't think it's possible to exist without being biased towards reality, and while we're at it I don't think it's possible to be alive without being biased towards life and experiencing the world as a living thing. that said this is a very interesting concept regardless!
A great video and a wonderful conlang! My left ear is fluent in the audible receiving of this language, could you please make right ear version so we can achieve 100% audible fluency?
Thanks for the language! I thought of doing something similar, but dodn't think it'd come around to do it and I have little to no experiences with conlangs, so thanks!
Love it. Reminds me of my own idea, of coming up with a way to enumerate the universe in binary. I've had a few thoughts while watching: 1. X/I - Seeing it written out like this, made me realize the symmetry between X and I. I understand X as the context of the O, the bigger system which includes O. I understand I as a property (information) of an O, a part of it. This made realize, how you can think of an object, as a context for it's properties ("Chair" is an X for it's atoms), and vice versa. Now, with that idea, couldn't we actually drop the word count to 6? I understand O meaning something like "there is a thing", which allows us to declare the existence of things, and then allows us to refer to its context and properties. But if we understood I as "the part of the whole" and X as "the whole of the part", couldn't we replace O with an I, with I being used as a "there is a part of the universe/the everything"? Or perhaps have you tried that, and it just didn't work, and found having a "middle word" is necessary? 2. Color - I found the approach to describing color in IO weird. Don't get me wrong here, color is one of my special interests, I am quite aware of how complex of a topic it is. But the approach to describing color you presented in the video seemed rather contrary to everything else, with IO being supposed to be not influenced by silly monkey brains. As every speaker of IO, would have to somehow adapt the message to their own universe and its laws, why not simply do the same with color? Why not describe only the objective properties of the thing you are talking about, such as the wavelength, and allow it up to the receiver to interpret it accordingly in a way they can understand. Like "Oh, I see, this would produce light of this wavelength, so I know this would appear in this quale" to me. 3. Good/Evil - I 100% agree with good and evil being completely subjective concepts. However, I don't see how that would stop you from defining it - even, I think it's rather simple. I think you can define "good" for a particular agent as "the thing, that the agent, will make/try to cause to exist/exist more of, as time goes on" (I use the word "agent" as "a thing that makes decisions"). This is equivalent to "good" in the sense of "what an agent believes is good/will lead to good". Also I am aware that agents may try to achieve goals with methods that don't work/actually will lead them away from their goals - this is not a counterargument, since we're talking about what an agent considers good. And if anyone would counter with "but people choose to do things they know are evil" - that is a confusion of perspectives from which we're judging something as good/evil. Subscribed. Chess battle advanced.
What's funny is that if humans ever used this, they would just eventually universally agree about what identifiers for every single Thing or State are and just use those instead, thus, inventing a language on top of a language
31:57 Counterpoint: The topological description of the normal vector on a surface is close enough to the idea of "up" that I'd say it's good enough at a planetary scale. Sure it's not the exact direction that gravity pulls in, but I think it is the direction most people mean when they say "up".
I think you have actually managed to make the language with the fewest words ever (although calling this a 'language' might be a bit of a stretch), well done! i'll stick with toki pi pono, because personally my mammal brain has a better time comprehending it since it has fewer layers of abstraction. This is sort of the perfect anti-toki pona, a language not made for human concepts but the universe itself. A language biased _against_ reality, if you will. The video itself could probably be made more time-efficient (i freely admit to having watched it at 1.5x speed) but if you were going for the award of most time per word of the language, i think you win by more than one universe. i look forward to seeing this in the finals.
I think that the fact that + and - are used for both "nonexisting" and "existing" and identifiers makes the language a bit inconsistent, because those are two completely different purposes and you have no guarantee that the beings from different universes will use them in the same way. The most trivial thing to do would of course be to add words 0 and 1 just for the sake of identifiers, but actually it's possible without them, since you can just use set theory to define "numbers" (or simply unique things for that matter). O : object 0 O : object 1 O : object 2 O : object 3
30:53 yeah, good luck trying right and left, at least with up and down all you have to do is define gravitational objects and have the reference point be the gravitational object that is currently nearest, and say that increasing the distance from that reference point is “up” and decreasing it is “ now all you’d have to do is define gravity, which could be defined by saying that the more an object “grows” the slower space time goes around it, also, it constantly decreases the space time between it and other similar objects, however, with left and right, you’d need to define symmetry and asymmetry, and how “left” is the same as one half of an asymmetrical object and right is the other half, and how they are considered opposites to each other, but I actually don’t quite know how to define symmetry
video! It means good. If you think only valuable thing for lifeform is being alive. Humans plant fields and build cities to not die from hunger or wild animals.
I see no problem with this conlang's perceived limitations, as perception is equivalent to reality, thus making this truly a language of all things. To put it more simply, reality is fundamentally a product of the perception that creates it, as reality must exist as a framework for understanding. Existence can be independent from perception, but must also in some sense therefore be independent from reality. But no being can ever be outside of existence, as to be is to exist, and if one exists one cannot not exist.
My definition of "bad" would probably be "A thing, action, or event that an individual sentient/nonsentient lifeform OR an indeterminately large or complex group of sentient/nonsentient lifeforms do not want to exist/happen.", and vise versa for "good".
Personal notes ___ - IDs might be used to construct a whole vocabulary (might use hex numbers to abbreviate binary?) - IO is useless in communicating human concepts. Might be instead used as a tool to think outside the human contexts and biases. I might use it when I get back to study the basics of quantum mechanics - IO might help me build an intuition on it by letting me think outside of my human bias. - meaning of words are extremely dependent on how the speaker views the universe. Therefore, IO, at least as proposed in this video, is a one-person language where every person have their own set of vocabulary, definitions, syntaxes.. etc. (If multiple entities can share the same version of IO, IO is usable as an encryption system between them. Since IO is not a human friendly language, we could use this to make AIs obfuscate information from humans)
0:54 This claim is false, or at the very least, ill defined. "The smallest programming language in the world" here is probably by vocab size, for which i'd say no, jsfuck takes that one. (only 6 characters; strict subset of JavaScript). Something like subleq has even fewer operations, indeed. You might also be referring to implementation complexity; and yeah, brainfuck was designed to have a simple implementation, and JavaScript was anything but. However, there is no canonical brainfuck implementation to precisely compate in any objective manner, and an emulator for something like subleq is roughly as short and simple as an interpreter for brainfuck.
59:03 From a reinforcement learning perspective, "feeling good" is the terminal goal of, at least, every animal. And that's how I'd define it. Something that O "desires", which has been unsatisfactorily previously defined in the video as something that an agent achieves in most timelines
this needs it's own unicode characters that are symetrical with each other, and being symetrical it implies there should be a back slash and foward slash, so circle, vertical, horizontal, vertical & horizontal, top-left to lower-right, top-right to lower-left, top-left to lower-right & top-right to lower-left, and brackets. slashes could be like superparens, ditto marks, and, or, (i suppose you could just use nand), i dunno
An adequate, but less precise way of defining what a second would be to say "the time it takes for Earth to rotate around its axis divided by 24*60*60 (or whatever the true duration of Earth's rotation is)". Earth could be defined as "the planet this message originates from" or something like that. However, that might still be too biased towards human perception and may be too inaccurate. But it would suffice if the message is intended to be used among humans.
and the word for the set of elementary particles that make up particle of dust in mexico, a photon just born in the core of the sun and a single atom from the corona of proxima centauri is O too so a human is the same as the set of elementary particles that make up particle of dust in mexico, a photon just born in the core of the sun and a single atom from the corona of proxima centauri
i think when displaying the text you should alternate between different color and/or shape brackets to make it easier to parse (just a cosmetic change)
already thinking about a (am i allowed to nest two concepts next to eachother to essentially say “and” i havent watched the whole video yet so maybe ill see)
really interesting to think about how different cultures would end up speaking different languages within IO based on how they define objects in their world. this language feels very personal and creative in the way things get defined
This video has broken into a whole new level of conlanging. These 7 symbols aren't just words; they're the elementary particles of semantic meaning, which have to be combined into atoms and molecules to come anywhere near describing macroscopic objects.
didn't expect to see you here
it’s like the brainfuck of conlangs
Atomic conlanging
bro got 2 blue comments
your voice is an inexplicable superposition of human and text to speech
Of course it is, he's teaching us IO after all
finally! the language version of Assembly!
Conlang version of the esolang known as Brainfuck :D
Imagine a brainfuck program with this as comments or documentation, 😂
well really it is the language version of machine code
@@dageekoftheweek THAT'S SO GENIUS
@@callyral i am not a linguist or conlanger, but even machine code is more redundant, since it has several ways to achieve the same thing, like , , , . (because, know, it has to be actually practically usable)
What it's really similar to is an esoang called SUBLEQ, which is a version of assembly, reduced to a single instruction, SUbtract and Branch if Less than or EQual to. It takes three addresses in memory (A, B, C), subtracts A from B, stores the result in B and jumps to C if the result is negative or zero. (To make the esolang any useful there are also some predefined addresses in memory where you can input and output information)
i finally became fluent in this language after 5 days of studying, and now i've been using it for 92 years! thank you, language-making agent
I love this comment. I've been looking at it for 3 years now
Alright, who let him near the pocket singularity!
What is love in this language?
@@Nzargnalphabet "baby don't hurt me" might be something like: "the lifeform that is similar to but is not in reality a lifeform that has existed for a short time and gets bigger over time does not cause this lifeform that is the speaker to become less in a way that is not real but is perceived as being similar to really becoming less."
The tower of babel event was the one that split one single word into these seven.
That's why it was a clay hut with 7 stories and the people who built it fought because all of them wanted the top floor and they stopped talking to each other because they were pissed.
In other words, Big Bang
"The Language of Good" fan:🤓
"The Language of Language" Enjoyer:🗿
ni li ike tawa mi tawa jan poka mi tawa jan ale pi toki pona! o pilin monsuta. mi kama...
(ni li musi a a)
@@alsolii shenmyu wi musite mowit pa toki pona ena?
i take this as a direct challenge and i already have the perfect idea for a 6-sememe language that is extremely biased toward reality
This is beyond 'A'utism, this is 'B'utism. Great video sir
'B'ut...
Butism
βtism
beauty-ism
‘C’utism update when
This somehow feels like a sequel to Goptjaam, it breaks linguistics at such a fundamental level that it is genuinely impossible for a human to use this. You could probably use IO to communicate to aliens from an alternate dimension or something.
Hey, I just said that!
It's a language outside of perspective. It is universal. Alien language could translate into this and this into human language.
goptjaam-io pidgin when
Fantastic work- but one question.
Don’t < and > function more as Syntax than Words themselves?
That would reduce the complexity to 5 words with 2 necessary syntactical entities!
Edit: An idea, though its introduction would reduce the cursed-ness of the minilang. Representing bracket contents as levels of exponents (shifting words up) would greatly increase readability while removing the bulk of brackets.
I totally agree with the first part, and would love to see what your edit speaks of implemented into io
tinyBF only has 4 operators. Though it's also pretty trivial to prove every Turing-Complete language is equivalent to a brainfuck variant and vice versa. It'd be... interesting to see a conlang using just universal quantification, existential quantification, conjunction, disjunction, bicondition, and negation but... not only would that give immediate weird issues like sentences only having semantic meaning if they and their context are true, it's been about a century since the linguists and philosophers working on making a perfectly logical language like that made the big discovery: It's impossible lol.
@@cyborgninjamonkey you don't need all that, either Peirce arrow or Sheffer stroke suffice for a complete propositional logic system. Either of the quantifications should be enough for the first-order logic because !∃!x = ∀x and !∀!x = ∃x.
What do you mean by the perfectly logical language? A human language? Because the Turing-complete stuff works on NAND (or NOR) already.
I wonder if Calculus of constructions or the Type theory in general can help us design the ultimate conlang.
Lojban' to and toi are words, but syntactically they serve as brackets, so... I think the difference here if they are pronounced or not: in the natlangs parentheses are not audible even though present in the written speech, unlike in Lojban where they are real words.
@@user-tk2jy8xr8b This is pedantic, yes; rigour, though... That's not first order in the absence of a definition of "=". That's a mental puzzle I've killed a lot of time toying with, hehe. The "perfectly logical language" I refer to would be the efforts of Bertrand Russell, A.N. Whitehead, et al to create a perfect logical language alongside the endeavor of correctly creating the Principia, which remains unfinished on the grounds that the authors discovered around volume 3 that it was literally impossible. I skipped over the arrow and stroke mentioned at the beginning... I simply have enough notation in my head already and the first-order forms of Peano arithmetic and ZFC are plenty for me in a space that gets undecidable relatively very quickly anyway.
As far as "good" goes- you already described what it means for an object to "want" something: "good" seems like a logical extension of that concept
This is like when you're a kid and you have a dictionary and you think about what would happen if you kept expanding each word into its dictionary definition
I apologize for repeating the "monkey brain" jokes so much, and making thin video, honestly, unnecessarily longer than it should be.
This is also a CCC3 submission and I do not actually claim that this language is "the best"; even if you define "the best" the way I did in the video, you can probably make this conlang better.
This was originally purely a minilang, not necessarily an interuniversal one, which is why it has stuff like numbers (which aren't required to exist in other realities) and the vague concepts of + and - like representing future and past even though that doesn't make sense at its base.
And I know you somehow have to communicate the instructions on how to speak this language to another universe before speaking it, so no, the goal of interuniversality is only half serious and I don't think it can be achived in any way.
I am also sorry for saying too much "you would never understand" stuff. Most of the time, i could have explained it; however, that'd make the video even longer if i had to explain every word's function. I do not claim that only i can understand it or anything like that, i too often struggled with translations and had to simplify the final one, but i did attempt to at least somewhat explain the conlang and how it works, with examples partially broken down. I will attempt to avoid leaving it vague and seeming like i just want nobody to understand anything, and try to break down concepts when it's viable.
don't be sorry, the monkey jokes were fire and the repeated "roasting" (couldn't find a better word) kinda reminded me of GLaDOS lmao
something like this has been on the backburner for a long time,
I thought it was impossible since there is no rule to how words are defined,
I thought about using ML techniques to find the basis vectors for word vector embeddings but the way you have done it is just so much more clever
I still can't believe someone has done it, holy shit
i argue that numbers exist functionally within every system of things that exist because they derive from fundamentally qualities of logical computation itself.
I found the monkey jokes funny. Some people are just too tiktok brained for this type of long form content
You did amazing
@@alexzhukovsky8361 That's not really their fault.
in most kinds of logics, the inexistence of inexistence is the same as existence (one can use double brackets "" so this is unambiguous)
this kinda reminds me of when I tried to define "green" using the universal core vocabulary
But intuitionist logic is the exception, and that one is the one where you can actually do some pretty cool stuff when it comes to automation of reasoning :')
If you could get this all the way down to only 4 words you could then use DNA as a writing medium (with each base being a word)
You already can do this! It would just be a little inefficient
@@thecoolkittensarecool it isn't already?
@@janJosu i meant the DNA writing system would be a little inefficient but yeah seeing how inefficient the rest of the conlang is
I think it would be best to reuse RNA codons to code for each symbol like how they code for amino acids in organisms.
I am sorry, i’m not going to watch the video right now because it’s too massive but I’ll try to will watch it when I have time, for the first 8 minutes I have been fascinated trying to process all, I just need to tell you that this is not only a cursed conlang, but one of the 5 greatest conlangs created in the 2020s, even in this whole century (2000-2024), I know this is too much text, but congrats! I wish you win
I love the idea, but the video could be 30 minutes shorter without all the "you puny human" jokes
Also, at 39:33 , i disagree , as "hi" is like saying "i acknowledge you exist"
To be fair yes, since sometimes people greet each other without starting a conversation
Also sorry for the length of the videoI just didn't think it would be that long even with jokes inserted
Lojban has 2 different greetings for those. `coi` for “Hello, I acknowledge that you exist”, `doi` for “Hello, I’d like to start speaking with you”
This is walking one some thin ontological ice. I know it probably isn't meant super seriously but there is indeed room for discussion about your universal assumptions :)
Plants:
"Know now the light that I will always reject."
Me:
"So you are green?
This is like infinite-craft, but as a language. And you have to write out all the components every time
As a lifeform, I formerly existed in the universe where I did not know this information and now exist in the universe where I do know this information 👍
why did this video made me lock tf in and helped me "connect" multiple dots regarding my various personal projects? its something about the things you speak about. i know this isnt going anywhere but as you keep talking i feel like my thought process is being aided in some places. i was in a thinking slump but listening to you go on and on, things just started clicking, not even being ironic
literally language alchemy
This is utterly fascinating! I hope in the future you create some sort of documentation that has all of this information more readily available to look at. More diagrams, more tables, more explanations, more more more! I'd LOVE to see that someday. Subscribing to hopefully see that happen!
this video went from getting confused about how there are only seven words to laughing at how impractical IO is to philosophy
I was thinking of something like this the other day. I envisioned a conlang where any people communicating would chain together hypothetical statements (qualified by the specified knowledge/logic system) and a fundamental part of the language would be the ability to "rotate" though an abstract n-dimensional state space. This would have to be described before any statement it would modify, and then some continuous feature (pitch? color?) or a discrete approximation would allow the person to shift/modify/rotate the statement through the "state space of all possible meanings" relative to an agreed upon metric, sort of like a tensor-based language within David Lewis' modal realism. Your conlang is much more meta, and I have no idea how to actually implement mine, but just thought I'd mention it since we seem to be thinking on similar paths lol
Binary Lambda Calculus is a more general language, but IO seems really fun too
Lambda Calculus is a programming language though. It can't describe stuff
@@aaronspeedy7780never heard of SKI?
@@interbeamproductions Wait can that be used to describe stuff? I thought it was also only a programming language. Are you talking about the Curry-Howard correspondence i.e. programs are proofs?
oh my god a lambda calculus-based conlang would be so cool
@@aaronspeedy7780 The fact a computer can execute this language does not mean it's not an actual language. If you can use it to communicate ideas with another person, then it's a language, and you can definitely use this to communicate any idea you can imagine.
(Insert giant scroll of IO describing all of another universe's objects)
I feel like I'm being unprogrammed
I would say that "Life" would be a multilayered, hypercomplex machine fighting against entropy.
You can reduce it to 6 words
because X is always a subset of I. There is no reason to distinguish between them
And the brackets are just syntax from what I understand
Yeah I just need to try to describe what spacetime is somehow and this language is already ambiguous enough. At the level of work I have put into the translation, at least, which loses tons of information, I think you *can* describe something less ambiguously but it'd be very hard. But hey it's a cursed conlang I don't think any of this year's submissions are normal.
@@m.i.c.h.oYes, but no words in IO are pronounced and they function weirdly meaning syntax/content distinction isn't really useful and both are inherent parts of the language. Though as another commenter has suggested you can define existence (+) as the inexistence of inexistence ( or ), and I also think you can just refer to objects as IDs attached to the concept of essence (information) or maybe existence, so you can still take the word count down to 5. And if you also somehow define X through I, you can bring it down to 4 words and only 2 of them are content. But that's just speculation.
you can reduce it too one word "I"
@@LucasBucur no you can’t.
one of the most thought provoking videos i watched if not the most
Personally I'd define Kelvin as 'hundredths of the distance between the boiling and freezing points of water, starting from absolute zero,' but that could be even harder for all I know.
bro this is actually incredible and very impressive. subscribed!!
55:20 another idea for proper nouns would be to define the Unicode standard (somehow) and then say that it is the string represented by [sequence of codepoints, which are all numbers] in Canonical [Composed/Decomposed, doesn’t matter, but you would have to specify, pick your poison] Form in the Unicode Standard
Well yeah though for the Unicode standard you probably have to explain how computers and light works or something but like that's unavoidable
Good: the quality that a lifeform wants to be in a world where it exists, rather than a world where it doesn’t exist
In my hyptothesis, if you assign a vocal sound for every word, this can be beatbox language
i suppose liquids can be defined as incompressible fluids while gasses are compressible
Ich bin sehr stolz auf dich 👏
Ich war mit dir in der Bibliothek 📚
Mache weiter viel Erfolg
Someone should make an element combining game out of this
love that the name of the language is literally Input-Output
0:59 Technically, the smallest language is Unary. But good luck writing anything with it!
for the language it, to speak/writing it more easily to have a character than can be used to define a concept or a unit of text as an id and then use the character and its id to have represent the concept or the object (O), will shorten it significantly. it could prevent constant repetition of the full descriptions
Did you just invent pronouns?
I thought about it via an assignment operator
very useful, although it would mean one more symbol
Don't tell me this is brainfuck for language
Just got 1 minute into the video
this was my reaction as well
Lojban employs brackets. Base 2 isn't the smallest, the smallest is base 1 where you encode numbers by literally writing them: I, II, III, IIII, IIIII, etc. It's too inefficient, but it's the only natural way to represent count: by counting.
Surprisingly, the final literal translation is something very familiar to the lawyers.
I know IO is not supposed to be used for real, but if we assume its usage for some sort of interuniversal communication - how do you describe the meaning of every symbol to the "aliens"? Lincos has some plan at least.
What's the syntax? Phrase ::= Subphrase | Subphrase Phrase; Subphrase ::= Word | ''; Word ::= 'I' | 'O' | 'X' | '+' | '-'?
You know you can do without brackets, right? Take a look at the smallest Turing-complete programming language Iota: it encodes the "ι" combinator as 1 and the syntactic grouping as 0. It's much more readable to encode them as i and * respectively though: compare 010101011 and *i*i*i*ii (which is (i(i(i(ii)))) which is the S-combinator), the latter is certainly clearer. This way you can reduce the language to 6 symbols, but it'll become essentially a binary tree.
i am going to beam this video into my brain at 2x speed and become one with the universe
Ah, I remember setting out to work on more-or-less the same idea once (explicitly as a way to parody the cringy “minimalist” conlangs, such as Toki Pona, by doing exactly what they do but better), but I'm sure glad someone did it instead of me xD
P.S. That definition of the second is one of the most stilted, unnatural, overcomplicated, ass-backwards sentences I've ever seen written in a natural language; of course it's confusing. Something normal, like “the second is [equal to] the time during which a caesium atom undergoes 9,192,631,770 unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transitions”, is much easier to parse (and doesn't try to shoehorn the definition of the Hertz into that of the second for whatever godforsaken reason).
I don't think toki pona is cringe though and this conlang wasn't made as a parody but rather as its own thing just vaguely inspired by the idea of minimalism
nah bro actually fathomed the programming language of reality and hyperreality with this one
So according to my high school science class the metric system has a set of standard weights that the system is based on. Not like “made to fit the measurements” but like “if you were to add too many extra molecules you would disrupt the entire metric system”. This means that at all times the weight of a gram as a unit of measurement is the weight of a specific sphere kept in a vault (somewhere on France I want to say?) and if you can give that object an ID you can describe anything as being equal to however many of that gram sphere in weight. Whether or not that is shorter than the alternatives I’m not sure but an interesting thought
It used to be based on them, but they've changed to physical definitions because the weights were changing mass slowly.
Ah makes sense. But since you would have to define the time you’re referring to the object in anyways because space time is a single concept you can just make sure to put it as the time when it was first made, right?
Yeah, but that's still technically not the same as the proper definitions of units though the difference is pretty much negligible
What should I do next? (Not necessarily a conlang, maybe something about linguistics in general)
What Is fictional googology
22:00 “we can’t use time in a normal sense, that’s not real, that’s just human bias” **uses + for future and - for past, simultaneously breaking own convention
If you have a different idea, propose it. That was the simplest thing I could do.
I think we found a finalist, fellas
Well I definitely wasn't expecting to be watching an hour long video about a conlang based on brainfuck today, but I sure as hell am going to do it.
I am one of "those who have endured until the very end"
Overall it's a pretty good video and conlang, maybe a couple things could be better, but "better" is subjective anyway so idk
It's certainly the best attempt at a minimal/universal language I've ever seen.
Good job
An idea: you can use ASCII for IDs
1) we need numbers, but we have them. is 42 for example
2) we need (meta) sequences, but you can just encode that with depth level. so a string "ABC" is
so here's a good id (please comment if you decode it):
```
```
And I needed an encoder/decoder for these ids
So I figured that Haskell would be a good fit for this
1) both functions take a string, so wrap the thing you want to pass in "thing"
2) both functions are point-free, to make it more unreadable
```haskell
encode = (foldr (((("")) .) . ()) "" . map (fix (
ec -> bool ((:) (bool '+' '-') . (== 0) . (`mod` 2) rec . (`div` 2)) (const []) (== 0)) . ord))
decode = (map (chr . (fix (
ec -> bool (const 0) ((+) (bool 0 1) . (== '+') . head (2 *) . rec . tail) or . (flip map "+-" .) ((==) . head)))) . tail . words . (>>= (bool (: []) (const "> ") (== '
This is the OTHER esolang-conlang crossover I never knew I needed after AHL.
This is what I've been waiting for.
This is an experience.
I don't think it's possible to exist without being biased towards reality, and while we're at it I don't think it's possible to be alive without being biased towards life and experiencing the world as a living thing. that said this is a very interesting concept regardless!
Haven't watched the video yet, but this immediately looks to me like the conlang version of brainfuck. Looks fun.
Hello should be "sound that will make you keep me alive"
brainfuck and toki pona but itty bitty tiny
wow ok this was brought up please don’t explode me
A great video and a wonderful conlang! My left ear is fluent in the audible receiving of this language, could you please make right ear version so we can achieve 100% audible fluency?
Thanks for the language! I thought of doing something similar, but dodn't think it'd come around to do it and I have little to no experiences with conlangs, so thanks!
Love it. Reminds me of my own idea, of coming up with a way to enumerate the universe in binary. I've had a few thoughts while watching:
1. X/I - Seeing it written out like this, made me realize the symmetry between X and I. I understand X as the context of the O, the bigger system which includes O. I understand I as a property (information) of an O, a part of it. This made realize, how you can think of an object, as a context for it's properties ("Chair" is an X for it's atoms), and vice versa. Now, with that idea, couldn't we actually drop the word count to 6? I understand O meaning something like "there is a thing", which allows us to declare the existence of things, and then allows us to refer to its context and properties. But if we understood I as "the part of the whole" and X as "the whole of the part", couldn't we replace O with an I, with I being used as a "there is a part of the universe/the everything"? Or perhaps have you tried that, and it just didn't work, and found having a "middle word" is necessary?
2. Color - I found the approach to describing color in IO weird. Don't get me wrong here, color is one of my special interests, I am quite aware of how complex of a topic it is. But the approach to describing color you presented in the video seemed rather contrary to everything else, with IO being supposed to be not influenced by silly monkey brains. As every speaker of IO, would have to somehow adapt the message to their own universe and its laws, why not simply do the same with color? Why not describe only the objective properties of the thing you are talking about, such as the wavelength, and allow it up to the receiver to interpret it accordingly in a way they can understand. Like "Oh, I see, this would produce light of this wavelength, so I know this would appear in this quale" to me.
3. Good/Evil - I 100% agree with good and evil being completely subjective concepts. However, I don't see how that would stop you from defining it - even, I think it's rather simple. I think you can define "good" for a particular agent as "the thing, that the agent, will make/try to cause to exist/exist more of, as time goes on" (I use the word "agent" as "a thing that makes decisions"). This is equivalent to "good" in the sense of "what an agent believes is good/will lead to good". Also I am aware that agents may try to achieve goals with methods that don't work/actually will lead them away from their goals - this is not a counterargument, since we're talking about what an agent considers good. And if anyone would counter with "but people choose to do things they know are evil" - that is a confusion of perspectives from which we're judging something as good/evil.
Subscribed. Chess battle advanced.
What's funny is that if humans ever used this, they would just eventually universally agree about what identifiers for every single Thing or State are and just use those instead, thus, inventing a language on top of a language
31:57 Counterpoint: The topological description of the normal vector on a surface is close enough to the idea of "up" that I'd say it's good enough at a planetary scale. Sure it's not the exact direction that gravity pulls in, but I think it is the direction most people mean when they say "up".
This is incredible!
I think you have actually managed to make the language with the fewest words ever (although calling this a 'language' might be a bit of a stretch), well done! i'll stick with toki pi pono, because personally my mammal brain has a better time comprehending it since it has fewer layers of abstraction. This is sort of the perfect anti-toki pona, a language not made for human concepts but the universe itself. A language biased _against_ reality, if you will. The video itself could probably be made more time-efficient (i freely admit to having watched it at 1.5x speed) but if you were going for the award of most time per word of the language, i think you win by more than one universe. i look forward to seeing this in the finals.
I would really like to see a more compact version of IO, such that it can actually somewhat be used as a conlang, something like lojban but more based
I think that the fact that + and - are used for both "nonexisting" and "existing" and identifiers makes the language a bit inconsistent, because those are two completely different purposes and you have no guarantee that the beings from different universes will use them in the same way.
The most trivial thing to do would of course be to add words 0 and 1 just for the sake of identifiers, but actually it's possible without them, since you can just use set theory to define "numbers" (or simply unique things for that matter).
O : object 0
O : object 1
O : object 2
O : object 3
The funniest part of this is there's a programming language called "Io" and it's pretty ease to use
30:53 yeah, good luck trying right and left, at least with up and down all you have to do is define gravitational objects and have the reference point be the gravitational object that is currently nearest, and say that increasing the distance from that reference point is “up” and decreasing it is “ now all you’d have to do is define gravity, which could be defined by saying that the more an object “grows” the slower space time goes around it, also, it constantly decreases the space time between it and other similar objects, however, with left and right, you’d need to define symmetry and asymmetry, and how “left” is the same as one half of an asymmetrical object and right is the other half, and how they are considered opposites to each other, but I actually don’t quite know how to define symmetry
For proper nouns, you can use Unicode or another encoding. For example, "the person referred to as 85 110 121 101 115" for Unyes.
video!
It means good. If you think only valuable thing for lifeform is being alive. Humans plant fields and build cities to not die from hunger or wild animals.
I see no problem with this conlang's perceived limitations, as perception is equivalent to reality, thus making this truly a language of all things. To put it more simply, reality is fundamentally a product of the perception that creates it, as reality must exist as a framework for understanding. Existence can be independent from perception, but must also in some sense therefore be independent from reality. But no being can ever be outside of existence, as to be is to exist, and if one exists one cannot not exist.
if I am getting this correctly, in order to describe the quantity of something, you would use
Basically yes, but that's only one of the ways to describe it.
Someone already made Æternal's Bane, but this is soon to be Nguh's Bane.
I can finally watch rick and morty
My definition of "bad" would probably be "A thing, action, or event that an individual sentient/nonsentient lifeform OR an indeterminately large or complex group of sentient/nonsentient lifeforms do not want to exist/happen.", and vise versa for "good".
Didnt get to see the whole video, but I'd be interested in the transcript of this video in IO :")
everybody gangsta til you forget a word and you have to redefine string theory
Personal notes
___
- IDs might be used to construct a whole vocabulary (might use hex numbers to abbreviate binary?)
- IO is useless in communicating human concepts. Might be instead used as a tool to think outside the human contexts and biases. I might use it when I get back to study the basics of quantum mechanics - IO might help me build an intuition on it by letting me think outside of my human bias.
- meaning of words are extremely dependent on how the speaker views the universe. Therefore, IO, at least as proposed in this video, is a one-person language where every person have their own set of vocabulary, definitions, syntaxes.. etc.
(If multiple entities can share the same version of IO, IO is usable as an encryption system between them. Since IO is not a human friendly language, we could use this to make AIs obfuscate information from humans)
How could you define aesthetic in IO? It's a purely human concept that cannot be defined with numbers, it's like a feeling.
Yes, human concepts are very hard to describe as it turns out.
@@unyesSame would go for any conscious species
I would pay non-trivial amounts for a description of this with translations.
This is modern philosophy. I love it.
0:54 This claim is false, or at the very least, ill defined. "The smallest programming language in the world" here is probably by vocab size, for which i'd say no, jsfuck takes that one. (only 6 characters; strict subset of JavaScript). Something like subleq has even fewer operations, indeed. You might also be referring to implementation complexity; and yeah, brainfuck was designed to have a simple implementation, and JavaScript was anything but. However, there is no canonical brainfuck implementation to precisely compate in any objective manner, and an emulator for something like subleq is roughly as short and simple as an interpreter for brainfuck.
Was thinking the same thing! But now that I think more reducing “vocab” sounds kind of stupid as you can arbitrarily reduce anything into binary
I was gonna comment exactly this lmao
This is probably the first conlang to have an interdimensional god as their mascot
probably
For a long sequence of brakets it might be a good idea to put how many brakets there are as superscript
It would look like that for example
59:03 From a reinforcement learning perspective, "feeling good" is the terminal goal of, at least, every animal. And that's how I'd define it.
Something that O "desires", which has been unsatisfactorily previously defined in the video as something that an agent achieves in most timelines
this needs it's own unicode characters that are symetrical with each other, and being symetrical it implies there should be a back slash and foward slash, so circle, vertical, horizontal, vertical & horizontal, top-left to lower-right, top-right to lower-left, top-left to lower-right & top-right to lower-left, and brackets.
slashes could be like superparens, ditto marks, and, or, (i suppose you could just use nand), i dunno
hey guys wake up ka 2 just dropped🗣️
An adequate, but less precise way of defining what a second would be to say "the time it takes for Earth to rotate around its axis divided by 24*60*60 (or whatever the true duration of Earth's rotation is)". Earth could be defined as "the planet this message originates from" or something like that. However, that might still be too biased towards human perception and may be too inaccurate. But it would suffice if the message is intended to be used among humans.
14:06 technically the word for human is... O
and the word for the set of elementary particles that make up particle of dust in mexico, a photon just born in the core of the sun and a single atom from the corona of proxima centauri is O too so a human is the same as the set of elementary particles that make up particle of dust in mexico, a photon just born in the core of the sun and a single atom from the corona of proxima centauri
i think when displaying the text you should alternate between different color and/or shape brackets to make it easier to parse (just a cosmetic change)
This feels ike watching an equivalent of apocryph.
this reminds me a lot of Unorthodox Kitten. I feel like it could be used in their analog horror series
I think I know who I'm voting for
1:59 THAT WAS HELL OF A JUMPSCARE HOLY SHIT
i cant help but feel that something wonderful would be achieved by attempting to translate every human language into IO
already thinking about a (am i allowed to nest two concepts next to eachother to essentially say “and” i havent watched the whole video yet so maybe ill see)
boutta make a (o(i)((io(english))(english(io))))
nvm why would it work like that that breaks everything i think
now i’m thinking about how binary is like little blips of “information” in a constant string of “thing”
really interesting to think about how different cultures would end up speaking different languages within IO based on how they define objects in their world. this language feels very personal and creative in the way things get defined