• LANIK2000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 month ago

    Comment sections like this make me feel like I’m in a room full of crazy people, and or I eventually start to question my own sanity.

    I mean sure, a spectrum is defined by at least 2 most extreme points (depending on the amount of dimensions). But like, what’s stopping us form mapping two or more people to either extreme? Why can’t 2 people be equally most gay or equally least gay?

    • efstajas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 month ago

      If you limit the resolution of the gayness measurement, sure. You could define least gay as 0 and most gay as 5, then you have millions of people on 5. But there are infinitely many real numbers, and if there were some theoretical 100% accurate way to measure “gayness” (whatever that means) at “infinite resolution”, the chance of two people being equally most gay is theoretically 0. On the other hand of the spectrum, it’d be impossible to be ENTIRELY not gay at all, so even if millions of people are very close to 0, one would be the closest.

      I’m way overthinking this lol

      • Shou@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not only that. What if there are multiple aspects to what gay defines. Is it just how much they like the same sex, or also how many fake stories they post online? One can score a 5 on one, and a 4 on the other.

        • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          The spectrum being multidimensional doesn’t stop us from maxing out every metric of what’s physically possible.

      • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        I mean it has to be a limit, a person can only be so gay. Like even if we define a spectrum as far and wide as we like. Let’s say height for example. That’s an infinite scale, but a human will never be a light year in height, it’s just not physically possible. And once there’s one human to reach the highest physical limit, what’s stopping someone else from also reaching that point?

        • Toribor@corndog.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          a person can only be so gay

          I knew a lesbian couple but one is now a trans man who transitioned a few years after they married eachother. I like to joke that they are so gay they went all the way around to being straight again.

        • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          But we know the tallest person in the world and possibly the tallest person in history. I’m sure if we can calculate a gayness metric we can also find these values, at the very least once our metric is define.

          • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Just because we recorded one tallest man, doesn’t mean there was never and won’t ever be one that’s just as tall. Like sure, depending on our exact metric of gayness, there may very well only be one gayest person, but there could also be a 100, a 1000 or even more gayest people.

    • lateraltwo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 month ago

      Number theory suggests that by whatever metric it’s determined, there’s bound to be an infinitesimal difference between two measurements. Observation leads to significant figures, not reality

      • BluesF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        Well that depends on if gayness is a continuous or discrete quantity. If gay comes in very small but distinct indivisible units, the minimum could certainly be just 1 of these units.

        Still, the upper range is likely to be unbound.

        • lateraltwo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          I don’t think there’s such a thing as a discrete gay… number and the sofar unmentioned bi spectrum implies a distributed or Cartesian system of expression

          • BluesF@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            Considering bisexuality and demi sexuality I suspect that attraction is what we are measuring, not just gayness. Perhaps even attraction along two dimensions - romantic and sexual. This has interesting implications considering that gender itself exists as a spectrum with multiple dimensions of its own, at very least expression and identity, perhaps sex should be incorporated too which further complicates matters…

            Nonetheless, I don’t believe that any of this precludes our units of attraction from being discrete… I will concede that it’s probably more likely, if there is some kind of fundamental attraction particle, that it has comparable properties to the photon.

            I’m considering that each of these attraction particles (furthermore referred to as attractons) exists as excitations in the gender/sexuality field. Thanks to wave particle duality we can have a quanta of attraction with continuous possible amounts of attraction associated with each - just like the photon’s variable energy.

            • lateraltwo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              You’re also not accounting for the principle of uncertainty with bi and homo curious and the collapsing of the gay wave function

    • x0x7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think that could be possible. If sexuality were multi-dimensional and “gayness” was just a 1-D collapse of a higher dimensional space then you could pick a vector in the higher dimensional space to represent gayness, such that a few points at the extreme happen to have the same dot-product with that vector.

      But then you would be defining gayness around the gymnastics of setting that up instead of something you are actually trying to estimate about people on that spectrum.

      • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        The meme saying there’s a gayest person, kinda implies this. Of course it’s actually nonsense in real life, all I’m trying to say is that a spectrum by definition doesn’t exclude the possibility of 2 entities being on the most extreme end (doesn’t really matter if we have more dimensions or just one representing gayness, all can be maxed out). If one person can someone how obtain the highest amount of gayness physically possible, how does that stop someone else from doing the same?