The language is precise and defines the legal scope of the invention. The claims are not supposed to tell you how to implement the invention but to definitively define what is and is not within its scope. All areas of technical expertise have their own language to convey precise ideas, and the law is no different. Just because you cant read it doesn't mean it's not understandable.

> The claims are not supposed to tell you how to implement the invention

That part of the original deal around patents has been lost, then - to wit, that after the 17 years elapsed, the world would know how to implement this 'non-obvious invention'.

That's the role of the description, not the claims. Though according to some people here, all that you need to read is the title of the patent to decide whether it's novel and inventive.

The people writing and reading these papers for a living must live in a bubble and may not even realize how far and weird it is.

Could it be possible for a patent crash to happen? Maybe the way to get rid of this absurdity is to push it to the extreme, produce industrial quantities of silly patents and force the whole system to a stop, then a single match would easily burn all of it.