Which group is bigger, the one of things we can write about (in any language (including programing)), or the one of the things we can feel through our senses (including those things that machines help us to feel, such as a microscope)?
There are more objects that can be spoken of, or conceived, than there are objects that can be experienced, or that we could have direct physical evidence of.
Consider God. God doesn't exist in time, but our experiences take place in time, so we cannot possibly experience God. Yet we can plainly talk about God---we're doing so right now.
You might not like this example, especially if you don't believe in God. In that case, try what it is like to be a bat. Presumably it is like something to be a bat. You don't know what it is like to be a bat, because you are not a bat. You can't see a bat seeing things, only its head and eyes moving. Maybe one day we will be able to experience life as a bat. (I don't think so, but I suppose it's not inconceivable. The words are certainly sayable.) But if you did experience batness, you still wouldn't experience experiencing batness. You don't see seeing or hear hearing, you just see and hear.
We know about God and the internal experience of bats not through sensing but through thinking (in combination with sensing, in the case of bats). I think that's the only way to gain knowledge of non-experiential objects.
I claim that the number of possible emotions that can supervene on a brain is at most the number of states that brain can occupy.
For any possible partitioning of a brain, a unique string can be assigned to each partition. Let's do this at t = 0. Now lets have the brain cycle through every possible state, and at each step, concatenate a unique string to the previous string that was assigned to each partition. There will be a unique string for every possible partition in every possible brain state. Now take any of the sets of strings for any brainstate and add a character to one of the strings. This new set of strings will be different from all of the set of strings generated thus far therefore the statespace of strings is greater than the state space of brains which is at least as large as the set of possible emotions.
Lets say the character space of the aformetioned strings is the English alphabet. Lets assign unique prime numbers to each character. By the fundamental theorem of algebra, the sum of the primes corresponding to the characters for each of these unique strings is also unique. Lets say that each set of strings 'means' a pile of bananas equal to the sum of it's assigned primes. Therefore, we have a set of unique strings assigned unique meanings that exceed the number of possible emotions.