There’s a critically important and correct idea in the vicinity of “the map is not the territory,” but I can’t find a non-trivial discussion
-
-
I would like to explain the nearby good idea to rationalists, but they are likely to say “isn’t this just ‘the map is not the territory’?”
-
This is always the problem with explaining things to rationalists: they are super-resistant to admitting their ideas are incoherent.
- 15 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
no, obviously maps abstract an (some) aspect(s) of the territory. And maps are partly defined by what they are used for.
-
The former point is widely understood; the latter, not so much—and points at what I would want to say!
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
is the relationship an abstraction away of irrelevant detail?
-
No; that’s part of the “the standard view.” The issue is that representation and reality are radically different, not just >
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This strikes me as the kind of misunderstanding most easily committed by someone who's never had to use a map in anger
-
like, it's really easy to assume a tidy isomorphism when you're not trying to find your way through the woods at 3am
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
if i understand, what you're saying is having a subway map that actually resembles the city is stupid
-
That’s true and important, but not the point I would want to make!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.