Comment on Open Thread, November 16–30, 2012

Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:26:54 GMT

The laws are in the map, of course (if it came from mind, it is necessarily of a map). And what we call the 'territory' is a map itself. The map/territory distinction is just a useful analogy for explaining that our models of reality aren't necessarily reality (whatever that actually is). Also, keep in mind that there are many incompatible meanings for 'reductionism'. A lot of LWers (like anonymous1) use it in a way that's not in line with EY, and EY uses it in a way that's not in line with philosophy (which is where I suspect most LWers get their definition of it from).

And if the physical laws are in the map, what represents them in the territory?

Good question. A description is sufficient for execution, but what executes the description?

Discuss