You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

shminux comments on Scott Aaronson's cautious optimism for the MWI - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: calef 19 August 2012 02:35AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (70)

Comments (70)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shminux 04 September 2014 03:45:10AM 0 points [-]

The territory is not in the map, because that is nonsense.

That's the standard reaction here, yes. However "that is nonsense" is not a rational argument. You can present evidence to the contrary or point out a contradiction in reasoning. If you have either, feel free.

That does not beg the question against instrumentalism and jn favour.of realism, because the territory does not have to exist at all.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Realists and anti realists are arguing about whether the territory exists, not where.

Maybe so, then I am neither.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 04 September 2014 09:01:12AM *  0 points [-]

I'll point out a contradiction: territory is defined as not-map.

"I am neither"

... in the sense that you are using the word territory in a way that no one else does.

Comment author: shminux 04 September 2014 03:45:09PM 0 points [-]

One can postulate that there is an and to a long stack of maps of maps which ends somewhere with a perfect absolute "correct" something. We call that the territory. I don't postulate that.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit