I’m saying that law thinking can seem to forget that the map (model) will never be the territory. The real world has real invariants but these are not simply reproduced in reasonable utility functions.
Ah, okay, I think I understand now. That reminds me of Kant’s noumena-phenomena distinction, where the territory is the noumena, and you’re saying we will never have access to the territory/noumena directly, only various maps (phenomena), and none of those maps can ever perfectly correspond to the territory. And Law thinking sometimes forgets that we can never have access to the territory-as-it-is. Is that about right?