When comparing believing a truth to believing a corresponding lie, the resource costs of representing that truth should balance with the resource cost of representing the lie (otherwise the comparison also involves believing a precise theory versus believing an approximation).
The article was not about learning every fact about the entire universe, it was about the utility of believing lies about things we care about.
Check with the post’s first paragraph. What it says it is about is how “one can only gain from having true information”. In fact, most truths in the universe are bad for us, because of their costs—thus my reality check.
First, as I just explained elsewhere, you are misrepresenting the article by quoting out of context.
Second, there is a difference between claiming “one can only gain from having true information” (implicitly as opposed to having false information) and claiming that having true information is always a benifet.
When comparing believing a truth to believing a corresponding lie, the resource costs of representing that truth should balance with the resource cost of representing the lie (otherwise the comparison also involves believing a precise theory versus believing an approximation).
The article was not about learning every fact about the entire universe, it was about the utility of believing lies about things we care about.
Check with the post’s first paragraph. What it says it is about is how “one can only gain from having true information”. In fact, most truths in the universe are bad for us, because of their costs—thus my reality check.
First, as I just explained elsewhere, you are misrepresenting the article by quoting out of context.
Second, there is a difference between claiming “one can only gain from having true information” (implicitly as opposed to having false information) and claiming that having true information is always a benifet.