Finally, someone who gets it. Are you familiar with David Chapman’s writing on nebulosity? I think this is a very fundamental and important idea that can be hard to grasp. You certainly seem to understand it.
As for the question of relative vs absolute truth: I see logic as a formless sea, containing all possible statements in the superposition of true and false. So the absolute truth is: there is no absolute truth. But, as you say: “All models are wrong, but some are useful” Some models, some paradigms are very useful, and allow you to establish a “relative truth” to be used in the context of the paradigm. But there (probably) are always truths that are outside your paradigm, and which cannot be integrated into it. Being able to evaluate the usefulness and validity of specific paradigms, and to shift fluidly between paradigms as needed, is a meta-rationality skill (also written on by David Chapman).
Mostly, I find it more valuable to develop these ideas on my own as this leads them being better integrated. But I enjoyed reading these words, and seeing how the high-level patterns of your thoughts mirror mine.
Yes, very familiar with Chapman’s work. In fact, I helped popularize his ideas in some rationalist circles (and I have him in a group chat somewhere). :-)
Finally, someone who gets it.
Are you familiar with David Chapman’s writing on nebulosity?
I think this is a very fundamental and important idea that can be hard to grasp. You certainly seem to understand it.
As for the question of relative vs absolute truth:
I see logic as a formless sea, containing all possible statements in the superposition of true and false.
So the absolute truth is: there is no absolute truth.
But, as you say: “All models are wrong, but some are useful”
Some models, some paradigms are very useful, and allow you to establish a “relative truth” to be used in the context of the paradigm. But there (probably) are always truths that are outside your paradigm, and which cannot be integrated into it. Being able to evaluate the usefulness and validity of specific paradigms, and to shift fluidly between paradigms as needed, is a meta-rationality skill (also written on by David Chapman).
Mostly, I find it more valuable to develop these ideas on my own as this leads them being better integrated. But I enjoyed reading these words, and seeing how the high-level patterns of your thoughts mirror mine.
Yes, very familiar with Chapman’s work. In fact, I helped popularize his ideas in some rationalist circles (and I have him in a group chat somewhere). :-)