#1 is just inevitable in all but a few perfectly specified domains. The map can’t contain the entire territory.
#2 is what I’m discussing in this post; it’s the one we rationalists try most to notice and combat. (Beliefs paying rent and all.)
#3 is fine; I’m not as worried about [maps that admit they don’t know what’s beyond the mountain] as I’m worried about [maps that fabricate the territory beyond the mountain].
#4. For sufficiently perfect predictive power, the difference between map and territory becomes an epiphenomenon, so I don’t worry about this either.
What does it mean for the map not to match the territory?
The map is less detailed that the territory?
The map does not predict correctly?
The map predicts, but only under limited circumstances?
The map predicts well, but nonetheless does not correspond to the territory?
The really pessimistic possibility is that you can’t avoid all the problems simultaneously.
#1 is just inevitable in all but a few perfectly specified domains. The map can’t contain the entire territory.
#2 is what I’m discussing in this post; it’s the one we rationalists try most to notice and combat. (Beliefs paying rent and all.)
#3 is fine; I’m not as worried about [maps that admit they don’t know what’s beyond the mountain] as I’m worried about [maps that fabricate the territory beyond the mountain].
#4. For sufficiently perfect predictive power, the difference between map and territory becomes an epiphenomenon, so I don’t worry about this either.