The NS equations are not themselves wrong, naturally. However, a memorization of NS in a human brain is wrong in nearly the same sense that a copy of Microsoft Office compiled for x86 on an iPhone is wrong. Utility generation from correct beliefs relies on format as much as correctness.
By “wrong,” I meant “false,” “not true.” It’s interesting that the different meanings of the word “wrong” are similar to the categories interchanged in the post, though.
The main beef I have is that what you call “format” is not, in fact, mere format. It’s realio trulio a different set of information. It’s merely a repackaging of the statement “having different information matters,” obscured by using new definitions. Rather than thinking the edgy repackaging is a new thing, it’s more accurate and simpler to just appreciate the complexities of the original statement.
You’re right that I meant more than “mere format”. Let’s taboo the word. And for that matter “wrong” too.
Usually when we think of true information or true belief we consider only the belief itself (the NS equations). Beliefs only exist in contexts (human brains, software implementations, even ink and paper), and some of those contexts are not adequate in themselves to take advantage of the belief. It’s not a question of having different information. It’s a question of having inadequate computational resources. Or in another way of looking at it, it’s a question of having a capable, powerful computational context whose structure is not optimized for the problem at hand.
The NS equations are not themselves wrong, naturally. However, a memorization of NS in a human brain is wrong in nearly the same sense that a copy of Microsoft Office compiled for x86 on an iPhone is wrong. Utility generation from correct beliefs relies on format as much as correctness.
By “wrong,” I meant “false,” “not true.” It’s interesting that the different meanings of the word “wrong” are similar to the categories interchanged in the post, though.
The main beef I have is that what you call “format” is not, in fact, mere format. It’s realio trulio a different set of information. It’s merely a repackaging of the statement “having different information matters,” obscured by using new definitions. Rather than thinking the edgy repackaging is a new thing, it’s more accurate and simpler to just appreciate the complexities of the original statement.
You’re right that I meant more than “mere format”. Let’s taboo the word. And for that matter “wrong” too.
Usually when we think of true information or true belief we consider only the belief itself (the NS equations). Beliefs only exist in contexts (human brains, software implementations, even ink and paper), and some of those contexts are not adequate in themselves to take advantage of the belief. It’s not a question of having different information. It’s a question of having inadequate computational resources. Or in another way of looking at it, it’s a question of having a capable, powerful computational context whose structure is not optimized for the problem at hand.