It seems to be the case that this reality is perfectly mathematically describable
Theres still a map territory distinction. However perfect the map, that is not a reason to think it is the same thing as the territory, or belongs in the same ontological category as the territory.
But without the premise that the territory is maths, the rest of the paradox doesn’t follow.
“But without the premise that the territory is maths, the rest of the paradox doesn’t follow.”
I explicitly said “mathematically describable” implying I am not identifying the theory with reality. Nothing in my “argument” makes this identification
yes, but I think your reasoning “If 2 is only talking about the map, it doesn’t imply 3” is too vague. I’d rather not go into it though, because I am currently busy with other things, so I’d suggest letting the reader decide.
Edit: reading back my response, it might come accross as a bit rude. If so, sorry for that, I didn’t mean it that way.
Theres still a map territory distinction. However perfect the map, that is not a reason to think it is the same thing as the territory, or belongs in the same ontological category as the territory.
But without the premise that the territory is maths, the rest of the paradox doesn’t follow.
“But without the premise that the territory is maths, the rest of the paradox doesn’t follow.”
I explicitly said “mathematically describable” implying I am not identifying the theory with reality. Nothing in my “argument” makes this identification
Then the argument fails through non sequitur. If 2 is only talking about the map, it doesn’t imply 3.
I think this is too vague, but I will drop this discussion and let the reader decide.
Do you know what “” non sequitur” means?
yes, but I think your reasoning “If 2 is only talking about the map, it doesn’t imply 3” is too vague. I’d rather not go into it though, because I am currently busy with other things, so I’d suggest letting the reader decide.
Edit: reading back my response, it might come accross as a bit rude. If so, sorry for that, I didn’t mean it that way.