Our maps are necessarily finite. (there is only a finite amount of stuff in our brain. Saying that there is an infinite stuff in our brain in a meaningful sense leads to bad predictions.)
There may well be uncountable things in “the territory.” For example, using real numbers to describe distances works pretty well.
We can have countable descriptions of the real numbers that allows us to use complicated models in ways that are consistent and helpful. But they aren’t COMPLETE descriptions of the real numbers.
This isn’t really “statistical” identification but it is similar in spirit.
I think that talking about your map can, statistically at least, be identical to talking about the territory
as saying something like “maps can be error-free finite approximations of the territory—deficient only in terms of poor resolution”. Yes, indeed. Maps can conceivably be completely correct in this sense. In which case, talking about the map does, in some sense, indirectly talk about the territory.
However, I would emphasize that you cannot know that a map is correct in this sense. And that two people may agree on what a map says and how to speak about places on the map—“Lets stop at that rest area symbol about half an inch north of the state line”—if they don’t agree that the map correctly represents the territory, then they are not talking about the territory.
Note: he’s not me, even though our names both start with “ma” :P
I meant that even though we cannot put into words the exact nature of reality, our words, which are about our maps, can still tell other people things about the territory. For example, if I say “it’s raining,” you could go through “well, P(raining|he said that) is about 0.9, so I’ll grab an umbrella.”
So my opinion is that the territory isn’t especially unspeakable—nothing’s perfect.
Thx for the clarification of identity; i was confused. :(
Yes, your example does seem to illustrate the transfer of information about the territory between minds by use of language.
But when you ask “Where did that number 0.9 come from?” things get more complicated.
In my view, 0.9 is a statistic representing a correlation between your map and my map.
Territory doesn’t even come into it—at least not directly. Suppose I have come up with that 0.9 estimate by keeping track of how often our statements “It is raining” or “It is not raining” agree or disagree. “Why the discrepancy?”, I ask myself. Do you sometimes lie? Do you mean “The streets are wet” whereas I mean “Water is falling”? Are you talking about rain falling at a different location?
We can conduct a discussion to help determine which of these hypotheses most completely explain the discrepancy. In conducting that discussion, we will be talking about our maps. We don’t need territory to discuss these hypotheses. We can do it by discussing thought experiments involving hypothetical maps (as you and I are doing now!).
But, you might object, the hypothesis which would justify the Bayesian inference involving the umbrella has to involve some kind of shared territory underlying our maps. Well, maybe it does. But, I claim that we cannot talk about the nature of that shared territory. All we can do is to construct a shared map.
Our maps are necessarily finite. (there is only a finite amount of stuff in our brain. Saying that there is an infinite stuff in our brain in a meaningful sense leads to bad predictions.)
There may well be uncountable things in “the territory.” For example, using real numbers to describe distances works pretty well.
We can have countable descriptions of the real numbers that allows us to use complicated models in ways that are consistent and helpful. But they aren’t COMPLETE descriptions of the real numbers.
This isn’t really “statistical” identification but it is similar in spirit.
Ah. So you are interpreting your statement:
as saying something like “maps can be error-free finite approximations of the territory—deficient only in terms of poor resolution”. Yes, indeed. Maps can conceivably be completely correct in this sense. In which case, talking about the map does, in some sense, indirectly talk about the territory.
However, I would emphasize that you cannot know that a map is correct in this sense. And that two people may agree on what a map says and how to speak about places on the map—“Lets stop at that rest area symbol about half an inch north of the state line”—if they don’t agree that the map correctly represents the territory, then they are not talking about the territory.
Note: he’s not me, even though our names both start with “ma” :P
I meant that even though we cannot put into words the exact nature of reality, our words, which are about our maps, can still tell other people things about the territory. For example, if I say “it’s raining,” you could go through “well, P(raining|he said that) is about 0.9, so I’ll grab an umbrella.”
So my opinion is that the territory isn’t especially unspeakable—nothing’s perfect.
Thx for the clarification of identity; i was confused. :(
Yes, your example does seem to illustrate the transfer of information about the territory between minds by use of language.
But when you ask “Where did that number 0.9 come from?” things get more complicated.
In my view, 0.9 is a statistic representing a correlation between your map and my map. Territory doesn’t even come into it—at least not directly. Suppose I have come up with that 0.9 estimate by keeping track of how often our statements “It is raining” or “It is not raining” agree or disagree. “Why the discrepancy?”, I ask myself. Do you sometimes lie? Do you mean “The streets are wet” whereas I mean “Water is falling”? Are you talking about rain falling at a different location?
We can conduct a discussion to help determine which of these hypotheses most completely explain the discrepancy. In conducting that discussion, we will be talking about our maps. We don’t need territory to discuss these hypotheses. We can do it by discussing thought experiments involving hypothetical maps (as you and I are doing now!).
But, you might object, the hypothesis which would justify the Bayesian inference involving the umbrella has to involve some kind of shared territory underlying our maps. Well, maybe it does. But, I claim that we cannot talk about the nature of that shared territory. All we can do is to construct a shared map.