The fewer symbols you have, the more meanings they can have.
Interestingly, in human language, the more a particular symbol is used, the more meanings it ends up having. (Pinker 2007)
Might be the case that even after the plethora of symbols is very large, they still don’t ‘touch’ ‘reach’ ‘track’ the world the right way. So instead of keeping in mind the one world, and seeing whether a more complex and full map is better or worse at representing it, could be useful to keep in mind for each particular map structure, the infinitely many different worlds it represents. Just as a heuristic.
could be useful to keep in mind for each particular map structure, the infinitely many different worlds it represents. Just as a heuristic.
As a exercise in humility, perhaps—but neither that point of view, nor the single world view, are any good for the question of “how well is this tracking reality—will the decisions be wonky?”
The fewer symbols you have, the more meanings they can have.
Interestingly, in human language, the more a particular symbol is used, the more meanings it ends up having. (Pinker 2007)
Might be the case that even after the plethora of symbols is very large, they still don’t ‘touch’ ‘reach’ ‘track’ the world the right way. So instead of keeping in mind the one world, and seeing whether a more complex and full map is better or worse at representing it, could be useful to keep in mind for each particular map structure, the infinitely many different worlds it represents. Just as a heuristic.
As a exercise in humility, perhaps—but neither that point of view, nor the single world view, are any good for the question of “how well is this tracking reality—will the decisions be wonky?”
We need maths of some sort...