I think it’s both in the map, as a description, but I also think the behavior itself is in the territory, and my point is that you can get the same result but have different paths to get to the result, which is in the territory.
Also, I treat the map-territory difference in a weaker way than LW often assumes, where things in the map can also be in the territory, and vice versa.
I actually disagree that there are no cycles/multiple paths to the same endpoint in the territory too.
In particular, I’m thinking of function extensionality, where multiple algorithms with wildly different run-times can compute the same function.
This is an easy source of examples where there are multiple starting points but there exists 1 end result (at least probabilistically).
A function in this context is a computational abstraction. I would say this is in the map.
I think it’s both in the map, as a description, but I also think the behavior itself is in the territory, and my point is that you can get the same result but have different paths to get to the result, which is in the territory.
Also, I treat the map-territory difference in a weaker way than LW often assumes, where things in the map can also be in the territory, and vice versa.