That, to me, reads like a very different statement. One I completely agree with. But different. I maintain that the very fact of the interface’s usefulness demonstrates that there is enough of a resemblance to the underlying reality to create said usefulness—by giving us accurate expectations about selected aspects of the behavior of whatever is going on beneath the surface, while lowering mental overhead by abstracting away the rest.
Edit to add: side note, who says the word red has to be defined based on wavelengths in absolute terms instead of relationally? I can create a less inaccurate but also usually less useful definition based on expected qualia produced in a set of observers in response to ambient light of particular kinds of spectra. Repeat until you get as accurate as desired, with each step eliminating an abstraction that’s normally subsumed in the interface.
That, to me, reads like a very different statement. One I completely agree with. But different. I maintain that the very fact of the interface’s usefulness demonstrates that there is enough of a resemblance to the underlying reality to create said usefulness—by giving us accurate expectations about selected aspects of the behavior of whatever is going on beneath the surface, while lowering mental overhead by abstracting away the rest.
Edit to add: side note, who says the word red has to be defined based on wavelengths in absolute terms instead of relationally? I can create a less inaccurate but also usually less useful definition based on expected qualia produced in a set of observers in response to ambient light of particular kinds of spectra. Repeat until you get as accurate as desired, with each step eliminating an abstraction that’s normally subsumed in the interface.