My point is that the entirety of what we think we mean when we say A⟹B is ontological, i.e it’s in the map. Not once ever has causality existed in the territory.
Is there an argument to support that?
Try to imagine what the world is like if you’re not modeling it. Are you picturing atoms? Particles? Wave functions? Strings?
Wrong!
Those are all models we impose on the world to make sense of it. Useful ones, usually, but still models
And is there an argument to support that?
I can see how the mere usefulness of a map level category isn’t sufficient reason to believe that the feature exists in the territory. But, equally, the usefulness of a map level feature is no reason to believe that there is not something corresponding to it in the territory. Nor is the fact that it is a map level symbol. Maps are not necessarily false, nor necessarily true.
Is there an argument to support that?
And is there an argument to support that?
I can see how the mere usefulness of a map level category isn’t sufficient reason to believe that the feature exists in the territory. But, equally, the usefulness of a map level feature is no reason to believe that there is not something corresponding to it in the territory. Nor is the fact that it is a map level symbol. Maps are not necessarily false, nor necessarily true.