Based on the original post, and OP comments, it sounds like the proposal here is:
Thesis: Not once ever has causality existed in the territory.
Support: There’s nothing I can say that does not involve drawing a map.
Which, to me, looks like textbook “begging the question”—OP is picking one specific thing that can be said: “A causes B” and saying “look: causality can’t be in the territory because it’s just an idea in the map, just like everything else.”
But that provides no insight or additional information. There’s nothing special about “causality” not being in the territory, any more than saying “apples” aren’t in the territory or “atoms aren’t in the territory” or “justice isn’t in the territory” or “paradoxes aren’t in the territory”
Once you place “the territory” beyond the reach of mere words to describe, it ceases to be possible to talk about what attributes it does or does not have. You can’t usefully say “the territory doesn’t have causality” when you have already said “I can’t talk about the territory”
Even within the meta-map that places the territory outside the reach of mere words, it remains useful to talk about the presence or absence of causality at the limit of what words can reach. Is there time at the quantum interaction level; does it behave in the same way; are there iff relationships between superstrings—I’m certainly not qualified to opine on the answers, but the questions are of at least theoretical interest. (and theory with no practicality can still be useful—imaginary numbers were just a plaything of the mind for hundreds of years, until suddenly they became the math of a key industry)
Once you place “the territory” beyond the reach of mere words to describe, it ceases to be possible to talk about what attributes it does or does not have. You can’t usefully say “the territory doesn’t have causality” when you have already said “I can’t talk about the territory”
But since causality is a thing in the map, of course this can be said usefully. It only doesn’t make sense if you mix up the referrer and the referent.
Just that. If Snorphblats can’t be described with words, and yet you literally just used words to describe Snorphblats, what you must be doing is some action that is situated within the map. This action is itself in the territory (where else would it be?), but it need not be true that Snorphblats exist in the territory independent of any statements about them such that they can be meaningfully described.
At a meta-level, you are hardening my position, not moving me towards your position.
While I have stated my objections and questions in, now, five different ways, you have repeated the same point five times. And without either addressing, or even attempting to rephrase my position to show you understand it. To me, this implies that you don’t fully understand your thesis.
And no, I’m not necessarily describing Snorphblats. If statement 1 is true, then statement two is just mouth noises without truth value. If statement 2 is true, then statement 1 is false. And, of course, they could both be false.
I keep saying the same thing because it’s the same issue every time, and as I’ve already said there’s no good faith way for me to respond to some of your more specific points because I disagree with the premise on which they are based. I think you are failing to understand the point being made, but it’s in a subtle way that seems to be beyond my ability to convey to you in these comments.
That I don’t “fully understand my thesis” is actually closer to hitting near the heart of the thing than much else, but not in the sense of my not understanding some particular thing, but rather in that it’s a specific example of the general epistemological point at issue.
That I’m not being more explicit and actively deconstructing your responses in detail is a choice. Look, I could switch and do that. I’ve done it in the past. I’m not going to do it here, because experience tells me it has very poor return on investment for effort: it’s no more likely to lead my interlocutor to understand, but it requires a great deal more effort on my part. I simply choose to engage at the level I do because I think it’s my best tradeoff along the efficiency frontier of “doing my best”. That it’s not working for you is fine; you can give up anytime you like. Now is not always the right time to hear a thing and understand it in a particular way.
Based on the original post, and OP comments, it sounds like the proposal here is:
Thesis: Not once ever has causality existed in the territory.
Support: There’s nothing I can say that does not involve drawing a map.
Which, to me, looks like textbook “begging the question”—OP is picking one specific thing that can be said: “A causes B” and saying “look: causality can’t be in the territory because it’s just an idea in the map, just like everything else.”
But that provides no insight or additional information. There’s nothing special about “causality” not being in the territory, any more than saying “apples” aren’t in the territory or “atoms aren’t in the territory” or “justice isn’t in the territory” or “paradoxes aren’t in the territory”
Once you place “the territory” beyond the reach of mere words to describe, it ceases to be possible to talk about what attributes it does or does not have. You can’t usefully say “the territory doesn’t have causality” when you have already said “I can’t talk about the territory”
Even within the meta-map that places the territory outside the reach of mere words, it remains useful to talk about the presence or absence of causality at the limit of what words can reach. Is there time at the quantum interaction level; does it behave in the same way; are there iff relationships between superstrings—I’m certainly not qualified to opine on the answers, but the questions are of at least theoretical interest. (and theory with no practicality can still be useful—imaginary numbers were just a plaything of the mind for hundreds of years, until suddenly they became the math of a key industry)
But since causality is a thing in the map, of course this can be said usefully. It only doesn’t make sense if you mix up the referrer and the referent.
Why is this not a contradiction: “Snorphblats can’t be described with words”
“Snorphblats don’t have a liver”
Or, how does the above differ from the statements in my previous comment? Please use a similar analogy, if necessary.
Just that. If Snorphblats can’t be described with words, and yet you literally just used words to describe Snorphblats, what you must be doing is some action that is situated within the map. This action is itself in the territory (where else would it be?), but it need not be true that Snorphblats exist in the territory independent of any statements about them such that they can be meaningfully described.
This is a small part of a big topic, explored in detail in this classic LW sequence.
At a meta-level, you are hardening my position, not moving me towards your position. While I have stated my objections and questions in, now, five different ways, you have repeated the same point five times. And without either addressing, or even attempting to rephrase my position to show you understand it. To me, this implies that you don’t fully understand your thesis.
And no, I’m not necessarily describing Snorphblats. If statement 1 is true, then statement two is just mouth noises without truth value. If statement 2 is true, then statement 1 is false. And, of course, they could both be false.
I keep saying the same thing because it’s the same issue every time, and as I’ve already said there’s no good faith way for me to respond to some of your more specific points because I disagree with the premise on which they are based. I think you are failing to understand the point being made, but it’s in a subtle way that seems to be beyond my ability to convey to you in these comments.
That I don’t “fully understand my thesis” is actually closer to hitting near the heart of the thing than much else, but not in the sense of my not understanding some particular thing, but rather in that it’s a specific example of the general epistemological point at issue.
That I’m not being more explicit and actively deconstructing your responses in detail is a choice. Look, I could switch and do that. I’ve done it in the past. I’m not going to do it here, because experience tells me it has very poor return on investment for effort: it’s no more likely to lead my interlocutor to understand, but it requires a great deal more effort on my part. I simply choose to engage at the level I do because I think it’s my best tradeoff along the efficiency frontier of “doing my best”. That it’s not working for you is fine; you can give up anytime you like. Now is not always the right time to hear a thing and understand it in a particular way.