I thought for a long time about what “contradictions” mean at all and how they can not exist in any world, if here they are, they can be written down on paper. And in the end, I came to the conclusion that this is exactly the case when it is especially important to look at the difference between the map and the territory.
Thus an inconsistent map is a map that does not correspond to any territory. In other words, you usually see the area and then you make a map. However, the space of maps, the space of descriptions, is much larger than the space of territories. And you may well not draw up a map for a certain territory, but simply generate a random map and ask what territory it corresponds to?
In most cases, the answer is “none”, for the reason already described. There are maps compiled by territories and they correspond to these territories, and there are random maps and they are not required to correspond to any territory in principle. In other words, an inconsistent map exists, but it is not drawn for any territory, the territory for which this map was drawn, if it were drawn for a certain territory, does not exist, because this map was not drawn for a territory.
This can be represented as the fact that our map is made from a globe. If you unfold it and attach it to the plane, a series of slices will come out, and there is an empty space between them, on an ideal map it should not be white, but transparent. However, if you first draw the map, then you can fill these transparent areas with a certain pattern, and if you try to collapse the map back into a globe, then you will not get a single real globe, because it will not be a sphere, Riemann space, but a plane , the Euler space with a higher dimension, as well as the space of maps to the space of territories, and its attempt to project onto a sphere will not lead to any even result, it will go in folds, like an attempt to project Lobachevsky’s space into ours.
Even for programmers, this can be represented as a difference between a map and an array, in the case of a map, you can specify many different values for one key and then it will not be possible to collapse into an array.
Thus, inconsistent models can be described as artificially created similarities of object projections that cannot be unambiguously deprojected back into an object. And in order to avoid confusion, it should be said not that contradictions are something that cannot exist, but that contradictions are a state of the map, which does not correspond to any state of the territory.
In other words, you can also say that this is a typical case of mind projection error, when you project a certain state of the map (which really exists and is not contradictory) onto the territory and cannot get this very territory, then you say that you cannot get it, because that would be controversial territory.
I thought for a long time about what “contradictions” mean at all and how they can not exist in any world, if here they are, they can be written down on paper. And in the end, I came to the conclusion that this is exactly the case when it is especially important to look at the difference between the map and the territory. Thus an inconsistent map is a map that does not correspond to any territory. In other words, you usually see the area and then you make a map. However, the space of maps, the space of descriptions, is much larger than the space of territories. And you may well not draw up a map for a certain territory, but simply generate a random map and ask what territory it corresponds to? In most cases, the answer is “none”, for the reason already described. There are maps compiled by territories and they correspond to these territories, and there are random maps and they are not required to correspond to any territory in principle. In other words, an inconsistent map exists, but it is not drawn for any territory, the territory for which this map was drawn, if it were drawn for a certain territory, does not exist, because this map was not drawn for a territory. This can be represented as the fact that our map is made from a globe. If you unfold it and attach it to the plane, a series of slices will come out, and there is an empty space between them, on an ideal map it should not be white, but transparent. However, if you first draw the map, then you can fill these transparent areas with a certain pattern, and if you try to collapse the map back into a globe, then you will not get a single real globe, because it will not be a sphere, Riemann space, but a plane , the Euler space with a higher dimension, as well as the space of maps to the space of territories, and its attempt to project onto a sphere will not lead to any even result, it will go in folds, like an attempt to project Lobachevsky’s space into ours. Even for programmers, this can be represented as a difference between a map and an array, in the case of a map, you can specify many different values for one key and then it will not be possible to collapse into an array. Thus, inconsistent models can be described as artificially created similarities of object projections that cannot be unambiguously deprojected back into an object. And in order to avoid confusion, it should be said not that contradictions are something that cannot exist, but that contradictions are a state of the map, which does not correspond to any state of the territory. In other words, you can also say that this is a typical case of mind projection error, when you project a certain state of the map (which really exists and is not contradictory) onto the territory and cannot get this very territory, then you say that you cannot get it, because that would be controversial territory.