Precision and vagueness are examples of qualities of a Map and Territory|Map. A vague Map and Territory|Map is useful for a frequently shifting value in the Map and Territory (a price that frequently changes), whereas a precise Map and Territory|Map represents a stable quality in the Map and Territory (a price that rarely changes).^[ Rationality, From A to Z#^74858f]

Map and Territory

Map and Territory

Map and Territory

When possible or important for clarity, don’t be afraid to use the full phrase that describes the truth like Ta-Nehisi Coates does with his phrase “Those who call themselves White”. Another example of increasing the precision of our map.

Map and Territory are not surprising in and of themselves. Only an incorrect Map and Territory|Map next to a Map and Territory can be surprising.

This is a disagreement between two maps, about expectations for an unknown part of the territory. This type of argument is about disagreement in what unknown (likely future) experiences will be. This is an argument about knowledge, since Knowledge is testable prediction.

Map and Territory

Mistaking a quality of the Map and Territory|Map for being a quality of the Map and Territory.

This will give us a new ability to blend between our Map and Territory. Both literally (overlaying map info over our view of the world), and figuratively ( blend information or representation with our senses of the world)

In other words beliefs are your map, and the truth is the (unknown) territory: Map and Territory.

I suspect that we can actually explain deductive logic with the same framework. All deductive logic requires a base assumption, which is like having a prior of 100% for a given state in inductive logic. This cannot be a true inductively achieved state for our map, since 100% certainty is infinite certainty. However, we can use deductive logic as a tool to append to our inductive logic.

For this reason, an important part of any system of thought and communication is to reduce the stigma and pain that comes from discovering a fault in one’s Map.

This is a disagreement between two maps, about expectations for an unknown part of the territory. This type of argument is about disagreement in what unknown (likely future) experiences will be. Since I think of Knowledge is testable prediction|knowledge as testable predictions, these types of disagreements are about knowledge.

2. Map and Territory: The Map is how we understand the world to be. The Territory is the reality of the world. This would be considered A posteriori thought. This is where ideas like Bayesian updating will be useful.

Flexibility of beliefs is critical. Nobody’s Map is perfect, and we should always be on the lookout for where we can improve that map.