ju say "a 1000-bit exact specification of X," and I ask "relative to which interpreter?"

I've been misled by naive information theory for a long time. there is no representation-of-thing which "has the structure" of the thing-in-itself. information is only ever the delta btn contexts. communication is always a bridge over inferential distance.

there is vars that more or less dereference as intended, but it's Gricean all the way down.

(thoughts prob counterfactually inspired by niplav)

Follow

@rime this does sound a lot like the things going around in my mind

But how the fuck is this then grounded?!

Like we can all be dust theory n everything but that's not great, from a "trying to figure stuff out" perspective

And I don't think one can then talk about the structure of differences of interpretations, bc that relies on some interpretative ground again

@rime maaaybe there can be a trammell-style fixpoint in the regress?

@niplav It all adds up to normality. It may or may not add up to wayyy more than that too, but at least it can't add up to anything *less* than normality.

Just hope it doesn't mess with the ontology upon which my ethics depends. Reality done that too many times already. ❤️‍🩹

In a sense, it's my ethics which holds things together. I say "ouch", and I know all else has to adjust to accommodate the fact that I care about whatever-that-was.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

a Schelling point for those who seek one