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)
@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.
@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