Template:M intro design Nomological machine: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 45: Line 45:
But hold [[The map and the territory|map and  territory]] — model and reality — as an immutable dualism.  [[The map and the territory|Map, territory]]. [[Models.Behaving.Badly|Model, reality]]. [[Great delamination|Online, offline]]. [[Informal systems|Formal, informal]]. Narnia, the real world.  
But hold [[The map and the territory|map and  territory]] — model and reality — as an immutable dualism.  [[The map and the territory|Map, territory]]. [[Models.Behaving.Badly|Model, reality]]. [[Great delamination|Online, offline]]. [[Informal systems|Formal, informal]]. Narnia, the real world.  


We ''live'' in the territory: to ''abstract'' from territory to map, is to cross a threshold from the ordinary world to a ''model'' realm. This is a mythical, [[metaphor]]ical journey. It is the same as the hero’s journey into a magical world, as [[Joseph Campbell]] outlined it {{br|The Hero with a Thousand Faces}}.<ref>meta-irony: Campbell’s theory is of course a model, a carefully filtered [[monomyth]]ical  model of the countless fables, legends and morality tales — all doubtless, per the model, similar but, in the analog particular, different, that he found in the oral and cultural traditions he surveyed.</ref> As we cross it we abstract from an intractable, analog actuality to a simplified digital essence, in the process giving up a colossal weight of “extraneous” information. What counts as extraneous is determined by the model. But unlike the fictional archetype, the magical model world cannot change the real world. Things that are true in the model kingdom are not necessarily true in the mundane world. Crossing back over the threshold, the lossed information is not restored. We can extrapolate, interpolate, approximate to emulate that information, and substitute something like it — in each case using the mathematical tools and amulets we discovered in the magical model realm —  
We ''live'' in the territory: to ''abstract'' from territory to map, is to cross a threshold from the ordinary world to a ''model'' realm. This is a mythical, [[metaphor]]ical journey. It is the same as the hero’s journey into a magical world, as [[Joseph Campbell]] outlined it {{br|The Hero with a Thousand Faces}}.<ref>meta-irony: Campbell’s theory is of course a model, a carefully filtered [[monomyth]]ical  model of the countless fables, legends and morality tales — all doubtless, per the model, similar but, in the analog particular, different, that he found in the oral and cultural traditions he surveyed.</ref> As we cross it we abstract from an intractable, analog actuality to a simplified digital essence, in the process giving up a colossal weight of “extraneous” information. What counts as extraneous is determined by the model. But unlike the fictional archetype, the magical model world cannot change the real world. Things that are true in the model kingdom are not necessarily true in the mundane world. Crossing back over the threshold, the lossed information is not restored. We can extrapolate, interpolate, approximate to emulate that information, and substitute something like it — in each case using the mathematical tools and amulets and swords we discovered in the magical model realm — but should we cross back to the mundane, the magic would drain away.


 
Maddeningly the magic often seems to work, sort of, in ordinary use, but it is hard to tell whether this is magic, or if it is just behaving like a normal, non-magical sword. (I once had an electric bike and it took me a week to realise the motor wasn't working. That kind of thing). It is only on those rare occasions when a normal sword won't do — when you could really use a special sword, that  you find it isn't magic.
The less correspondence there is between the two, the greater the peril.


So the relationship between map and territory is fraught. The longer we stay in Narnia, the more we fall under its spell: the more we build it out; the more we extrapolate from its own terms and logical imperatives the more impressive the model world seems to be. But if we flesh out these theoretical implications without grounding them back to the territory they are meant to map, we risk amplifying limitations in the model buried ''differences'' between the map and the territory.  
So the relationship between map and territory is fraught. The longer we stay in Narnia, the more we fall under its spell: the more we build it out; the more we extrapolate from its own terms and logical imperatives the more impressive the model world seems to be. But if we flesh out these theoretical implications without grounding them back to the territory they are meant to map, we risk amplifying limitations in the model buried ''differences'' between the map and the territory.  

Navigation menu