Map and Territory, what's the difference?

Study matter and its motion through spacetime...

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Map and Territory, what's the difference?

#41  Postby Corkey » Apr 11, 2017 5:21 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Corkey wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:Ok, great, so what? What is the point of this word game? Because that's really all you're doing here. What is the point of defining something that arises from physical processes as non-physical? Why is running transcendent? After all, my body is not the running, the running is something that manifests from a time-based formation of my body :tinfoil:


Only when words have no relative meaning is it a game. How long would you look in a dictionary for a word that wasn't defined by and through other words in it? One word or thought clap either.

Great, then maybe you can provide a meaningful definition of non-physical. Not holding my breath, though.

Two hands can't clap until one of them begins to move. One hand can move all it wants, but it can't clap.

Yes it can, clap your fingers against your palm. What you mean is you can't clap two hands together with only one hand, which is about as trivial a statement as any other you've made in this thread. Again, what's the point you're trying to get at? Because surely defining something that arises from physical processes as non-physical can't be it. By itself, it's completely pointless definition jockeying.


I used one hand can't clap as a metaphor because I assume people in a physics forum would understand mechanics and what's required to manifest a mechanical phenomena. I haven't even left the realm of Newton yet.
Corkey
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: William Taylor
Posts: 18
Age: 79
Male

Country: U.S.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google



Re: Map and Territory, what's the difference?

#43  Postby Corkey » Apr 11, 2017 5:35 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Corkey wrote:One hand can move all it wants, but it can't clap.


Is that relevant? That's not what the Zen koan is about.

An F-15 can go Mach 1 within earshot. Where's the other hand? I think you're bluffing; there aren't any cards in your hand.

Why does anyone say, "the map is not the territory" except to try to sound mysterious, as if one held a secret of great import. But you're bluffing. Obviously.


The map is not the territory = Software is not hardware = The message is not the medium. I'm sure that must seem mysterious to you.

A Force can't act until it meet its other hand, Resistance. You're not a mechanic are you?

mechanics, n. pl. [construed as sing.] The branch of Physics that deals with motion and the phenomena of the action of forces on bodies.
Corkey
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: William Taylor
Posts: 18
Age: 79
Male

Country: U.S.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Map and Territory, what's the difference?

#44  Postby Thommo » Apr 11, 2017 5:37 pm

"The map is not the territory" does not convey the same message as "the software is not the hardware". A map is a representation of territory. Software is not a representation of hardware.

It's probably best not to confuse the issue.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26266

Print view this post

Re: Map and Territory, what's the difference?

#45  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 11, 2017 11:16 pm

Corkey wrote:I'm sure that must seem mysterious to you.


No, it just seems a bit... quirkey. You strolled in here, six guns blazing, to inform the world about something having to do with the mental aspect of existence. I think we've strayed rather far afield from that, and nothing but words to show for our labors. You know, words like 'map', 'territory' and 'clapping'.

There was this Buddhist monk who used to take a morning stroll down by the lake. One day, as he was walking and contemplating the beauty of the lake, he met a small dog walking in the opposite direction. Just as the two were passing one another, the dog squatted down and dropped a steaming turd in the sandy soil of the lakeshore, just above the line where waves borne by the morning breeze were rippling. The monk was puzzled about the event, and resolved to meditate on what he had seen. The next morning, and the morning after, the exact same thing happened. Monk. Dog, Shit. The monk became increasingly agitated at the regularity (no pun intended) at which this was occurring. After many days of rigorous contemplation, the answer came to him.

It was the sand of one hound crapping.

Furthermore, the crap is not the meritorious.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28477
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Map and Territory, what's the difference?

#46  Postby archibald » Apr 11, 2017 11:58 pm

Bravo. :clap:


Suddenly my own plan to create a clever anecdote about getting my back rubbed by a woman who simultaneously put me in touch with my dead ancestors, culminating in a pun about the medium not being the massage, seems so comparatively inadequate now. :(
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10278
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Map and Territory, what's the difference?

#47  Postby Thommo » Apr 12, 2017 12:01 am

Funnily enough the wikipedia page on the Map-Territory relation (which actually clears up at least one of the misunderstandings in the OP within its first sentence) contains a reference to another famous phrase, "The medium is the message", which in its turn links to a page about Marshall McLuhan who entitled a book based on a very similar pun "The medium is the massage".

So you're in fine company with that idea.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26266

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Map and Territory, what's the difference?

#48  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 12, 2017 3:10 am

archibald wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
archibald wrote:If you get a really, really big, 1:1 scale map of, say, a field, and lay it out on the field, then the map is the territory.

Well no, it's a big piece of inky paper on top of the territory :P


First of all, I was thinking of a map drawn using coloured pencils.

Well shit.

Second, you may run into trouble trying to define 'territory' since it's not the grass or the soil either. :)

It is the grass and soil and trees and whatever, in totality :) Of course if you start changing things around, moving trees and hills here and there, it's still the territory but it's no longer the map! Time to break out the colored pencils again...

SafeAsMilk wrote:Let's take another example: sound waves. They propagate through a physical material, but are not the material themselves. Remove the material and they cease to exist. Not physical?


This is the more interesting question, and I think it's the one the OP is getting at.

I think it's tricky. But I'm not sure I want to get into it, having been through it with John Platko in another thread. For practical purposes, I don't think it's totally daft to think of there being information in material stuff and considering that information to be to some extent independent of the material. We arguably wouldn't be able to post stuff here without allowing that transfer of information from medium to medium.

On the other hand, maybe the medium is the information. Or vice versa. Or they are both properties of the same thing which is neither of them. There are theories that the basic component of the universe is information and that what we call matter is just a manifestation of it.

I think you make my point with "to some extent". I don't think you can give an example of something that's independent of the material, even the imaginary map is dependent on the material in your brain. To say it isn't made of atoms or whatever seems pretty meaningless to me because, "to some extent", it always is. How is information not a configuration of matter? I understand that in some situations it might be useful to differentiate between them, but that's my point: what's the OP's useful application? There doesn't seem to be any purpose to any of this so far, it's just fucking around with words.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 13308
Age: 39
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Map and Territory, what's the difference?

#49  Postby Thommo » Apr 12, 2017 3:23 am

These are all really questions of convention, via questions of identity. Linguistically we identify certain things in ways that don't necessarily have referents.

For example I know that the Earth goes around the sun and you know that the Earth goes around the sun. We think of the fact that the Earth goes around the sun as a separate piece of information that would persist even if neither you nor I knew it. Out of convenience we talk about this information as though it had some existence beyond its instantiation in my head and in your head.

Most of us realise as kids that this is just something we say and that it doesn't require some absolutist interpretation of this thing we talk about having a literal existence. The cynical part of me says that people who stumble on this basic idea later in life are much more impressed with it than they ought to be.

This thread is about a phrase that amounts to "a representation is not the thing it represents", a concept so advanced that it requires grasping that a stick figure isn't actually a human being with hopes, dreams, parents, a job and a pet dog that can love, laugh, cry and die.

We're all overthinking it way too much.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26266

Print view this post

Re: Map and Territory, what's the difference?

#50  Postby archibald » Apr 12, 2017 10:22 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:....but that's my point: what's the OP's useful application? There doesn't seem to be any purpose to any of this so far, it's just fucking around with words.


Ah, well, if you want me to comment on that I'd say the OP is hoping for something profoundly tasty to emerge from a stew of conflation. What that might be I don't know and I have a feeling the OP doesn't know either, but he likes stirring the ingredients around in our little saucepan here.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10278
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Map and Territory, what's the difference?

#51  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 12, 2017 12:26 pm

archibald wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:....but that's my point: what's the OP's useful application? There doesn't seem to be any purpose to any of this so far, it's just fucking around with words.


Ah, well, if you want me to comment on that I'd say the OP is hoping for something profoundly tasty to emerge from a stew of conflation. What that might be I don't know and I have a feeling the OP doesn't know either, but he likes stirring the ingredients around in our little saucepan here.


Pantheism. Saucepan theism. Special Sauce Pan Theism. Sauce reductionism. It cooks.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28477
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest