I agree with this whole-heartedly.

Certainly some facts can imply a certain understanding of the world, but they don't require that understanding in order to remain true. The map may require the territory, but the territory does not require the map.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” ― Philip K. Dick

▲

richk449 8 days ago | parent | next [-]

In this analogy though, maps are the only things we have access to. There may be Truth, but we only approximate it with our maps.

	▲	mapontosevenths 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's very true that we only approximate truth with our maps. All abstractions are leaky, but that fact does not imply "catastrophic relativism" (as the grandfather post phrased it). It just implies that we need better, more accurate, maps. Or, to return the topic of the post, it just means that our translations need to try a little harder, not that human quality translation is impossible to do via machine. I think it's very important to remember that objective truth exists, because some large percentage of society has a political interest in denying that, and we're slipping ever closer into Sagan's "Demon Haunted World."

▲

throwanem 8 days ago | parent | prev [-]

We require the map.