Temperature is a classic example of an emergent phenomenon. It can be physically measured using (for example) a mercury thermometer which is an exceedingly simple construction. It is a real thing. You can touch a hot or cold surface and feel it for yourself, no map required.

Anyway even if you don't like the example I chose can you see the point I was trying to make? What would it mean for a quantifiable phenomenon to happen on the map as opposed to happening in the territory? How would it interact with the world (ie the territory)? Would it not necessarily imply dualism?

▲

kelseyfrog 10 days ago | parent [-]

A variable within a model can be measured. We use physics to describe the universe, but we shouldn't confuse it with the universe.

	▲	fc417fc802 10 days ago \| parent [-]
		I agree, but what does that have to do with what I just asked? What would it mean for a quantifiable phenomenon to happen on the map as opposed to happening in the territory? You can measure a derived value that appears on your map, but you do so by observing concrete things from within the territory. So in that case the quantifiable things happen entirely within the territory and (as you say) it is important not to confuse the map with that. So when you earlier suggested that "Another alternative is that consciousness exists on the map" I'm asking what would that entail? How could consciousness exist on the map as opposed to within the territory? If it did, would that not imply dualism - that the map were in fact real?