> I'd say real world is much simpler than that. There's stuff that happened, and there are consequences - just because the consequences may not be fully computable in the amount of time and effort anyone is willing to expend on it, doesn't mean truth suddenly becomes fuzzy. The territory is sharp, it's just the map that's uncertain.
Oh but it definitely DOES mean that truth becomes fuzzy. There is NO territory we can meaningfully talk about outside our subjective maps. Likewise, there is no such thing as "absolute truth" - and I do mean this on a very practical, day-to-day level, not in an abstract philosophical way.
The sooner we accept and embrace this, the sooner we can move away from "I'm right and you're wrong" to "let's make progress on what actually matters to the parties involved".
One challenge with this is that people do not seem to respond to nuance and potential indications so much as definite conclusions pointing toward specific actions.
I wonder if part of the problem is people do not have time or cultural persuasion to enjoy philosophical consideration of matters as they do tawdry headlines.
Oh but it definitely DOES mean that truth becomes fuzzy. There is NO territory we can meaningfully talk about outside our subjective maps. Likewise, there is no such thing as "absolute truth" - and I do mean this on a very practical, day-to-day level, not in an abstract philosophical way.
The sooner we accept and embrace this, the sooner we can move away from "I'm right and you're wrong" to "let's make progress on what actually matters to the parties involved".