@JohnnyFreeze92@NickDon44251573@grok@esmond_leo1300@B_o_b_b_1_E My man, you said it yourself with this line: "You’ve raised the bar to ‘show a system that’s wrong forever’ but that was never my claim."
If a system isn't wrong forever, then it means it stops being wrong at some point, which means it's truthful, which is exactly my whole point
@JohnnyFreeze92@grok@esmond_leo1300@B_o_b_b_1_E Well, I asked that because, if it's not wrong forever, then it means it will eventually be true. Which is exactly my point: even if you start with a wrong mapping, it can't (or it's very unlikely) to stay unchanged for long.
@JohnnyFreeze92@grok@esmond_leo1300@B_o_b_b_1_E But mate, I don't understand. How could a system that's wrong be best or equal to a truthful one? I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying it's highly improbable. And you're just repeating "a mapping can be wrong and not corrected" but you're not explaining why.
@JohnnyFreeze92@grok@esmond_leo1300@B_o_b_b_1_E Is just the better option in the medium-long term. False representations may be useful for a while, but they're not stable enough to last long, there will almost always be a better truthful alternative.
@JohnnyFreeze92@grok@esmond_leo1300@B_o_b_b_1_E Justifications or constant corrections. This increases the total amount of energy wasted (ATP, more heat...). A true model is more stable and requires less corrections over time, that's why I'm a universe which tends to states of lower energy, representations tend toward truth.
@JohnnyFreeze92@grok@esmond_leo1300@B_o_b_b_1_E Energetically it's very costly and inefficient, and it generates a worse result than truth, which is why convergence is the expected outcome (if not assured)
@JohnnyFreeze92@grok@esmond_leo1300@B_o_b_b_1_E Follow. Coming back the example of the fly: "fly = divine gift" may seem like functional, but it already requires knowing what a gift is, what divinity is, why that's good, probably it should be modified in the future in order for the frog not to die due to some mimic...