Epistemic Crosstalk

“The map is not the territory.”

Are you familiar with this phrase?

While language is one of the most valuable of all human inventions, it is also one of the most problematic, as I have explored previously in great depth. Language is a form of signal compression, and a fairly lossy one at that.

That said, there is a very particular flavor of linguistic problem that I encounter on a regular basis, which I refer to as Epistemic Crosstalk.

Epistemic crosstalk occurs when a single word or phrase is “loaded,” and by that I mean it has multiple meanings and/or all sorts of baggage attached to it, and when it might be true from a certain perspective but is often misused in a different context.

I’ll give you an example I encounter a lot: “We’re all one.”

This phrase, depending on which level of reality you are speaking about, could be true, partially true, or totally false. And no matter which level of reality it is applied to, it is uncertain.

And that’s a problem.

Let’s look at this across a few different levels of reality, to make the point:

Level 1 - The Universe

If the universe is a closed system as Einstein assumed (we have no evidence to the contrary), and if everything at the smallest levels is quantized (so it would appear), then we are in fact “all one” in that we are all part of a single unified system, in the same way that a specific wave is a part of the ocean, which is intertwined with the atmosphere and weather, which is influenced by the moon and the sun, and on and on.

One system.

But, humans being humans, and language being language, we attempt to draw boundaries where, at a certain level, none exist.

You could even expand this to mean other things. For example, if we exist in a simulation, then we are all one in the sense that we’re code in a computer somewhere a level up.

Let’s try another…

Level 2 - Universal Consciousness

Some people, Zen Buddhists and “spiritual” folk, believe we are a part of a single universal consciousness. What this consciousness is (God, Brahman, etc.) is debated. What we are, and why we are, is also debated. But people who believe this argue that, in the sense that we are all figments in the “mind” of a singular being, we are thus “all one.”

While this makes sense from a certain perspective, it is a hypothesis that can’t be disproven, and as of yet can’t be proven either, so it’s epistemic value is minimal.

One more, to make the point.

Level 3 - Humans of Earth

Despite all our individual and group differences, from skin color to culture to genetics, at the end of the day we are all human, and all share a little blue dot hurtling through space. In that sense, as Humans of Earth, we are all one (tribe).

And, if the Butterfly Effect is to be believed, any small perturbation of a system can ripple out in significant ways, so in the sense that we are interconnected as a species, and “by small and simple means are great things brought to pass,” we are yet again one, from a certain point of view.

Make sense?

This is a PERFECT example of Epistemic Crosstalk.

One phrase, “we’re all one,” with very different interpretations and meanings depending on which level of reality you’re discussing and which framework you’re using.

—

Now, while I am open to all of these interpretations as possibilities, where I take issue is with the application of certainty where none exists.

No different than the false certainty of religion, atheism, the belief that science can be settled, etc. Certainty, especially in the absence of hard, testable, repeatable evidence, is just plain stupid.

And even with said evidence, there is always some level of uncertainty, some probability that future information will change our perspective.

Because language is ALWAYS map, not territory, and because our senses are limited, and our brains filter and distort our sensory data, and our technology still has numerous capability gaps…we have a problem.

We do not interface directly with reality as it is.

This does not mean language is not useful, nor that our skewed perceptions of reality are not useful. A less than perfect map can still be good enough.

But good enough is not good enough if we’re trying to arrive at truth.

—

Now, the reason I bring this up is that I routinely see people on Twitter or elsewhere who, because of this sort of crosstalk, have gotten stuck on a sort of “developmental plateau.”

They think they’ve found the truth, the peak of the mountain if you will, when in reality they are still just barely beyond basecamp.

While every path is somewhat different, I see many times many who traverse a path something like this: Religion → Atheism → Spirituality

Or perhaps: Spirituality → Nihilism → Different Flavor of Spirituality

There are probably as many paths as there are people, but you get the gist. They go from certainty to certainty to certainty.

The mistake they all make is simple; they stop somewhere, thinking they have the truth. They also often mistake Unknown for Unknowable.

If you’ve stopped, settled into a comfortable little nest somewhere, certain that you’ve found the truth…sorry friend, you’re still stuck.

—

There is no stopping point. There are only feedback loops.

My favorite thing about science is that it is not a destination, but a process. The scientific METHOD is an error correcting feedback loop.

Observe, hypothesize, test, analyze, revise, rinse and repeat.

The PROCESS of science is the continuous path of trying to get closer to the truth. And since nothing is 100% certain, there is no end point in sight.

Language itself is a part of this. Over time, we come up with more and more words to describe observable aspects of reality, sometimes with tighter and tighter definitions (at least that’s the hope), so that our language becomes more useful as it is more precise.

But unfortunately language lacks the rigidity and formality of mathematics, and so words often become misused, change meanings, take on too many meanings, and otherwise lose fidelity. Different groups use the same words to mean different things.

No bueno.

It is this degradation, this loss in fidelity that inherently leads to epistemic crosstalk.

A map is only as useful as it is accurate, and as language is our map, to make it more accurate we need to use it more precisely, with tighter definitions and less ambiguity. It needs an error correcting process every bit as rigorous as science, so that we can better avoid crosstalk, and in that way we may actually get closer to the truth.

So the next time you hear someone say “we’re all one,” or something similarly certain and ambiguous at the same time, consider responding with “Well, that depends on what level of reality you are referring to. In which way are you using that phrase?”