Is correspondence true (in CR)?

Showing only those parts of the discussion which lead to #2348.

See full discussion·See most recent related ideas
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.
Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Erik Orrje’s avatar
Erik OrrjeOP, 3 days ago·#2320

CR is an evolutionary theory. There's no need for correspondence in Darwinism. Therefore, we don't need it in CR either.

Benjamin Davies’s avatar
Benjamin Davies revised 3 days ago·#2322
Only version leading to #2348 (2 total)

I think correspondence is to epistemology as adaptation is to evolution. Knowledge that corresponds more to reality tends to be more useful (and/or has more reach), similar to biological adaptation.

Criticism of #2320Criticized1
Erik Orrje’s avatar
Erik OrrjeOP, revised by Dennis Hackethal 1 day ago·#2348
3rd of 3 versions

Memes and genes are the same type of knowledge. Since we can "let our theories die in our place", as Popper said, we can make faster iterations and expand the environment to which the idea is adapted (including potentially the whole universe). There's no need for correspondence, just more reach and adaptation across contexts.

Criticism of #2322