[stephc_int13]

I think this is an important idea, not new but probably not widespread or well understood enough.

One specific map that I think can lead to some reasoning errors is the way we abstract numbers.

Our most common and widely used abstraction of numbers has infinite at both ends, and this is a perfectly valid, practical and coherent way to represent real numbers, as long as we stay in the realm of the abstraction.

But real things like particles or planets might not be perfectly abstracted by this model.

Reasoning about real things with this model in mind (especially infinity) can lead to weird conclusions, like the 100% likelihood that we live in a simulation.

[BLKNSLVR]

The extension of 'the map is not the terrain' is 'the simulation is not the universe'.

I'm not sure if that's an exact example of what you're saying, but, for me, if any conclusion is that we're living in a simulation, then it's simulations all the way down.

Or, we're living in a simulation because we understand and process the universe and our experiences through the filter of our brains, and our brains are, to some degree, an abstraction engine. Our physical bodies exist in the terrain, but the entirety of our conscious lives is lived through the map.

[stephc_int13]

No, we are not living in a simulation.

And what I am saying is that the simulation hypothesis is a logical conclusion given our abstract way of representing numbers and infinity.

Basic things like real numbers are also an abstract model.