Furthermore, meta-rationalists don’t really believe that if you take one map and keep updating it long enough, you will necessarily asymptotically approach the territory. First, the incoming information is already interpreted by the map in use; second, the instructions for updating are themselves contained in the map. So it is quite possible that different maps, even after updating on tons of data from the territory, would still converge towards different attractors. And even if, hypothetically, given infinite computing power, they would converge towards the same place, it is still possible that they will not come sufficiently close during one human life, or that a sufficiently advanced map would fit into a human brain. Therefore, using multiple maps may be the optimal approach for a human. (Even if you choose “the current scientific knowledge” as one of your starting maps.)

> rationalists hope that if they take one map, and keep updating it long enough, this map will asymptotically approach the territory

That is, as far as can be detected, what the human brain does. It isn't just the rationalists who have a view and keep updating it, hoping it will asymptotically approach the territory. It is exceedingly difficult to have a strategy that doesn't do that and still be a semi-functional member of society.

I'm struggling to see how someone could hold 'different' maps because they become one map in your head. Rationalists are perfectly comfortable with there being multiple possible scenarios leading to an outcome.

My guess is that this observation is going to the fact that rationalists are very, very uncomfortable (to the point of falling apart, sometimes) in accepting "because I say so" as sufficient evidence to update a view, change behaviour stop arguing and be a good sport about the whole thing. Which is very much a social faux-pas when dealing with high status people and often a mistake when dealing with inarticulate people who are nevertheless correct in their view.

A street map and a subway map both describe the connectivity within a city, but even when a human internalizes them both, they don't get subsumed into a single map exactly, rather the human mode-switches between them at various points to stich together a route.

If you doubt this, try visualizing exactly which streets and landmarks are going by overhead as you travel between stations. It is rather hard to do, and as a result people often treat stations more like portals into a parallel wormhole network.

This of course uses literal maps as an exemplar, but similar ones are 'code switching' back and forth between dialects rather than blending them, and visual illusions that can be seen as one image or another, but not both at once.

Idunno, I find if you're somewhat familiar with the more detailed map -- and the subway stations are marked on it -- it comes somewhat naturally. You probably fool yourself a bit if / when the subway lines are very curved, because (I guess) you'll tend to imagine pretty straight lines between stations, but... On the whole, that's pretty much why subways were built in the first place, so I wouldn't think you'll be all that much off

They also relate directly to the philosophies of materialism and emergentism.

Positivism is analytic/materialist, which is to say that it purports that you can understand a thing by understanding the behaviour of its smallest pieces. This denies emergent properties, which cannot be understood from the parts. Constructivism allows for multiple distinct (ie, irreconcilable) models to be used in reference to the same subject, depending on the properties that are of interest. It does not require all models to be reconciled into a hierarchy.

To abuse the analogy, a glovebox of old road atlas doesn’t beat Google maps. On the other hand mixing Google maps with your personal knowledge that a bridge is out is a useful meta map.