True or false, or approximate enough? Considering Donald Hoffman's modeling

There is another advantage in noticing that reality is nested multiple states within nested multiple states within nested fields within nested fields -- or more simply, that  reality is nested structured~duality.

Basically, this additional new-found advantage is that such a more unified new perspective supports and is in good alignment  with Donald Hoffman's and others' findings that  "perception is non-veridical".   (See, for instance: "https://edge.org/response-detail/11942" or other of Donald Hoffman's publications since 2008.)

How or why might this be important?    Here's and example revealing more of the perspective. 

I read in a recent jcs-online post something to the effect of: "[blah-blah-blah, some argument(s)] ... therefore realism is false".   

At issue is not the quality or apparent perfection of the argument supporting the conclusion  that "realism is false",  but that given other times, or other orators having, let's say, newly effable (expressible)  or different counter-arguments,  readers have also been alternatively informed that, say, "realism is true", or "idealism is true (or false)", etc.  And on and on within all the various -isms for which the familiar logical true-false states are said or believed to be valid assessments. 

The issue, though, is that  with visual perception being non-veridical,  as Hoffman presents,  I observe that (secondary) thoughtful, wordful (verbal)  philosophical constructions can obviously be no less non-verdical.   Thus, potentially, open-minded readers may begin to get the impression that what we face  is not the assumed classical assessments of the naive, (2^n) true or false states and conditions.  What we actually face is our non-veridical, non-classical, more robust, higher dimensional nested approximations.

Conceptualizing  and realizing reality as nested structured~duality provides such an approximate enough foundation and allows migration away from the overly simplistic (and inaccurate) determinate  either-or, true-false categorizations.   As Hoffman describes, our internal representations are useful hacks and  not literal or veridical. Yet, we still do need to take, say, perceptions of a cliff,  tiger, or viper, etc.,  "seriously".    That is, our internal representations do need to be "approximate enough". 

Swallowing this pill may be very difficult for strongly left-brained oriented or strongly rational  people.  

To further illustrate, consider, for instance, deepening levels of introversion:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Surface or naive, classical 2^n  true-false  introversion
--
--
-- Deeper non-classical 6^n, sp3-hybridized multiple state structural coding
--
--
-- Deeper non-classical 6^n to 12^n... nested multiple state approximations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Shifting to the nested structured~duality paradigm provides an approximate enough representation of our (uncertain) surroundings and of our (uncertain) perceptions of our (uncertain) surroundings.    Having, exhibiting, or asserting a strong sense of certainty is surely comforting and is an emotional strength of our rational processes. The trouble is, as our right-brained intuitive faculties inform us, such absolutely certainty is not available.  What we have are 'approximate enough' , uncertain, multiple-state measures.

My understanding is that Hoffman's math and evolutionary game  modeling has so far only assessed perception and he has had little need or use yet for considering and/or framing reality as nested structured~duality or putting his findings in those terms.  (See: "http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full")

I predict, however, that when his models expand to consider both perception and memory together, first his accounts will benefit from and require   a "nesting" term and flavor -- perhaps like in the term  'recursion'.  As well,  I predict that  his terminology of 'conscious agent' or 'conscious subject' will become increasingly unwieldy  and problematic prompting his and others adoptions of the terminology outlined herein and elsewhere which supports making these predictions.

True or false, or approximate enough?

Thoughts? Comments?

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

Paradigm Transition  Support

[fSci] --  Frost Scientific

http://frostscientific.com

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3