As an author on this post,I think this is a surprisingly good summary. Some notes:
While all of the features are fictional, the more realistic ones are not far from reality. We’ve seen scripture features of various kinds in real models. A scripture intersect Monty Python feature just wouldn’t be that surprising.
Some of the other features were more about tying in interesting structure in reality than playing anything else (eg criticism of criticism feature).
In terms of the absurdities of feature interpretation, I think the idea was to highlight awareness of possible flaws like buying into overly complicated stories we could tell if we work too hard to explain our results. We’re not sure what we’re doing yet in this pre-paradigmatic science so having a healthy dose of self-awareness is important!
As an author on this post,I think this is a surprisingly good summary. Some notes:
While all of the features are fictional, the more realistic ones are not far from reality. We’ve seen scripture features of various kinds in real models. A scripture intersect Monty Python feature just wouldn’t be that surprising.
Some of the other features were more about tying in interesting structure in reality than playing anything else (eg criticism of criticism feature).
In terms of the absurdities of feature interpretation, I think the idea was to highlight awareness of possible flaws like buying into overly complicated stories we could tell if we work too hard to explain our results. We’re not sure what we’re doing yet in this pre-paradigmatic science so having a healthy dose of self-awareness is important!