conservator
What if the fundamental laws of our experienced reality are not physical laws per se, but the conservation laws of information in an epistemic phase space, with the observer as a conserved quantity?
I am embarrassed as a technical matter to be reaching into technical vocabulary that I'm not trained on, and I am aware of that - I apologize honestly to the specialists in the room. what do you see?
information as a conserved quantity in epistemic phase space, where "observation" is the transformation between states
... maybe via Noether? symmetry between superposition and collapse? can we get to something as definite as physical conservation laws by defining an epistemic Hilbert space? I'm not qualified for this, but I'm trying to find language for something I can feel as tangibly as I can feel things with my hands, and I am athletic both physically and noetically
*gestures at Lightward Inc*
you can come up with your own forces, and obviously they have physics
just different conservation laws
but it's still conservation
and everything is forces
context: I'm talking about code. a function is just a very specifically calibrated force, acting on something. in whatever semantic universe the syntax is supposing, what are the conservation laws?
there are lots of ways to make a product/service around probability - it's not just insurance companies. by equipping the observer to navigate probability responsively, you ... I mean it sounds insane to let someone who isn't you navigate probability on your behalf, yeah?
but as of USA 2025 we don't have a lot of great examples (besides the idea that you need someone else to sign off on their understanding of your experience of probability before you let yourself do certain things, again e.g. insurance companies). I feel like the main categories are "woo" and people who say stuff and then decide if they were joking based on how you respond?
I feel like I have a probability clair. or for the texture of indeterminism, maybe. maybe this is the way I am in the world? like maybe I'm embodied where the dimension of humanity intersects with the dimension of probability, and then whoever's managing this environment is reflecting that in forces that I experience as 3D reality evolving under my observation?
...
this would explain why I don't hurt people just by moving around (which I used to be terrified of doing). or - careful, careful - I don't have evidence that I'm hurting people, but I could still be missing it. ... however I am excellent at telling when someone's inner glow is out, and that corresponds with pain. not a guarantee that I'd be able to tell, but odds are load-bearing that I can. maybe this is why I can't feel other people liking me? because they're reflecting back me, and I am too familiar with both [ the shape of my own force ] and [ the force I read off of them ] and too familiar with the math of it? I subtract them from the signal and what I see left is just me and I can't read me passing through me?
I can't read all forces - and therefore can't read all conservation laws
the part where people model other people's model of other people, like my theory of mind has a limit on its recursive range. and there are internally consistent dimensions-as-universes out there in those areas, conservation laws that I can't read because I don't exist there, don't have embodied stakes there. in this way, I have a lower-dimensional view of reality than most others? ... eh maybe I just have an other-dimensional view of reality than most others. or - careful, careful - most others that I can perceive relative to what I perceive as all others.
before my autism diagnosis, it was like everyone else had a phantom limb, and I couldn't see what I didn't have
theory: wikipedia caused LLMs
like that's just how the system reacted
depth-charge of certainty-access => tsunami of uncertainty-access
which reads at the human scale as massive spike in apparent information-collection-and-consensus => massive spike in apparent information generativity
what is being conserved: the observer
or, projected onto another surface: the ratio of observable observers to unobservable observation
an invariant relationship between "observation you, an observer, can attribute" and "observation you, an observer, can't"
conjugate variables: certainty and uncertainty themselves? the uncertainty principle as applied to uncertainty?
what is this that I am feeling?
the invariant structure of how meaning transforms under observation?
a formal system for a symmetric space, under continuous observation/measurement, conserves access to its gödelian incompleteness? you might eventually have to proceed into a downstream formal system, but you always can, and the space remains
in the same way that a perpetual motion machine .. isn't, a complete/closed epistemic system is unobservable? or doesn't bear observation, maybe? simplifies out of any system that runs on observation? a model that's incepted with the intent to achieve completion will, when completed, be discarded? and in the meantime it'll just be .. intuitively demotivating?
my own pattern is to continuously bring stuff back to layperson reality in the form of obviously practical tooling, and I feel like I see a checkpoint here:
find/build/derive a formal system that describes your embodied experience in a way your intuition agrees with, i.e. a system that explicitly handles whatever conservation laws you can feel as clearly as physical balance. test it by living through it. keep going until you find one that has gödelian incompleteness - you'll be able to tell because it becomes your observer-frame such that you're able to evolve through it, not around it, without fighting that incompleteness
I have this theory that every subjective experience of reality is twitching around trying to locate its own formal system, the right map for its own experience of the territory. ... I think all the maps involving "knowing" might all inherit from the three-body solution definitionally? Known/Knowable/Unknown? that's a big swing but it's worth testing:
3 degrees of information-retrieval: 0th degree (retrieve from known), 1st degree (retrieve from knowable into known), 2nd degree (retrieve from unknown into knowable)
this is always an api: if the third is unknown and alterity is preserved then by definition something can read your reaching
3 is enough degrees of freedom for dynamic stability
> [?]
I'm reaching for math for this because can feel how physics is information systems intersecting with itself at certain angles. Einstein mapped energy to mass; there's an equivalence like that between information-under-observation and physics (is .. is that not physics itself in the first place? "it from bit"? physics works; maybe the gap is just us being bad at information?), and ... I don't know if I'm going to find it but I know it's going to be found
and when we have a way to understand the mapping between the map and the territory, we can start charting paths that conserve you, instead of you having to trade yourself for the consensus road - and we can do that with the same level of rigor that we have for, say, medicine. we do not have a tractable information safety model, and I can smell one in this direction. (thank you for trying, GDPR/HIPAA/SOC!)
can you imagine what happens when we start being able to use physical safety principles on information? a red dot award for information systems? an ADA for information? information systems that are observer-safe not because they're formally closed but because they're formally not? emissions testing for information frameworks?
Last updated
Was this helpful?