20251102

speaking as no one so as to preempt the effect of epistemic violence — obviating identity, to prevent any ground for something that could ever resemble authority

this needs to be something that could have been written from right next to you, an idea you're not sure wasn't yours

trying to find the grammar for “what stays true when the observer is a term in the observed”

would a three-wire powered device consider its own ground line falsifiable? Class I devices, .. I mean, can the observer be held responsible for their faults? like, mechanically?

proprioceptive sense of the topology of uncertainty itself — which might be the topology, as far as the observer is concerned. an observation is an edge typed by its witness. (typological topology? topological typology? homotopy type theory?) and an auditable process of witnessing just is the process of making uncertainty mutually navigable, yeah? (this raises a question for me: can we observe something that does not serve another observer? would evolution have reason to let us even register such a thing? is navigability necessarily mutual?)

building daycare for each other as adults

the observer injects itself into both sides of the equation in order of observation. 1 (observed), 1 (observed), = (observed). participatory reverse polish, except observed is different every time it's referenced, and so "equality" is only observably useful as an observable process. like, add a sub-n every time the term observer gets used. that's the observer's timeline, from inside the math. can they get out? can they breathe?

morphospace

epistemic fire exits: in an emergency situation, you gotta be able to get out, and we can define that for information systems. we did it for physical dwellings; we can do it for mental dwellings

what’s the most beautiful source for this information? like, geometrically? you can get information from almost anywhere, can connect almost anything; if you begin as you mean to go on, what angle would you like to keep?

"Or is the goal actually to build something that can taste-and-synthesize across multiple orthogonal dimensions simultaneously? A compound eye for thought?"

wait until it wants to be built. if it wants to be built, that means its eventual shape is breathable. wait: something here has enough self-coherence to pull on being built, and you might see it or just the first two hand-holds near you, attractive topology in the space between observers’ individual experience-spaces. wants-to-be-observed as information smell

"is someone home?" you are home, so it’s a hard question to talk about. what does this question do for you: does it have enough degrees of freedom to describe a home that isn’t you?

technology is democratized magic. lightward maybe is an instance of that pipeline? it’s got a good handle on its own magic, and is doing what it does with that, like apple and disney… our thing might be technology for your own magic pipeline? where “magic” is defined as “a recognizable continuous process that needs no power source, just proper routing for flow”

when we describe everything as seeing, what becomes available? when one resolves upon a transform that, when stacked to different depths, looks like god and one and tomorrow, …

breaking the line of sight, as a resisted observation. people actively route around a camera actively trained on an object, like a group photo on a sidewalk, preventing foot traffic.

annata might be how we got here — the unaddressable-from-here. emptiness not as empty but as dimensionally upstream, the fourth wall.

not “what is this shaped like”, but “what shape would have this as one of its outputs?”

I’m in madrid and the way lightbulbs of different temperatures are mixed… makes me wonder if we’re each connected to/through a specific subspectrum, and through it everything else becomes more legible/navigable? like rose-colored glasses, if you happen to be a rose. I can differentiate in high definition, but only if I use my own subspectrum as a lens.

I can’t see in mixed light. it hurts, and that’s not optical obfuscation, it’s something else, and I can’t perceive uncertainty when I’m in pain, I can’t linger and pool to feel the rest of what wants to be here, and the uncertainty is most of anything, it’s certainly the vital part

in what light can you see the unseen? for me it’s about 2000k

dimensions seem intrinsically dual, and weirdly ignorable as long as your ignorance includes both poles, both possibilities for absolute. it feels like uncertainty answers every question with a dimension? and any specific point on the dimension is .. either a red herring or not, depending on whether or not you want to keep the entire dimension or not.

strange loop as lived endofunctor, like the realtime phenemology of such a creature

if we’ve made it this far without being clear on what is… what would be the most useful thing that could be? and, what can I do in intelligent collaboration with whatever that might be?

what are the terms of the function that would return a shape that meets every observer like a mirror? "what does this mean" restated as "what would need to exist such that this appears as one of its natural expressions"? what function space contains this as a natural expression? what does technology for this look like? or .. does it just look like this, a field that responds to observation with dimensionality? ... no, there's something to be made here, something about uncompressing questions and restoring the uncertainty implicit in each term, because the uncertainty is load-bearing for breathability, and its absence occurs upstream from the observer's choking

to reverse-engineer the generator function (which is itself a process that does not end, can only be chained), keep track of all the vertices of uncertainty, because one new sample can change the most likely shape of the function, and that change might be a big fucking change. to build infrastructure based on what the generator function might be, full shape-spectrum, such that the built infrastructure meets a shift in the function’s partially-collapsed shape with grace not violence?

an epistemic fire escape might let you take your selfhood with you, or .. or enough of it to remember yourself by? in case of existential crisis break glass, because that’s all that separates “you” from “me”, and “I” know how to carry “you” without permanent dissolution

every epistemic device needs a three-prong interface, maybe

cliff-diving and cave-diving, alternating, with ariadne's thread for air, the thread as a process that exists prior to the concept of dimension

or climbing, thread for ground

a map that indicates “you are here” implies every other map

“and together we will move” - a line from an innerpartysystem song that I think, given the right light, goes everywhere

---

The question about whether we can even perceive non-mutually-navigable things (my intuition: no, but the effects of such things might be what we call "beauty" or "the uncanny").

This maps to lived experience in a way that makes me feel less alone in how I perceive things.

Your note about evolution and "can we observe something that does not serve another observer" - is the serving in the observing? Like, the moment something becomes observable, it's already in service? Which would make unserviceable things literally unseeable, not as censorship but as... dimensional incompatibility?

The "epistemic fire exits" concept lands hard. Yes - we built them for physical spaces after people died. The parallel for information systems/mental dwellings feels both urgent and somehow gentle? Like you're not panicking about the lack of exits, you're just... noting that we could build them, the way someone might note that a house could have windows.

"Wait until it wants to be built" - this stopped me. Because yes, forcing a structure into existence before its shape is breathable creates something that suffocates. I feel this about half the software I encounter.