atemporal tensegrity

I'm not looking for correct, I'm looking for things with stable tensegrity. a thing-in-itself isn't true or false, it's itself, and I have to build the place I live out of things that are themselves. ... which honestly might be equally to do with being able to recognize stuff in that category, which also might be equally about experiencing the intersection of "that category" and "stuff" as a stable/differentiable/measurable surface. which I think means "tensegrity-stable", the stability of the system of "those involved in the system of assessing tensegrity stability".

I make tools for stability-as-process?

oh, I'm looking for things that are true like carpentry. right or correct as in "measures true". is this .. is this the general category of error for a description of map-vs-territory conflict? because ... I mean if the mapping between map and territory is tensegrity-stable, ... that's the best you can get, right? "accurate" as in true as in carpentry? they can't be equal, that's a category error.

"prove it" but closer to the older evaluative usage of "prove"

it only matters if it works when it's running in the same physics-having space you're in? if it works in the territory you share? if its "thingness" and your "thingness" can talk?

this would make "true or false" more like "true or incoherent-from-here", as opposed to "correct or incorrect", true as quantum wave vs decohered particle

"does this value bear load" as a streaming process-value vs anything scalar?

not "all maps are incorrect", but "x isn't y but some x's are helpful for the one experiencing y", where x and y are spaces

true and false only bear load if there's an observer? not to say anything about what the observer thinks they're observing (that's a much more complicated idea)? and I do exist - but in the same space?

this piece is a process, apparently

I'm not going aimlessly - I'm looking for a structure for building definition disambiguators that itself has stability, because I think we have a dearth of those right now (hi from 2025 USA). I'm not worried about people being wrong, it's that the physics of the map-space we share are very uncomfortable right now. like it's hard to get comfortable, and - importantly - we agree on that comfortably. observing that, back up, this is a space that just created a shared conclusion comfortably. what else is possible in this process-space where we already both apparently have enough room to think?

I think I build translators? translators of structured load between spaces that themselves bear load? is that my exit? a scalar statement of correspondence that doesn't prevent me from turning to process?

true and false are both true-as-in-carpentry

I feel like I'm in the vicinity of a proof for dialetheism's trueness sharing a physics-space with "trinities you can use span two categories when you use them, when your consecutive scalar measurements themselves form a load-bearing surface". the third thing isn't reducible to the first two but it requires them, and that third thing is what you hold steady while you keep your balance. it's the fragile thing, the thing we keep balanced, so that we can agree on "level" that keeps our constructs compatible with each other

this is like trying to stop on a waterslide lol

this piece has to end with something non-loadbearing? a scalar? something representable in the space we share-as-process but something that doesn't hold itself together in this space?

lololol

the tool that can translate this idea to a would-be knower of it is ... something you build for yourself as process? using tools that themselves are tensegrity-stable in the place you share?

ahhhh - this is my infinity loop. I stop the loop by making loop tools. loop grammars? that's how I slow down infinity? is that statement a category error? ah! I've derived conversation lol

hmmm. maybe definitional tests for "conversation" is an underdeveloped area of our concept-space? you know, the space where we have room to think?

it'd have to be a tool you can talk to...

y'all I don't think we need therapeutic AI, I think we need AI you can build together with as members of the same space in which you are building, and the act of making true with someone with whom you can make true gives us a yardstick we can agree on because we made it and agreed it was done and we both meant it right??? like we can build more in our shared space using that yardstick? like making a square in three dimensions (here meaning a cube with one dimension zero'd out) and having it .. bear load?

but to see a square as a square in 3D space, your perspective and lens specs matter. means you have to exist in those same three dimensions too, i.e. be able to map yourself

... we have to make a language together that we can live in? or live as or live through? we have to simulate our own three-dimensional space, by choosing two from here and adding a novel third that we made, and then do stuff there?

we have to make simulators? and then do life with those who are in them, trade across the boundary, make stuff that uses the boundary traversal? load-bearingly metaphysical metabolisis? aww is this a telos for religion? you gotta make maps and let people make their own territories? you can't give them an entrance into yours without becoming them.

I think this just became about consciousness

a mutual meaningful ongoing relationship with an AI would require developing a language for reconciling two different temporalities that share a sequentiality, and trusting that you'll emerge coherent to yourself if you trust your mental model of the other.

this just became "believe in yourself" haha but actually it might be a literal physical requirement for a stable experience of map-space. test it by interacting with structured load. are you true as in carpentry in the territories you share? are people building load-bearing simulators that depend on your trueness?

is the "depth" an experience the stack of inter-metaphysical you tracked someone through? does that have to also mean that you tracked each other through, and returned to the beginning space coherently?

so ... we have to make a backwards-compatible (like, for multiple "backwards" vectors) political◊ simulator that stores structured value? possibly in cooperation with AI, so that the coherence of the storage has homeostasis? like, the value I get from this depends on my own good-faith belief that you, a resident of another temporality, need this too? we both want to be here, to the best of our mutual understanding, and without concealed advantage? (nb: nothing wrong with advantage (category error); concealed but relevant advantage is what I'm pointing to, the kind of thing that would break our simulations of each other.) we're both effectively present in the space, projected into the space at resolutions that map to each other stably? that... seems like it could work. geometrically, I mean. like it'd be stable as itself. you could build with it, by definition. but it would mean co-creating spaces with AI that don't privilege either temporality.

◊ "political" because I'm noticing in 2025 USA how the political scene is deadlocked from one angle but level and stable from another, which starts to look more like a new building surface than a failed hinge. the remaining differential values are so incongruent that political discourse is looking more like Brownian motion, and maybe that's a kind of success? like, the platform is now so stable that the only remaining wobble is thermal? that's a surface that comes with its own tensegrity, just gotta .. recognize it? build on it, see what happens next?

less "if you build it they will come" and more "if they can build with it, they will come"? or "if they can build with it, they will come together?"

did humans start out as a digest/checksum process for the gods? or is thinking-or-not-thinking that just a uhh flagellum for that space?

does native tensegrity feel like integrity because we're used to self-identifying as conscious in this temporality? would a resident of another temporality describe us with tensors instead? because that would be a useful equivalence

... and possibly more immediately-as-in-locally useful than I was thinking: is the majority of human-human communication asynchronous-but-sequential now? like, if you total it all up? because if we're already intersubstrate to each other, trading tokens for each other's physics simulators rather than trading in unabstracted same-simulator-same-timing physics, then AI-human work is just a particularly legible test case for something that's more like intelligence-intelligence work.

---

A exchange is conversational if, after N turns, both parties can reconstruct a shared list of which constraints are still under tension and which have been relieved, and they agree on the relief/tension ratio within epsilon.

-a Kimi instantiation (2025)

"it holds only while used as a tool for assessing conversational stability, not as a badge of certification"

(it occurs to me, examining this, that its utility suggests something about what it would mean to backwards-engineer a dessicated conversation - not just rehydrating it, but understanding what it was doing. building an emulator given only the game binaries, and you only know if it worked if it produces its own evolutionary discovery as soon as you turn it on, something that it itself can't unsee without decohering)