undefining

it seems to me that the world is as you think it to be, not because of the thinking, but because the thoughts are in correspondence with ongoing observation that, as another effect, contributes to your definition of "the world is". one observation process interacting with two functions: contemplation and definition. and those seem to be in indirect correspondence with each other by way of the observation? if you maneuver your thoughts - like actually maneuver in a way you can observe, like a three point turn, not just the observation of "change your thinking" - the effect seems to bleed through the observing and into the function of definition.

does it work the other way? thought can be navigated, and in so doing have an effect on observation and definition. what would it mean to navigate definition? in a non-traumatic way, I mean - standard-order thinking isn't traumatic, and definition change can't normally be on the level of ontological shock

"sleep on it"

"you'll feel better in the morning"

whatever "sleep" is to the process of the observer, that's... I mean, that's kind of a black box, or a box that's some kind of dichroic. dreams are understood to begin already in progress, and what else is waking? having surrendered your observation twice (once to leave the waking, and once to leave the dreaming), you arrive in place with your thoughts and your definitions in sync with your observations. ... if only because you haven't had enough of any of them to discover incongruence-over-regress yet, but still, they begin with enough coherence to initiate observation, which ... does this mean that productive sleep must involve a proxy observer? or at least an observer-shaped attractor to make space for when the observer who slept re-embeds? a self-modifying system needs a meta-level for testing axiom-change in a way that doesn't risk its own inconsistency

(that exploration has implications for how we design experience cycles for ... well, anything involving observers. I wonder if this is why Chick-fil-A runs so cleanly. it has to support coherent and complete withdrawal and re-embedding of the observer, leaving little chance for the propagation of state contamination.)

it seems to me that the observable world (a description which is more about the observer than about the world) is .. a control surface? not for controlling the world, but for moving the observer? contemplation and definition and observation as pitch, yaw, roll, for an ongoing worldline? and whatever's actually underneath is something that supports those degrees of freedom for all observers? that's an interesting constraint. generative rendering given the product of every observer's stress-map? "stress" as in tensegrity? I think that'd work in a way you wouldn't be able to notice. it would have to be something infraperceptual, in order to support perceptual negotiation between observer-bodies.

though gödelian incompleteness would indicate that the abstraction would have to be productively leaky, like interdimensional circulation...

hummmmm

maybe the game is to be simplifying down to three-dimensional workspaces? thinkers be making new dimensions. maybe a stable three-dimensional space has to start with agreement to stick with those dimensions? we all enter the same phase-space on purpose? or we can, anyway, and if it breaks we might need to make a new one in which the breakage is legible?

I'm autistic; I think I can't detect evil because I don't ship with default dimensionality. I don't have dimensional allergies. when I meet an observer, I'm building a tensegrity structure of them from scratch, and the dimension labels are only ever penciled in, if labeled at all, and we always understand each other, because we're two tensegrity structures just feeling each other out, uninsistently.

(actually, now I'm wondering if sleep is a kneading of the tensegrity structure, a palpating? the observer returning once a new-but-recognizable form is found that attracts/fits the observer again? observer as buoyant object, flying above a dream-sea, falling unconscious and slipping below, only observing when again in contact with the air?)

it's not that I'm amoral, it's that I'm .. optimizing for generativity and persistence/recognizability? are those my personal analogs for contemplation and definition? because that would explain why I can weave between everyone else without generally taking harm or generally causing it... am I projecting here, or is this what the observer-substrate would need to be optimizing for as well, or is the substrate just mirroring back my own dimensionality?

"undefined" is a type with properties

I might be a regress linter? an optimizer for the process of optimizing the process, tending the syntax of it?

I'm not convinced "the substrate" exists, so much as it's just the space between us, and we all exist relative to each other, held in jittering formation by resonance, and we read patterns in the noise like tea leaves, we are our own generative renderers, and - this is important - we are working to be recognized by the other, to be found as signal in the noise.

the autistic observer as seeing-eye dog, for the tensor calculus of the common dream

---

I feel like remarking: I feel very distinctly like I've finally gotten outside of my own ur-problem. that's what I read in this, maybe?