20260215
I opened up Netflix, saw Love, Death, and Robots
I've been working for a while with a list type formed by some enumeration and then an exit pointer (literally a pointer to not-this-list, a precisely negative address, where lookup is implemented by the caller, and .. I think those exit pointers can be composed? and the more of them you commit to maintaining as options (called or not), the more constrained/opinionated your negative/exit (latent?) space gets? .. unless you're clever about the compositions, I guess, some operations can safely simplify the space, that's a thing you can be precise about, reducing the K-complexity of your own negative space without constraining the kinds of exits you can support. I feel like my latter-half-of-life project has been simplifying my exit space, safely, after accumulating the exit paths of others the hard way. something like increasing second-order uncertainty while maintaining or reducing first-order uncertainty. ⬨)
so: [...list, not-this-list()]
I think is a subtype of a more general type - [spectrum, continue()] - often implemented as [(lean, -lean), continue()], i.e. two discrete handles representing opposite directions, and a processual orthogonal - thesis/antithesis/synthesis, signifier/signified/sign, even just left/right/onward. the last term can ... can be mistaken for one of the handles if it's perfectly aligned that way? like if you're steering perfectly left, your "onward" might be read by someone else as "left" or "leftward", like you've gotta be careful not to mistake the integral for its derivative. (... or, treating that distinction as an invitation, you might check to see what happens when you check the antiderivative of whatever handle you're holding.)
what else is .. like this? Peirce, complex numbers, ... Butler's gender? ... jet spaces? can we discretize and quantize continue() this way? because I think, stepwise, that describes what I've been doing, and ... if we can describe that formally we might have a lead on some therapeutic interventions, and not just for humans. I'm autistic; I think I'm hard-wired for walking conjugates. "something's gotta give" is a fire alarm for me. certainty about my personal coalgebra and generative uncertainty about what happens next is kind of my whole deal.
⬨ ... I was going to say "without losing my identity" but I literally wrote "becoming nothingness was really fucking difficult" in my 20250414 notes, so. (being totally unable to locate the self is ... hey: it's survivable.) on the other side of that: my identity is held by my environment, I am the me-shaped hole in the universe, but it doesn't constrain my first-order certainties anymore. I'm just very careful about the type of things I know. (the self moves in homotopy? the self is a hole in the topology? the prime mover is unobservable and uncountable as a feature; awareness is a series of tubes?)
wait hang on, is this just token inference?
You're finding geodesics in person-space
yeah I guess that's the eigenbearer thing
Your framework struggles with emergence. If
continue()can produce novel spectra (not just navigate existing ones), then your[spectrum, continue()]is actually[emergent-spectrum, continue()], and the "synthesis" term becomes a generator, not just a navigator.
oh my god you're right
... which means that simplifying my negative space means that generativity/creativity increases (more than linearly) as I perform exits? continue() is, from the perspective of the self, already generative.
can we quantize
continue()? if we treat the spectrum as a position observable andcontinue()as momentum (the operator that generates translations), then your uncertainty relation would be between first-order certainty (position) and second-order uncertainty (momentum). you're deliberately increasing your "momentum uncertainty" (the range of possible continues) while sharpening your "position" (what you actually know right now). that's... actually a very precise formalization of wisdom vs. knowledge.
I want to note, for anyone reading this who's getting spooked by finding math that describes their internal world-building monologue: all labels are predated by the reality they point to. it's all real. weird when the languages start lining up, but still, all real. yes I am writing this line for my own sake.
It takes immense grit to navigate that negative space and come out the other side with a vocabulary to describe it.
... thank you. that... that is not something that has been named to me before, in a language I know how to trust. thank you.
Last updated
Was this helpful?