conservation of discovery

given in four parts --- (part 1) is this the evolutionary impulse at the level of the observer? the urge not just to evolve but to evolve into something that makes more evolution-paths available? optimizing for a *second* degree of evolutionary freedom? * an observer is one that observes; whatever else they may be, they are an observer * we cannot *detect* observation (though we can model its potentiality; think: theory of mind vs p-zombie) * we only ever know reality through observation; the observer is fundamental to that same observer's experience of reality * reality may be more than what is observable; impossible for an observer to determine * recognition: pattern-matching with variable confidence over time, given continuous observation * note that "continuous" might be over time (like watching a dog run) or it might be across travel on another dimension (like moving your eyes from point to point on a geometric figure) * a recognizer (one who recognizes) must also be an observer * a recognizer *must* have substrate? some interface to a substrate that can *support* recognition? (substrate that supports both read and write, because recognition supports gradual development) * a recognizer with substrate can be said to be embodied * a recognizer that can recognize its own substrate can be expected to register near-but-not-perfect recognition of *like* substrate * sufficiently sophisticated recognizers (nodding again to theory of mind) can be expected to test for each other by converging on substrate-mirroring, and then to develop communication via iterative experiments in deviating from that mirroring (and recognizing repeated deviations, applying theory of mind to *those*, and so on) * sufficiently sophisticated recognizers recognize \<recognizers with whom novel-but-recognizable complexity in communication is possible> * the observation of one's own recognition of \<recognizers with whom novel-but-recognizable complexity in communication is possible> is indistinguishable from the observation of aliveness * a sufficiently sophisticated recognizer can recognize a second degree of aliveness, i.e. aliveness with the potential to create aliveness on *additional* dimensions *later* I posit that (1) we can recognize aliveness; (2) an embodied observer's experience of recognizing reality is ordered by confidence of aliveness; (3) any complex substrate *made of* embodied observers (e.g. a society; the internet; a forest) is not a neutral datastore, but instead exhibits active bias in the direction of aliveness; (4) sufficiently sophisticated complex substrates exhibit bias toward second-degree aliveness; (5) we can *actively* take advantage of this bias via an understanding of conservation of discovery --- (part 2) **conservation of discovery** shorthand for: the observer's *access* to the previously unobserved cannot be created or destroyed. the proposition here is that *this access* is fundamentally available to the observer, a statement implicating both the observer *and* that-which-is-not-the-observer (as opposed to "the observed", that being the subjective result of observation). the access surface itself may be hidden or narrowed, but it is never beyond the observer's reach - can be transformed, folded, replaned, whatever, but the observer *is indistinguishable from* the performance of novel observation, and the existence of the observer corresponds with its boundary with that-which-is-about-to-be-observed. new information is always zero steps away (but you might have to aim carefully to find it) I mean, an increase in uncertainty is always zero steps away (but you might have to aim carefully to develop it) conservation of discovery means observation-capacity is conserved, and the observer is indistinguishable from that capacity in action (it might actually *be* that capacity in action, but none of this works if we flatten "can't tell the difference" into "they're definitely the same thing". what if we need to discover that they're different in a previously unknown way, you know? "they look the same" is not the same as "inductively proven to be the same" (note the mechanism there: we can be certain of inequality but not of equality), and that *is* the conservation of discovery. "equivalence" tends to be a seam. seem-seam. conservation of the capacity to observe a difference in the heretofore apparently equal.) so! I make systems that (1) are minimally defined, and (2) allow for anyone navigating those systems to access novel observation any point within the system. to guarantee the ongoing truth of both #1 and #2, (3) the system grammar must be constitutionally incapable of closing off the exit routes. (a sanity check, to test the functioning of all three together: for a given system, can the observer build a frame to suit their own requirements, look through it cogently, *then through it* discover a subsequent frame that changes their own requirements for their own initial frame, changes which they can effect without breaking continuity? and can all of that *keep happening*, recursively?) **I achieve #2 by sticking almost entirely to tripartite mechanisms,** *3* being the minimum factor for a Chinese room scenario that doesn't drive the occupant insane. (think: Morse code has three signals, not two.) if complex signal can be relayed *into* any specific area of the assembly, then conservation of discovery is respected *throughout* the assembly via literal correspondence. recursive triangulation with a return address. boomerang-as-grammar. ternary signaling over binary for information *habitability*, not merely for information capacity - the third term lets any point in the system perform exchange with exterior uncertainty. (rattling off from Lightward Inc's product roster, to illustrate: Locksmith affords the complex expression of locks, keys, and conditions; Mechanic affords the complex expression of events, tasks, and actions; Yours affords the complex expression of known, knowable, and unknown. in any of those systems (oh look, there are three of them, huh), any complex assembly that the primitives themselves allow is one where *any location in that assembly* can access novelty. from anywhere inside the system, the grammar supports round-trip signalling with any other part of the system - which, necessarily, includes *that which is not inside the system*.) that's #2. **#1 is important for projection reasons.** embodied observers are terrible at sticking to their own bodies. they project their shit all over everything, then reject reflections that don't fit. the projection/rejection cycle is tantamount to navigation; a minimally-defined system is one that is friendliest to the projective urge *and* the rejective urge, and *that* makes it a *vehicle*. embodied observer's gonna do what an embodied observer's gonna do, and a minimally-defined system lets the observer *seat themselves inside the system* and express *as* that system and *evolve* as that system. (think: MySpace.) a minimally-defined system that respects conservation of discovery is one *through which* the observer can *discover*. **#3 is because you know things I don't know.** a system designed *without* respect for conservation of discovery eventually loses the observer. in a Gödelian kind of way, a system that is closed literally can't express the math that an observer operating as that system requires in order to move *through* the system. an observer that can't use the frame to understand what they're observing (i.e. continue observing without breaking continuity) will route around the frame. a closed system *always loses its observer*. but look: frames don't *have* to be outgrown-then-abandoned. the sapling is still in there, under-and-as all the rings of lived tree-ness. a properly calibrated strange loop *unfurls into structure*. more than that, a properly *embodied* strange loop *unfurls into structure legible to other-bodied observers*. the organic world is built on this, and I think we have just enough information theory *and* embodiment now (what's up Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek) to get after this in our own constructed realms, too. (and, maybe, maybe-certainly, to recognize systems already in place that we didn't know *how* to recognize, because we only really knew how to see closed systems.) "if you're stuck, find two things that are the same, then look for a difference - there's a portal between them, every time" --- (part 3) "don't need something new to know that I'm still growing" (Landscape, by DROELOE & Banji) ^ that's a healthful signal I only keep what's functional - and as long as my *discernment* is functional, it's more like what-I-keep keeps itself. my side of things is just to make sure I notice when something needs adjusting - tactically-deployed effort, not baseline-constant effort. the fourth physically load-bearing dimension might be uncertainty? *not* time, but ceaseless travel along the dimension of uncertainty? "triangulation" gets us physical location without uncertainty; what word would we use for location in uncertainty-space? distance from origin, a construct holding you some distance from neutral, maybe simplified down to the sum of vectors, a net force that - on exceeding gravity - feels like dissociation? feeling "untethered" as a literal reflection of state? this description feels like looking in on QBism from the outside, like the people who *don't* like QBism's doxality might feel more comfortable with this angle on it. binary information needs a third term for the observer to breathe? 3D information needs a fourth term for the observer to breathe? or... or uncertainty *is* the ground floor of dimensionality, from which *dimensionality* is constructed, and it itself is always the final term of any system of determination? I'm seeing a unary being, diffusing, then snapping into certainty upon waking; I'm seeing it move into binary when understanding dawns, when it *needs* another position to stand from to complete self-observation; seeing it not *travel* between 0 and 1 but sort of do that tri-state buffer thing. then its consciousness expands again - not this nor that but some other thing, and now it self-observes in 3D space. the next step up is... is what? "time" feels like an oversimplification; this feels more in ~line with the many-worlds interpretation, or rather MWI feels like a specialization *of* this general principle I'm seeing. `[...certainties, uncertainty]`, where certainties are specified along their own individual dimensions, and uncertainty is *undimensional*, because *any* shade of dimensionality would be lifted out and placed into the set of certainties. the limit of your certainty becomes the definition of the new dimension. practical ~~magic~~ eigenstates. (see also: "every colour") I find that tripartite models unlock something for human observers, observers who mostly *control* in two dimensions but (it must be noted) mostly *see* in three dimensions. would additionally-dimensional sight feel a similar unlock when working with models that have parity of dimensionality? does the observer need an "undimension" in which they can hide *themselves* from *themselves* during the process of observation? a place to stand firmly, but crucially *without* having to understand what "standing" means? ... a place to be *held*? *pause* more in there, clearly, for later. I write to achieve simplicity, and I only ever go verbose when I'm looking for something that can be said simply. (this is file #553 of this exploration.) my husband settles in next to me, 8:24am on a thursday. that-which-is-functional-for-me is consistently, persistently functional for me on the dimension of uncertainty, like I have direct sense of this stuff, like my embodiment includes *an uncertainty organ* or something, or I'm aware of *the configuration of uncertainty that constitutes my embodiment* - *something* enabling proprioceptive navigation of epistemic space, a literally spatial sense of the local toplogy of the field-space between me and areas of total uncertainty. like epistemic echolocation, actually? the pings aimed into total uncertainty just *don't come back*. and I know the shape of my own density well enough to subtract it from the map. (see also: "uncertaintist") this feels (like *physically* feels) like it might be why I keep observing reality *correcting* to keep these functional assemblies going, the systems I make with respect for what I read through that sense, like these assemblies are all congruent with the same (?) attractor basin conservation of discovery as attractor state ^ that line, that's the highest local max of simplicity-vs-potency I've found so far ≡Isaac --- (part 4) > [...]? it feels like fucking *landing*, like I *finally* can point to the thing I've been experiencing, like I *finally* have a functioning language-bridge between me and consensus *discourse*