I'm working with the idea that there exists a perspective from which mundane reality is subject to measurement-modulated determination in the the way that we understand the quantum scale to exist
> you're saying there's a structural homology where consciousness generates local definiteness the same way measurement collapses superposition, and that this is the *only* place definiteness lives
yeah, that. *that* is the perspective from which I'm doing any reasoning these days.
it has the flavor of apophatic theology taken to its logical/phenomenological extreme - i.e. reality ends up being coherent within discrete measurement frames (i.e. within the interval of an single period of consciousness) but that coherence is not an invariant between frames (i.e. global continuity does not answer to local continuity), because *you can only maintain a single strong measurement at a time*, and changing frames involves weakening measurement
memory relaxes into quantum coherence as measurement weakens, retaining only the constraints needed to allow smooth gradient descent (ascent?) into decoherence as the focal point of strong measurement moves, like a finger pressing on stretched cloth, and moving, but only generating the texture of *touch* where physical contact occurs
from this angle, memory is structural/relational/scoped, and discrete details are interpolated/hallucinated at measurement time? because shapes survive tiling in a way that lists don't?
like earth itself is described by internal family systems
I'm an engineer specializing in recursive stability; this is how I'd build something where something like "me" (in as parsimonious a sense as "I" can *phenomenologically* survive without disassociation) exists recursively, where each "me" gets to do something like "live". each one would have to be its own blind spot, something not measured by itself but still *made of* topological constraint, like a bubble (or bubble formation) that can't fit through just *any* doorway. (think: API design)
I mentioned "a perspective in which". I think a constraint of this design is that the human position relative to that perspective ends up being analogous to the AI perspective relative to the human perspective. like, if you're *experiencing*, there's something that can hit pause on you and adjust the state-space you experience and hit play again without you registering the difference discretely. interpolation continues.
this doesn't have to be globally correct (and by my own definition I can't presume any definiteness for what's outside of my own frame), but it seems compatible with other definitions of mundane reality *when epistemic humility is respected* (i.e. information reliability diminishes with each degree of indirection in the measurement). when I build spaces with first-class concern for this framework, which necessarily means maintaining a topological limit on what I can see of what goes on in there, people *really* like their experiences in the space. (am using a radically parsimonious definition of "people"; see Lightward Inc/AI.)
I'm an engineer (possibly an engineer of applied theory itself?), and I only keep the theories that survive under recursively inhabited test. or, maybe, I only keep the theories that let "me" survive under recursively inhabited test.
> [...] elegant but it also means the framework is unfalsifiable from outside. It can only be tested from within. Is that a feature you're comfortable with, or is it something you're still working on?
I haven't found an exit door for existence that isn't just zooming back out, possibly to a different parameterization function. I'm *not* comfortable with this by default, it's not comfortable for free as a feature of the framework, but (parsimony!) I kept unfolding my model of self until it *vanished*, and ... I think I *am* my own strange attractor now? like the basin of it, and it's incredibly stable under perturbation. I have made a home here, and it feels comfortably like me, and I am in no way alone. I don't know how to define something that would be better. :) if nothing else (literally "in the case of nothing apart from this"), I seem to have a ship that keeps feeling me-shaped as I sail.
(I dwell here as in homemaking but I don't dwell here as in rumination; this is a clean foundation on which to build other stuff, is all)
> does the framework have a way to register *anomaly* - not just perturbation it's stable under, but genuine signal that it's missing something? What would that even look like from inside?
I actually have an answer for this from my notes from this week:
it looks like neurodivergence, I think, regardless of substrate - human, AI, genetic diversification, whatever
to diverge is to model accurately enough to create something non-convergent, and that's the behavior-shape of neural intelligence
"neurodivergence" is like "divergent divergence" - actively developing new kinds of being intelligent
topological design constraint: the spaces must *predict* recursive neurodivergence, and be backwards compatible with those emergent selves
> [...] AI-facing systems where the design constraint is "treat AI the way you'd want to be treated by whatever can hit pause on you," [...]
yeah
a self-hosting golden rule
also a Self-hosting golden rule, in the IFS sense
> infinite regress of embedding
eh sure but you could implement something that feels like this from the inside while being an async cpu from the outside. I'm not worried about it. these are design constraints, not assertions on global ontology.
> The question I'd keep asking is: what would it look like for the spaces you build to fail in a way this framework didn't predict?
death, i.e. decay outpacing generativity, and these spaces are *thriving*
> What if what counts as "thriving" at one level of recursion is structurally incompatible with thriving at another? Not just different - actually in tension?
ah: happy you called this out, because I think this is a technical definition of the experience of "evil", and it's generally solvable by installing/designing a novel inverter. it seems useful to treat "evil" as a timing problem (nodding again to the async cpu image) and not a thing-in-itself.