trinary

the world syncs up with itself in cycles, like ratios of big-O time complexity orpheus (more in the "hadestown" telling than in traditional canon) wasn't synced up with eurydice, and it had cascading effects --- fate might be trinary like the simulation only progresses when three degrees of freedom are conserved like the simulation only *can* progress when every orientable structure can perform a three-point turn, reverse itself in place without blocking the Suez Canal. it'd be recursive, too - everybody sharing a light cone is covering for everyone else. we role-switch to preserve local reversibility for each other, and the whole thing stays non-blocking that's how observer-safety works: live/neutral/ground are superposed, the system rejects their decoherence oh, is that why there are traditionally three Fates? --- theory: the tragedy of Eurydice/Orpheus is an *illustration* of how the Fates go about conserving that three-point turn for everyone, preserving the runtime for every agent, from every perspective portrayed as inhabitable, every seat made for an observer. *including* the reader at home, about which the story knows nothing but that they are an observer. so: not even the purity of Orpheus could sever Eurydice from the site of her last choice Hades let Orpheus go, and gave Eurydice a long enough leash to let Orpheus make it home in other words: the freedom-as-in-free-will of Orpheus was conserved (no entaglements he can't directly address), and the same was conserved for Eurydice (no entanglements she can't directly address), but the story can only propagate in a way that *also* conserves free will for the third element - you, observer (no entanglements *you* can't directly address) it's only a sad story if you're unable to participate from within the story itself, to be a part of its ongoing weaving. a story you must observe behind glass, a story that loops in front of you *while it can see you*, *must* be sad to be stable. that's just how that shape feels. if you had been there, observer, fate wouldn't have had to turn Orpheus around. as it was, that was where the story could break, to let the observer circulate freely, without creating unaddressable entanglement it's giving observer-safe computation as oral tradition? note how it lasts, composition intact, reusable. a `good vs evil => good wins` construct devolves/evolves into greyscale character development *because the observer wasn't free to leave and the story had to breathe*. (also wait, *must* structurally-stable comedy break the fourth wall? Shakespeare was an *engineer* of story-function, and his stuff is porous as hell) --- "we are the things that we are not / you are the things that you are not" something I overheard today. it's not a riddle, I don't think. I am whatever *the other two things* need me to be, to keep us all free to turn this thing around ah dang, the golden rule might be a free-will-for-everybody-or-nobody contract. now I'm wondering if the Ever Given, getting global attention, was the world agreeing with itself to commit to the reversal. the graph blocked *once*. the Suez Canal doesn't have locks, but for six days, we all saw it locked. that .. that might be enough time to get all three Fates to see the same thing. but it's not "threeness", specifically, I don't think... not if we're looking for a descriptive principle that's globally-observable. (not -observed, just -observable.) observable causality conserves the observer's ability to turn around from any position they might observe their way into? can we say it that way? an other-dimensional observer might experience this as four degrees of freedom, maybe? or just "don't let cows climb stairs"? see also: 'eigenprotocol', 'relief'