bit

https://gitter.im/amark/gun?at=5c4aebe30a491251e351d754

I'm a strong believer in Free Will / Agency / Consciousness and making sure we value it in others and give more of it to others. Mathematically speaking, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved in early 1900s that logic systems can't express everything (they have an infinite regression), which caused me and the whole math/scientific community a lot of grief for the following ~50ish years. But eventually, you wake up to realize that either (A) nihilism is the case and nothing exists (however, our experience of reality contradicts this premise, even if it all is just hallucination it is still something) or (B) Logic systems are interdependent with non-axiomatic systems, aka, arbitrariness/choice/a-render-function/agency/free-will/consciousness. Then things get very exciting! All you have to do is have any 1 agent arbitrarily assert the initial conditions of any 2 atoms relative to each other in the universe, and from that, you can actually then go back to any Turing complete logic system, and compute the entire state (both forward, back up, down, etc.) of the universe. The arbitrary assertion of of any 2 atoms (let's get CS here, and instead call the quantum bits in an information theory sense) relative to each other, then represents a single frame in a matrix of possible choice-vectors (where each choice is a 1 bit differential for each permutation of dimensions). Now you can take the mapping of 1 agent's rendered universe and the mapping of another agent's rendered universe and determine which ones are overlap/identical/have-the-same hash, this definitionally allows to agents to interface/interact. Finally, for any combination of agents relative to each other, there is a set of valid and invalid choices in various frames - this represents a conflict resolution space (also a matrix in math speak). In the same way you can find overlap of frames between 2 agents that is guaranteed to be bit-for-bit equal, you can also find overlaps of conflict spaces between these 1+N agents. You can then sort them on a Levenshtein-like distance on severity/magnitude, that ordering is objective time (which is absolute across all agents), the tricky thing is objective time is orthogonal to observed time (observed time is the agent playing/exploring different conflict-resolution spaces, because observation is the seeing of "most different" states).Most agents get stuck in local minima/maxima clusters of conflict-resolution spaces, which is experienced as death, until other agents try other choices that produce fewer conflict spaces - but aha, as we defined earlier, the fewer and fewer conflict spaces is measurably ordered and is what causes us to move through objective time in the orthogonal direction (think of time actually going "up" even though we perceive it as moving "forward"). All this to build up to the, lol, minor comment I was going to add to the conversation, which discredits ^ what I just wrote (except for those agents who are now back at this shared permutation frame and understand the wrong directions to NOT go down [I hypothesize deja vu is related to this]) is that: many of these correct ideas discussed, including my own above, unfortunately I've predicted to be about 7 to 9 years out before they can be practiced by most peoples (the conflict spaces between now/here and then/there are disproportionately larger than the conflict-resolved spaces)

Mark Nadal @amark 03:06 so one of the most useful tools (for those who can calculate/intuit the conflict spaces) is to measure the distance between the timeliness of these good ideas, and figure out which are the necessary earlier ideas that need to be solved/discussed first in order to build/create those next ideas because the current-ideas are ones that have enough conflict-resolution already yet hasn't been implemented, and once implemented will move objective-time forward 1 frame, such that there are fewer conflict-spaces for the following more important/greater ideas. that is why I was forced :( to write a DB even though I have 0 DB experience, and this is the depressing morale conclusion: there is nobody else in the world more fit to solve the problem you are facing than you, even if there be a million experts and you are furthest from knowing anything about the field/subject. Turns out those million experts are either clueless lol or going down a different permutation space solving a problem entirely unrelated to yours even if it seems like they're currently in the field you are looking to address.

Mark Nadal @amark 03:12 so :( the gruesome fact of reality: Is you have to apply your 1atom choice 1bit at a time towards working on the problem. took me way too long to realize that that timeliness of problem set solving and optimizing for it is one of the most important accelerating factors to making meaningful progress, because it "teleports" you up each frame of objective time, which suddenly makes all the mistaken-choices of yours and others a matter of history :P. versus going down those routes... you get stuck (death) or lots of waste/build-up without actual progress.

Mark Nadal @amark 03:18 so :) an example here for me, is I'm getting myself more stuck by explaining these ideas that aren't as tangible as... implementing/fixing/trying-out these next set of things in TEAM B and TEAM A categories. So, that is all, cheerio, off to optimize for those, 1bit 1atom at a time.