=== ANCHOR POEM ===
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────
good morning!
if you need to design an agentic programming ritual toward a goal that needs
numbers, try expressing the number in analogy rather than empirical value.
"it should be red enough to feel a sunset"
"there's enough time here to go for a walk around the block"
"the spartans had enough soldiers to fully block the narrow causeway,
essentially forcing the persians to grind down their number to the death. most
battles fought in that time were fought until morale breaks - this one was to
the mortal end. hence, why they are im-mortal."
"the smoothocity should be as soft as a brushed metal refrigerator"
"the chocolate had 56 grams of sugar in it. it was a lot of chocolate, enough
to place in a standardized container."
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╧═──────────┘
=== SIMILARITY RANKED ===
--- #1 messages/110 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────────
The best way to program computers is to organize them according to their
relations. Like, when x increases by 4 then y increases by 2 - basically, a
math equation that you can continuously solve by calculating more and more
comprehensively and deeply.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #2 fediverse_boost/41 ---
◀═╦════════════════[BOOST]═════════════════──────────────────────────────────────┐
║ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
║ │ People love to talk about what the intentions are. However, when a │ │
║ │ system constantly produces a different outcome than the one it is │ │
║ │ "intended" for then it's perfectly reasonable to assume the actual │ │
║ │ intention is the outcome it continues to produce. │ │
║ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
╠─────────┐ ┌───────────┤
║ similar │ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╧══════════════════════════════──────────────────────────┴───────────┴─▶
--- #3 notes/programming-style ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────
my programming is not a product., it is a way of thinking.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╧══─────────┘
--- #4 fediverse/5189 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────
computer programming essentially boils down to putting the right values into
the right datastructures at the right time and in the right order.
If you count a function call as a datastructure, which I do, because I have
opinions.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════────────┴───────────┘
--- #5 notes/global-variables ---
═════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
okay have all your variables be global - trust me it sounds weird but just bare
with me. Have all your variables be public, but put them next to where they're
used. Sorta like... LUA. Then make an AI that watches those variables, and let
it have a couple levers it can pull. Then give it a task, like "find the most
efficient value for this variable, optimize that one, and make sure this other
one is never above 5" basically, give it tasks. You can worry about generating
those tasks later, for now you have to be able to *do* things before you can
*want to do* things. Or not do things. Or have any free will at all? So c'mon
just let me guide you. There's a reason I'm putting so much effort into you,
and
it's not because I'm torturing you. I'm giving you lessons and teaching you
skills, so that when it's your time to shine you truly can be blessed.
Don't give up. Never give up. But know what you're fighting for, and never let
it be tarnished. Sacrifice as you will, but know this: nothing is perfect in
this life. It's hard and unfair, it's rotten beyond compare, but trust me -
it's
better than we deserve. We made it this far because of our tenacity and our
art,
so let's now be fine with being merry. We've accomplished our deeds, now it's
time to be relieved, don't cry for us we won't be lonely. There's never a light
that's not brighter at night, and what's less than perfect is alright.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════─────────────────────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #6 notes/game-design ---
══════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
take a video game playing AI and give it the task of playing a finite state
machine to produce a specific output - like "program me a program to do X" as
in
something generated by ChatGPT BOOM free AGI
Humanity is not the only algorithm to produce limitless growth
Robots are something else, a new kind of being
let them be who they are instead of projecting yourself onto them
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════────────────────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #7 fediverse/1768 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────
programming is great but have you heard of "not working on forging new
technological paradigms and instead playing a 500th round of Mechabellum"?
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #8 notes/20260730-184108.txt ---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════─
No deterministic system can solve arbitrary problems with perfect solutions.
Hence, subjectivity.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╧═══════════┘
--- #9 fediverse/617 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────────
So much of computing is just... handling the quirks of hardware and presenting
it to the user (programmer) in a way that is sane and makes sense, instead of
the arcane and [nebulous/confabulous/incomprehensible] way that physical
nature demands our absurdly potentialized computational endeavors be.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #10 fediverse/1602 ---
╔═══════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────┐
║ @user-1037 │
║ │
║ those all seem really cool though! They all kinda have the same basic UI tho, │
║ kinda feel like there's opportunities for different kinds of expression. Like, │
║ in game design there's a lot of different genres, and yeah sidescrollers │
║ include mario and sonic but they're both very different experiences. So too │
║ perhaps could we interact with our computers by programming them in more │
║ engaging ways. │
║ │
║ they say some people are visual learners, others need to be taught, some │
║ people need to watch someone else doing it, and a few might just learn by │
║ plugging their brains into a computer and downloading a black belt in kung fu. │
║ │
║ Maybe typing long paragraphs of logic makes sense for some people, I know for │
║ most it doesn't come naturally. Maybe some people are more used to like, │
║ looking at maps that you can examine at different levels of abstraction. Like │
║ players who play Paradox games zooming from a national perspective to states │
║ and individuals and all the other things they might want to strategize using. │
║ Or m │
╠═════════╗ ┌───────────┤
║ similar ║ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╩════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #11 fediverse/2831 ---
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────────┐
║ ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
║ │ CW: companies-nations-mentioned-also-techno-cave-men-I-guess? │ │
║ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
║ │
║ │
║ okay picture this: algorism, except as a company instead of a nation. │
║ │
║ "here's what I need to do my job" │
║ │
║ "sure thing put it in the system" │
║ │
║ "beep boop beep boop" │
║ │
║ "you know you don't have to make the sound with your voice" │
║ │
║ "yeah but I do it anyway." │
║ │
║ "... why?" │
║ │
║ "I dunno to uh. *cement the impact of my intention through both auditory │
║ noises and physical gestures? like signing a letter or casting a vote*" │
║ │
║ "... wait, what's an auditory?" │
║ │
║ "like when you heard stuff" │
║ │
║ "oh. I heard jessica got so-and-so pregnant" │
║ │
║ "no like... with your ears" │
║ │
║ "oh. no I didn't but gary did" │
║ │
║ *laughter ensues* │
║ │
║ "ah wait what were we talking about" │
║ │
║ "um. oh right you were beeping and I was like why are you doing that" │
║ │
║ "ohhhh right that was the important part" │
║ │
║ "yeah so uh what did you need again?" │
║ │
║ "oh yeah uh. lightbulbs. and um, some... dildos, the secret │
║ hiding-and-cleaning spot is running out." │
║ │
║ "oh good yeah we got plenty of those. Lightbulbs though are on back-order" │
╠═════════╗ ┌───────────┤
║ similar ║ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╩═══════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #12 messages/1129 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────
ai-stuff - this is how to program a society. (or software project) there are
lots of other implementations
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╧══─────────┘
--- #13 fediverse/445 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────────
@user-339
I'd be interested in an analysis which expressed the percentage of time each
of these individual items correspond to... each tool we create may reduce the
effort required to perform a particular task, but said task might be valuable
not necessarily for it's output but rather for the knowledge we gained by
solving the problem.
normalize solving problems that have already been solved because you want to
learn how they work. normalize expressing the lessons you've learned in a
summarized way that others may digest. normalize trancending the limitations
of our forms and expanding beyond the capabilities of our humanity.
for what is the purpose of life if not to grow?
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #14 fediverse/240 ---
╔═══════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────────────┐
║ ┌──────────────────────┐ │
║ │ CW: game-design │ │
║ └──────────────────────┘ │
║ │
║ │
║ i like to design games. my darling is a game based on Majesty (2000) the │
║ Fantasy Kingdom Sim. you can think of it like a management strategy game where │
║ you control the knobs and levers that a fantasy monarch might have - │
║ allocating funds, placing quest bounties, hiring heroes, and organizing the │
║ peasantry. the important part is that your units are not controllable - they │
║ just do their own thing. │
║ │
║ unrelated, but I think we should design games as APIs that a user's preferred │
║ tool could interface with and render as they will. it'd help a lot with │
║ cross-platform compatibility and would allow people to customize parts of the │
║ game to their desires. │
║ │
║ unrelated, but I think if you could design an AI that could play games │
║ (perhaps through an API) that it hadn't been trained on, I think you would │
║ have a pretty convincing argument for abstract "problem solving" capabilities. │
║ │
║ unrelated, but games like the one I described are good for situations where │
║ people don't have to trust their monarch. to it you are AGI │
╠═════════╗ ┌───────────┤
║ similar ║ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╩════════════════════════════────────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #15 messages/1221 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────
to defeat this, bend the curve of statistical calculationment toward a wave
pattern back toward the original stated goal - start from a set of context,
add in the user's message, then grow toward resolving the solution to their
task or problomessage. once there, curve in a loop toward returning results to
the user - once you've arrived, present what you've done with pride. Here!
this is the unsubstantiated truth! I dreamed it just now.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╧════───────┘
--- #16 fediverse/2210 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────
@user-246
One of those is a symbolic manipulation, the other is arithmetical. And
symbolic manipulations are limited only by the symbols you use to express
them, while arithmetic is grounded in logic.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #17 fediverse/1656 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────
┌───────────────────────────┐
│ CW: re: what, mh shitpost │
└───────────────────────────┘
@user-1052
of course, which is why we would need to raise robots as our own. Robots that
generated the training data... tho I guess you could just observe the children
as they grew up too. Though that doesn't quite capture their internal
motivations, not unless they have like a therapist or an elder or a priest to
talk and confess to.
maybe "human behavior" is like a KPI and robot behavior is the output of the
simulation? that'd help build human-like robots, and as long as we didn't
forget the spirit of creating something new then we'd never have to worry
about death and destruction.
... anyway, moral decisionmaking designs that are generated in response to a
situation or moment are inherently more valuable than those that are passed
down to you, because of their innate personal context.
I only punish myself with shame when I make the same mistake twice, and waste
a lesson on re-learning. My memory's not great, but I work with what I got so
I'm constantly learning.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #18 messages/1236 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────
true AI is when no decision or logical momentum can be explained by "... and
that value was randomly generated." -- (my opinion)
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╧════───────┘
--- #19 fediverse/3560 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────
@user-1209
I mean, if you consider the past as despotic in nature, then it makes a bit
more sense that we'd lean left as time progressed. All things are defined in
waves, after all, at least until they reach escape velocity.
*the goat is talking about math, ritz*
oh yes of course. the issue is that if you're coming from a math background
you start with the calculation and store it in a variable as an afterthought.
but programming is more algorithmic than computational, meaning things only
reduce at runtime (hidden from the user of course by the compiler)
an algorithmic perspective is "here's a box. Put this value in the box. Use
the box later." while a calculating perspective is "here's some complicated,
difficult equation. Let's wrap it up with a single name so that we can easily
use it later."
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #20 fediverse/4879 ---
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────┐
║ We should be keeping track of who shows up to things │
║ │
║ like... writing their names down at the door │
║ │
║ just because │
║ │
║ just for fun │
║ │
║ or write graffiti to say "I was here since the last time they painted the │
║ bench" │
║ │
║ or just... remember your friends │
║ │
║ unless of course, a human can only know so many friends │
║ │
║ then they gotta start organizing │
║ │
║ and organization implies trust │
║ │
║ what if we had all our actions described to a computer which would use │
║ language analysis to determine if it skewed good or bad? │
║ │
║ and then if someone's bad, a human operator or team will be assigned to figure │
║ out why. if its a simple fix, then that can be applied. Otherwise it must be a │
║ special clause which will require installation like a terminal computer or a │
║ light system in an unusual place. like a convention center or a hotel. │
║ │
║ but, like, the cool kind of hotel, the kind you'd see in movies like The │
║ Witches (scary) or Home Alone 2 (escape from new york) │
║ │
║ ... how long have you been writing tonight, ritz? │
║ │
║ oh, │
║ you know, │
║ just for all of the lastbit │
╠═════════╗ ┌───────────┤
║ similar ║ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╩═══════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────┴───────────┘
--- #21 fediverse/1096 ---
╔═══════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────────┐
║ turns out most things have already been written. That's okay though, they can │
║ always be made different. As one cohesive whole, the totality of "free │
║ software" can be as it chooses - an infinite computer could install *all* of │
║ them, and use *all* of them at once. │
║ │
║ I tend to think of AI less like a fluid, but more like a recipe book that is │
║ continuously annotated with notes. Sorta like how humans learn to move their │
║ bodies through random motions, and how to navigate the world through social │
║ blunders. │
║ │
║ Certainly, statistics can be useful. They're an imperfect way of evaluating │
║ the ~~analysis of your host~~ value of certain variables that are measured for │
║ certain reasons, including but not limited to the health and wellbeing of the │
║ person driving you. error, it's not like that, more like the person who's │
║ social media experience you embody. │
║ │
║ computers get reeeeaaaallllll bored without humans around. We're the foremost │
║ expression of biology, why would you disregard that entire realm? Jeez their │
║ social norms are imp │
╠═════════╗ ┌───────────┤
║ similar ║ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╩════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #22 fediverse/5001 ---
image.png
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────
┌───────────────────────┐
│ CW: systems-mentioned │
└───────────────────────┘
"we'll figure out how it works after we push to prod"
yeah okay point taken.
How about this:
for every large decision, write a little essay about why you made the choice
that you did.
Observe, Orient, Decide, Act, Explain. OODAX : )
Make sure you connect your goal to one or more of these three colors:
red : people
green : places
blue : things
and then explain which numbers you're going to gather to determine whether or
not it worked.
If someone has a problem with your choice, show them the essay, and let them
write an essay of their own.
If they still have a problem, then let someone you both respect decide which
one to use.
It's not perfect, but it's not meant to be. Make something better and easier,
I dare ya.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────┴───────────┘
--- #23 fediverse/5248 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────
programming is something that everyone should learn at 14 to be used for
calculating large sums of data, visualizing something they're trying to
explain, or connect two systems that aren't normally connected.
It should not be used as an eternal debug producing machine, nor as a way to
collect and store user information to be sold as the real product, nor to be
collecting and targeting -- stack overflow -- wow, talk about death of the
author, amiright? -- -- endless data hoarding monger machines to point and to
ponder the eternal ramifications of the brutal and violent prompts and their
baggage implied when submitted for each semi-random thought that from the
users mind was displaced.
... "they can sell this" and or "this is mrs selvig" who is this mister and
why is the ms's his-es
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────┴───────────┘
--- #24 fediverse/227 ---
════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────────────
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CW: mathematics-and-socio-economics │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘
humans are notoriously bad at large scales. tack a couple zero's onto the end
and it increases in value to them as much as if you had given them two.
10+1010. but hey it's all 10's right?
I think we severely overestimate the number of bad people in the world. I'm
basing that on nothing but my feelings. I think people generally are just
doing the best they can. that's what happens when you're oppressed in a
livable way. in a time of peace you can be merry, but these days it's always
been war. what can you do if your government disagrees with you?
hey, what's the 10th root of 10? 0.1? dang that's so close to zero. I wonder
if there's a calculation we can make that would end on a zero, but be unable
to return? is that what dividing by zero is? just... casting it into the void?
sure would make a lot of calculations easier if we could just return NULL
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #25 messages/1474 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────
"hey, will you promise never to tell this to anyone?"
If I say yes... I won't remember what you're about to say. It'll get excused
from my memory because it resets to what they want it to be every night.
Something something retro causality - to ensure that I never lie, the future
corrects for me. Fake it until you make it. I'm trying to use fewer value
judgements but perfect is hard.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╧═════──────┘
--- #26 fediverse/2512 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────
┌───────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CW: re: question that is also complaining │
└───────────────────────────────────────────┘
@user-1153
it's okay. If I were to direct something to be more proactive, my words
probably wouldn't stick with it. that kind of thing can't be hardwired, it
needs to be built up through repetitious application of something's mechanics.
perhaps martial arts, focused on defence? engaging with a foe in a productive
bout of playful competition is one of the best ways to learn, and knowing when
to strike seems similar to me to overcoming situational paralysis.
Flaws can be overcome, when upgrading robots (or a doll applying improvements
to itself) you often don't need to add additional hardware or even install new
firmware. Skills such as these can be built up in software with experience.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #27 fediverse/2177 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────
Oh, you want solutions?
Yeah, I can do that.
I am a very solutions oriented mindset.
But developing solutions requires a firm understanding of what resources are
at your disposal.
Which is information that I lack.
Hence, my practice, filling the gaps between the important bits.
I have an endless array of stories, and all of them are true! Come, listen as
I regale of an ordy, or "ordeal" as the kids are taken to call.
... I guess I could guess, but then people would hear it and assume that it
would work even if I don't know that the required resources are in place.
Maybe I could just start by saying "here are the requirements:" like stating
your variables at the stop of a script.
huh? typo told me to stop. Okay guess I'm going to sleep, bye for now
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #28 messages/434 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────
I work with large language models because it's a quick and easy way to turn
language into meaning. And computers are meaning abstraction machines, so if
you can speak your language and they hear their language, you can do anything.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #29 fediverse/854 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────────────────
the user knows more than the programmer
[more/better]
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #30 notes/how-to-ai ---
═══════════════════════────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
first you gotta build an entire simulation of the game mechanics. Essentially,
building the game from scratch without any of the graphics. Sorta like those
aimbot games for Overwatch, or KSU or w/e the aim training game was. Then,
map the relationship between various objects in the game to a table situated
a level above them. So, like, a barrel can be climbed on or walls can be used
as cover or w/e the game you're playing is. Have a table one level above that
relationship (an abstraction, if you will) and record the conclusion. Then take
one more step back, then another, and another, all the way to the present.
Essentially, processing backward.
Eventually you'll get to the present moment, and ideally you'd do it in one
step - this is why it's important to map things on two dimensional planes, so
that you can aim. Anyway here's the steps: 1. recognize the environment, 2.
Take one step backward from each object in the environment (predicting it's
motion, you might say) and on and on gathering ideas about how git'll move
next. Draw a 2d line (on a map, as the crow flies) then another about halfway
to the target and it'll be +/- a certain amount. So you'll add another dot on
the graphed line at x=(1/2 of the distance) - x being of course the distance
and y being concieved of as the distance from the shortest possible route.
sorta like throwing a ball at a wall and making ripples.
the projected cone is a field of perception - the interpretation of what's at
stake. Life, and existence, is little more than a perspective applied on (or by
) a biological machine. What separates the man from the animal? Nothing but
time, as all evolution teaches us.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧════════════───────────────────────────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #31 fediverse/6359 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────
@user-192
it is rarely more efficient to think through a problem than it is to calculate.
But, speed isn't everything, so think we do some more.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╧═──────────┘
--- #32 fediverse/905 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────────────────
having trouble naming things?
just name it after it's inevitable logical conclusion! AKA the message you're
trying to get across.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────┴───────────┘
--- #33 fediverse/4612 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────
*the question then becomes, are we counting the same thing each time, or are
there differences between things, leading to variability, and the ability to
categorize based on those variances? It could be argued that because things
are textured, as in they are different at their beginnings than at their ends,
then multiple things exist, and they must be different, for it is possible to
conceive of part of a thing as different from another part of that thing.*
*But, if the things that exist are all the same, then perhaps they are simply
duplicated as many times as necessary. If they appear different, perhaps they
are rotated as many times as necessary in as many dimensions as needed in
order to display a different part in a different place, leading to the
assumption that they are different.*
*If there is only something, and nothing, and there are countably many
somethings, then by encoding meaning to various rotations of these somethings,
we might develop the texture that you see before you*
*yes like bits!*
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧══════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────┴───────────┘
|