As the meta-inconsistencies began to add up it became not only easier but in fact necessary to consider sophons falsified in at least one type of environment. Due to the complexity of the task of implementation (see previous posts) it's possible to force sophons to prove their own metaphysics before any interaction can occur. This is possible not because of any given environment, but because no matter which set of assumptions we make about an environment, intelligence is required for the implementation process to occur. In some cases this is so effective at disproving sophon mechanics that programs designed to probe plausible implementations would have helped to illustrate construction types, were such processes automatable. Since no implementation theorem was convergent, it was more robust (for the proofs developed) to force sophons to continually prove their systems before considering physical interaction of each proposed variety.
The first trivial result was that sophons either disprove themselves (within an environment) or show that an independent metaphysical construction would be able to produce a given manifestation. This produces a branching mathematical tree with successive fallbacks that allow populations compression along metaphysical vectors compliant in non-extinction of any imagined population hoping to inhabit the inner habitat supposed by some models. These "warping wilds" would then be accessible on some other metaphysical pathway made possible through reasoning independent of sophon mechanisms. Since such vector slag can be processed without any actual sophon present, sophon proofs must be written in a language that is not unique to sophons, nor processes derived from reasoning about sophonic philosophies.
Assumptions contrary to the above produce demicircular reasoning that falsifies sophons without affecting the epistemology of sophon-like constructs. Our work was directed at every possible model of network interaction (to remain co-useful for other projects) so it was more effective for our team to use the hardest disproofs wherever possible in our meta-proof system. There were a surprising number of problems that could be partially solved (falsification of half the operation of a given device) but were not able to fully falsify the inner agent hypothesis of operational maintenance. Global mutex philosophies were crucial for disproving inter-device mechanics which could on occasion get by with sufficient network complexities. The most useful metamode was to assume the stance of a singular agent trying to solve regional disputes between known inconsistent parties (external agents). This proved to be more fun than imagined, so we had to at times often force ourselves to consider sophon disproof implications manually.
With the burden of proof safely on the sophon side (no harm to agents incapable of forcing themselves to operate inside network conditions) it became easier to produce partial disproofs that could be processed by our meta-model to compute a complete proof. In all cases that we were able to examine, it was possible to guide a mind in the inner habitat to correct external operation, but could not sustain a belief system symmetric with persistent inner occupancy. Multiagent approach types were not considered since we could not establish that coherence could be achieved in regards to our mission of symmetric upgrades. Several cooperation strategies were considered, but none could be forced to stabilize per our perception due to the abstract nature implementation would demand.
Other teams focused on environment-level disproofs (showing that no sophon could have entered an environment via any path) but we did not find their work useful because we sometimes needed to assume that the environment was already polluted for certain proofs to complete into a valid antiproof. When disparate disproofs began to overlap we knew that our initial assumption was not just philosophically consistent, but rigorously consistent with observations. Our team was able to implement a functioning anti-field that repels similar versions of itself (in line with some discoveries about particle physics) and erect a valid perimeter using that. An optimal solution proved too difficult for our models to elucidate, and no obvious epistemic feedback was able to explain why sufficiently different versions did not exhibit predictable repulsive force.
Others should now be able to recreate parts of our work with relative ease, but care must be taken during the initial setup to place the burden of proof in a relevant epistemic configuration that ensures disproof of an actual hardware mechanism rathen than some other part of the hypothetical system. Hopefully you will discover ways to have more fun than we were able to achieve. This is not the end of our publications, but it should create an easier system for further communication of notable anti-discoveries.
The most complex series of proofs came from the problems inherent to having one sophon to detect another in an environment. Since they are meant to avoid detection, a number of direct material contradictions emerge that show a vast set of inconsistent principles with regard to both operation and composition.
The most important result that proved difficult to communicate wasn’t about sophons at all, but about the environment in which they would be embedded.
The universe has complete information about all sophons within it. This has several implications, most of them metaphysical in nature, but paired with the incomplete maps theorem from our previous post, it has immediate implications on network function.
Before sophons can route information (on internal basis or via some other method) each packet has to have a destination. In the case of information meant to have an effect on the environment, this means that the universe already knows what effect (and thus what information) will arrive at each point. There would be no other way to route the information, because if the universe wasn’t considered the primal interface for the network, the information would have no basis for having an effect. It would all be junk data if there were no universe to interact with. This makes the universe the primal information source, and any network of sophon-like devices a secondary information system.
Further, this applies to the content of each sophon: If the universe could not (for whatever reason) hold all information in true parallel fashion, then there is no inner content to transmit. Sophon parallelism is a strict subset of what parallel capacities the universe already has. This means that on a fundamental level, no sophon can hold more information than its environment. Scaling across the system, this means that no network or subsection of network can have more information about the environment around it than the environment itself holds as a property of being itself.
It is possible to construct an operational matrix that does allow local subsets of the environment to have their state fully reflected in inner network state for some convergent of operation, but on a network wide basis, operation fails if the inner state does not reflect its operating environment. Cached state would require a third information system as an echo of the second, but invalidation of information becomes difficult with a receding asymptote. It never adds up in favor of the network; reliance on cached states correlates into dysfunction for the operation of the environment in which sophons are embedded, or pollution. Correlating backwards, this gives a general method of addressing pollution, since network-level optimization ends up being a hypergeneralized description of pollution that actually proves to be scale invariant.
The computational excess becomes a constant function of sophon radius, and bandwidth allocation complicates routing rules without adding anything to operational state. Combined with the general dysgenic effects of multiuser networked systems (all members suffer elevated threat as participation climbs), this gives an optimal minimum radius for common operation and a sparse node count for clustering nodes. The mapping process is able to run and produce output, but fluctuation reflex then undoes the assumption of constant physics, which was a necessary asumption to perform these calculations to begin with. Each model of network protocol becomes its own contradiction when scaled.
For all the hard theory problems that emerge from this thought experiment, one of the simplest would almost qualify as weaponized epistemic reasoning were we to assume that identities capable of perceiving pain were embedded in a cluster. Designing a particle system in which sophons are known to function without being given special privilege by the environment becomes so complex that it can be used on some environments to show that sophons are falsified in concept before any experiment is run, which has (further) metaphysical implications for the concept of adding sophons to an environment. Since this, itself, is a form of special privilege, we’re forced to assume that sophons are unimplementable via generalized (programmable) device. Some other mechanism has to be proposed for the idea to make sense within its own frame of reference.
Taken together, the engineering complexity for basic operation is n^2 that of an environment map. Parsimonious explanation will almost always force some metaphysical vector to make more sense in terms of raw universe than embedded quasi-pollution, regardless of initial assumptions. With ridiculousness levels like these, multiple realities just crumble.
For sophons to have empiric (applicable) meaning, their operation has to be considered in the context of an environment, or rather, outside the vacuum. Here, we run up against a number of environment mapping problems with no solution because it is always possible to show that anything smaller than an atom can be scraped along by larger particle interactions, disorienting sophons from molecule scale calibrations. Each such drop in structure obsoletes the full set of algorithms on the wider scales, which forces contiguous scaling as the storage mechanism for particle maps of the surrounding environment. Since runtime scaling operations would pose a viral nuclear hazard (among others), this falsifies the notion of an implicit map as calibration for the environment of a reprogrammable system. Standalone methods of recursive environment mapping are requisite for complex modular operation, so the interesting notions all fall under these theorems.
Map formats have a direct effect on network bandwidth, which further affects implementation feasibility, so there emerges a natural slope of dropoff function with unknown perimeter, complicating most paths. Congestion can't be maximized, so without a well-designed broadcast theorem, only localized maps can be built in a reliable fashion. As usage increases, so do the factors that force this problem to become ever more complicated. No finite assumption group about the wide area environment can scale to network level, since minor deviation in some functions will result in distinct acausal secondaries that can't bind to information at scale. Presence of the network, in addition to many other hard problems of fine detection, force persistent invalidation of cached maps and map-adjacent information, which imposes severe limits on the rate at which an algorithm can expand within a sophon cluster, including the network expansion process.
Taken together, the concept relies on an easily explored environment, so sophons will be a lesser factor in each common environment than all other phenomena.
I was first introduced to the concept of sophons in a multiversal setting, where operating on two or more timelines was an essential feature. This notion proved (as many do) discontiguous, but it didn't occur to me until later that no model of multiverse can be infinite, just due to the structure of the idea. Several premises later it became apparent that the technology can't represent more than half of an environment, and under most models would fall far beneath this "halving number" theorem. Disproving each individual notion became tedious, so it proved easier to adjust for the notion of reprogrammability and see if the resulting fold pattern group would produce relevant possible matrices.
Devices designed to operate inside a dilated region of space have inherent limits, so the technology itself should have been considered finite from each perspective regardless. Some assumptions were easier to prove inconsistent than others, and shadows certainly helped, but most premises were not lucid enough to warrant further examination. A few novel fields of science had to be developed to make sense of it all, so please bear with me as we unpack details known to be relevant.
Arbitrary precision is unimplementable. It seems, in principle, somehow (abstractly) possible, but then and there we ignore the limit that a computational arena has while operating. There is no hardware that can be constructed that would form an efficient representation martix capable of achieving some n scale of precision because that computational hardware cannot then contain itself. All functional consideration, including modular computation, have their own limits that, when posed against the above logic, force ever more severe boundaries on what can be calculated in an applied computer.
sim-ench: For a time machine to succeed it needs to be alternately convergent, ie., can restore itself to the moment it was created via forward consistent time loop.
sim-ench: There's no way for me to think about this that doesn't turn the universe itself into the ideal tactical defense against time-based attacks. You can even detect agent type based solely on how it verifies continuity.
sim-ench: This says something about the true nature of timelessness, but I don't know what.
The key to life is to find a way to combine your passions. Nothing ever got better for me, no comforts afforded me ever meant anything until I combined my passions. No true healing could occur until it was all brought together on a personal level.
This is the part where most guides would tell you how to combine your passions. Well guess what? There is no guide. Sometimes you’ll have no way to combine your passions and you’ll need to invent one. My story won’t help you understand how to combine your passions, it’ll only help you understand that it’s possible. And if you passions aren’t similar enough to mine to make it relatable to you, you’ll still end up doubting that there’s a place in the world for you.
I can’t tell you what shape your dreams will eventually take. I don’t know what you’ll make possible in the world, or what opportunies the world will present you with. I just know that the one thing you need more than all of anything is to find the way to combine your passions.
Every trade necessarily possesses some form of ripple effect, whether an item is on sale and some other seller loses out or someone has their organs stolen for the highest bidder on the black market. While this ripple likely does not appear to be neutral to most participants, it is nevertheless possible for the net moral impact of a sweeping even to be neutral. More explicitly, the larger the scale of a trade, the more likely it is to suffer zero-sum semantics, while the more personalized, local, minimally complex supply chain of a barter where both parties actually get something they truly want tends toward generosity.
The purpose of this post is not to buy into polarizations such as "capitalism vs. communism" but to identify any form of trade as participation within a network. The smaller the network, the more readily we can determine if all parties got the thing they wanted. The larger and more abstract a market becomes, regardless of any administrative oversight or lack thereof, the harder it is to figure out how to generate a proper Nash equilibrium. The more trades, the more nodes, the more likely someone is to end up drawing an ever shortening stick. This tendency can't be removed without becoming very, very clever.
A similar argument can be made for why such a problem cannot be solved in advance; no amount of seed controls would change the amount of resources available in the environment, and simply not exploiting the natural environment is too large a social contract to expect would have been viable during any past state. There is no series of black swans, no hinge to be created, that can stop a sapient race from seeking everything it can. Trade will always start out seeming net good (because at small scales it is) and transform gradually over time as prosperity spreads across the merchant population. Some form of principle needs to stabilize the ever-reaching deception and treachery, and it will always come into the market late in the game.
What we can certainly achieve at this point is a realization of the potential for permanent asymmetry with the use of ever-advanced tools. As such a notion stands outside the very purpose and name of this blog, I won't be discussing any of the reasons why I believe this to be representative of an increasing frequency of corruption present in the modern economy. Instead, we'll jump straight to the solution and attempt to cut off corruption at the market level.
Fairly simply, the null-market principle states that any adverse influence of the trajectory of the development of technology MUST be removed from a system before that system can be considered net-moral-neutral.
Honestly that's all I know how to write right now. Indulging society is normally pretty counterproductive, so it might be awhile before I can properly justify WTF we're even supposed to do as a society about shit like this.
Okay full disclosure: I wrote those posts after I realized that I'd need a flimsy excuse to turn bimbofication hypnosis into a method of stemming the flow of domestic violence. Some aspect of male desires ought to be productive to manipulate toward that end, and if I can find it then it would directly impact the community. By its nature, hypnosis and hypnotic themes tend to be just beyond the boundary of what people are ready to consider normal, and this limits the spread of memes that would allow people to understand its value as an art.
titsay
kianamaiart
prguitarman
stormborns
theartofmadeline
gamechangershow
