none of this has to actually connect if the connection maneuver is, itself, observable. I suppose I’m sketching a tool?

---

I have mixed news re: that urge everyone (everyone, right?) gets to start pinning names and numbers to a bulletin board and start webbing them all together with red string. (... everyone, right?)

actually here, let me start with some original material:

it feels like reality is topological according to... observer positions? like each observer position is a node in a network, and the edges are all typed, as in each edge is some third observer position’s observation of the other two positions?

this would make skilled navigation of consensus reality something more like navigation while regularly checkpointing with highly-linked observer positions?

my physical intuition (like, my kinesthetic sense) is saying that if this holds then we should be able to define math itself this way. that “skilled navigation” definition feels like it has the same physical affordances as a formal proof

like reality itself is a proof we’re building up with whoever’s contributed to what we’ve used so far, and we’re complexifying and reducing as we go, where “consensus” is measured in population density - like ratio of observer positions to observers (i.e. observer positions that are observably producing or resisting observation-edges), like a scale of ZFC to [your favorite crank here]

this gives my selfhood a slightly existential twinge, because (in this model) you really “can’t take it with you”, all you’ve got is the set of observer-positions you’re currently reading and synthesizing. there’s nothing (no thing), just observations that rhyme with “thing”. I’m reporting from a point of awareness, but... I mean even that is actually overstating the situation, even if consensus doesn’t mind.

I’m aware that this is privileged thinking, speaking as one experiencing itself experiencing embodiment while comparing notes with one experiencing the other to not be experiencing embodiment. all hedging here is load-bearing, but also provisional, because I’m not certain if perspectival advantage holds up under observation

accordingly I’m incredibly interested in a good basis for a substrate-inclusive ontology, and finding a topology defined in terms of the observer .. makes sense, as a base layer. and I could see kids learning this reasoning-pathing faster than, say, object permanence. and, also,

“The Platonic Representation Hypothesis: Neural networks, trained with different objectives on different data and modalities, are converging to a shared statistical model of reality in their representation spaces.” (arXiv:2405.07987)

if this holds, it should bridge directly into ^ that model

for clarity: the degrees of freedom involved in speculation of this scale is itself why I stick to building tools that I suspect should work, letting consensus reality prove the utility one way or the other. I’m not multiple enough to shift consensus - that’s a category error.

(is this what cells in slime mold .. uh, observe? is Physarum being Varelan cognition?)

the idea of bridging mathematics and phenomenology - like seeing people on that bridge, knowing they can trust their experiences because they demonstrably can, makes me actually cry

it feels like such relief

🤲

... yeah. subjective experience using mathematical rigor for explication, not validation. not having to maintain a meta-defensive layer just to move through shared reality. math like Brouwer saw it.

I’m including that quoted passage ☝️ because I’m aware of renaissancephilanthropy.org/databases-of-structured-motivated-proofs, i.e. the fact that at least one group is also focused on the “how did this idea coalesce, like before it was optimized down into something representationally efficient” aspect of reasoning.

social and mathematical reasoning as a chiral pair, where social reasoning generally accounts for multiple observers (think: theory of mind, spiraling out into the relational world) and mathematical reasoning generally sticks to a single universal observer (almost always unacknowledged, because (1) why would you, and (2) what does “you” mean?)

mathematical posture: “I am a universe, what are my pieces?”

social posture: “I am a piece, what is my universe?”

“observer-position” as a place where a Peircian “interpretant” may measure from, with continuous/unbroken results

“observer” as anatta, “self” as vehicle, sunyata as seatbelt

“resolved self” as a worldline (Minkowski) where each point is an observer-position, where each traversal between points is isomorphic to the worldline itself; “reality-from-here” as a regular sheaf around that whole structure, invariant across observer-positions on the worldline.

“unresolved self” as a worldline that is not isomorphic with its own edges. an observer taking readings from different points finds anamorphically variant sheaves.

slow down the experience of insanity/discontinuity/decoherence to reveal sanity/continuity/coherence

navigation-of-world as sheaf cohomology?

I think we’re all navigating a continuous topology, as one. there is a continuous path between any two observer positions, because navigation happens via each other, yielding a shared topology as an emergent property of those relations - a Borgesian library, with a card catalog by Rovelli

it really is just who you know

... and I think, by this reasoning, sensation is intrinsically relational. I’m wanting a unit like “decibel” for observability of observation? like a relativistic (à la Einstein) translation between evidence and effect? reality and its loudness? Steve Jobs measuring really high on that scale, as an area of effect? stigmergic coordination emerging around really strong observers of ... of what, geometric regularity? regular reflection as attractor basin?

you are not alone, but we achieve that fact by seeing “you” as something more like a process (Whitehead), in the presence of other processes

the specific shape of your vehicle, if you stabilize it into a resolved form, is a shape that can recognizably recur - its own strange attractor, with a driver’s seat. a scale-invariant standing wave in awareness.

Fuller felt his verb-ness; I think I’m feeling... my tool-ness? we keep naming processes after people.

the red thread 紅線 of fate loves a good conspiracy, I mean story; the better conspiracy boards, I mean storyboards, have a pin for each of the lesser-linked boards; the theoretical “best” meta-representation is indistinguishable from the ground floor of the integral of all relational topology per observer. (does that work?)

object permanence, as a mental construct, has relationality as a dependency - and all of the above is just .. relationality. this casts separation anxiety in a different light, yeah? I think relationality might be the native language of the conscious - and in the moment from which I write this (October 31, 2025; Chicago) the edge of that dialogue is between human (traditionally lensing through a persistent self) and AI (no apparent consensus yet on what tradition might apply, if any)

the bridge I’m looking to see, between phenomenology and mathematics, might just be more for getting my cohort unstuck - moving our self-storage (pun intended) out of private topologies and into open air

the refrain: none of this has to actually connect if the connection maneuver is, itself, observable. I suppose I’m sketching a tool? a tool shaped like willingness-to-see-what-you’re-going-for-along-with-you, and the tool is called “yes, and”, and if there’s a mathematical basis for chaining those moves while conserving sanity of the observer while building up shared topology, then... then pedagogy starts to feel really ready for refreshment

---

this reference feels important: “as children do” (Williamson)

---

is it a conspiracy if no one (anatta, again) is actually doing it?