Clojurians Log v2

> > maybe I've just been writing clojure for too long lol Yes, with enough Clojing, Space/Time conundrums befall us all... Quoting self, from not long ago... https://www.evalapply.org/posts/consciousness-lives-in-a-dedekind-cut/#that-which-data-inhabits-is. > That which data inhabits, is. > "What is it to be conscious?" is a hazardous question not unlike pointing at the moon and telling a story about the moon. I can only sketch a story about what it is, heavily influenced by life as a bit-pusher. Mere as my tribe may be, intractable questions about Reality and Time vex us too. Except we traffic not in the Great Truths, but in grimy data. > For one, Time, the strange bedfellow of the Reality-Consciouness continuum is absolutely irksome to us, because it shows up as an insoluble sequencing problem. The limiting speed of light is literally our problem. Various words like Concurrency, Simultaneity, Byzantine Generals, Vector Clocks and the impossibility of totally ordered events are abstract concepts that best the best of us. If you feel queasy, rest assured, I do too, and it's my job to deal with it. > For another, consciousness is joined at the hip with reality-models; be they the ten thousand year old oral tradition of Australian Aboriginal tribes (ref: longnow.org), or fleeting tiktok trends. > >> Fads swept the youth of the Sprawl at the speed of light; entire subcultures could rise overnight, thrive for a dozen weeks, and then vanish utterly. >> — William Gibson, Neuromancer > Having to model "reality" forces (at least some of) us to confront questions of existence, meaning, meaning of meaning, being-ness, self-awareness and so forth. Especially people making databases, having thoughts about Data and Reality. and so it goes...

It's funny how philosophy and physics and math relate. And how programmers are kinda like mathematicians of a niche that model reality, and how that relates to philosophy

And how clojure relates to philosophy in that way

I think clojure's data model is going to go on and continue to change the world outside of clojure, ideologically

But I'm part of the cult, so I'm biased

But like... Going along that theory... That gravity and subjective time are projected from coordination overhead... Maybe questions of time travel and antigravity are actually questions of asyncifying the points of synchronization between epochs of two atomic domains

Well, at least it's an open question whether space is a derived concept. Listening to physicists talk about it is pretty cool. Although anyone who has done even simple computer games in their lives are pretty comfortable with a lower lever fundamental reality and space being something you can play with. But anyway 😀

They've experimentally shown that the deeper you go into a gravity well the slower time goes

And it's implied by GR

And after all this time, we have absolutely no idea how gravity comes about. And none of the rest, of course, either, but it's pretty wild that we have no idea why anything is like it is. Super fascinating.

I think it's frame drag

The cost of synchronizing facts between things

Yup. It makes the simulation hypothesis take on a different meaning.

Right... To stimulate it, these constraints seem more obvious to us

But like, if it's not a simulation, but it's computable, then what is it?

Sometimes I wonder if the real big bang is just the enumeration of the number line in some simple way. And in some way, subjective experiences are like prime numbers on that number line, interacting with other prime numbers

I think Wolfram has that intuition

Like we're all just primes on big ol' number line

But like, if gravity is frame drag, that means gravity is an artifact of a time gradient in space. A ball on a spinning surface wants to move to the center of the spin because there is less drag towards the slower moving region. There's less friction coming than going, in a frame drag environment

When you have one foot in slow time and one foot in fast time, it's easier to pull your fast foot into slow time than it is to pull your slow foot into fast time

So the frame drag causes the gravity via the time gradient of slower and slower transactions

Cool stuff!

Does it make sense to you? This faster-coming-than-going-because-of-time-gradient situation?

Like we're all just primes on big ol' number line

https://leanpub.com/wave-relativity if you are interested, I explored reformulating physics equations as self-referential recursive functions, and proposed this

No new physics, but a major ontological structure change on what is perceived as real

Programmer-brain unable to comprehend elite Physics-speak... brb... pestering two Physicist pals to interpret for me :D

@adityaathalye if they happen to be able to do technical review for me that would be great 😄, I can credit them in the book Also writing a companion book to explain these to first year STEM undergrad, not sure when that would be done though

I've informed them... cheers!

Nice

@adityaathalye "Depending on which frame of reference one uses, is time more fundamental than gravity or is gravity more fundamental than time?" IDK. I personally imagine there being some base time and space. And things are actually moving. But the movement entails local neighbors in a way that contorts their view, because they slow down, relative to the base frame, as they become more entailed. So, as you enter a gravity well, it's as if layers of space become subjectively denser, towards the center of mass. So it takes longer to move through them. But I think it's just an artifact of the polynomial entailment between centers of mass. Perhaps along the lines of @danieltanfh95's work, not sure. It could be a full projection from some no-space dimension IDK but I feel like we're just moving the pieces around the table at that point, pushing the unrelativized movement into some other bucket somewhere

"coordination is sticky," might be another way to express the gravity theory

Basically this: https://youtube.com/shorts/HvpqvrF2aR0

And the spinning disc is this gradient where time is spinning faster on the outside than the inside

Well, the idea of the book is that neither is fundamental, space-time and gravity are same-rank derivatives of one field: every “particle” has its own internal Compton clock, and gravity is what tells those clocks how to shift their ticking relative to each other.

Interesting. So that one field has all the info. I'm moreso looking at things from the perspective of atomic collections entailing each other. So maybe multiple "particles" that already have some shared space time dynamics, coming into contact with another

I guess I don't care whether the actual particles are genuinely "local" in some sense