a library

“Imagine that you and I are constructing the first (everything)...

And our idea for this ‘new everything’ is a sort of a library.

In order to succeed, we will of course have to construct the first book, the first sentence, the first letters, the first meanings of the letters...and then of course readers of the letters, and various things letters can do inside various kinds (and scales and speeds) of readers...as well.

Before we decide that it’s absurd to invent readers as an output of books we should realize that since we’re inventing the first everything all at once, and we want it to be ‘like a library’ of sorts — that everything (in everything) will also be (essentially ) like this library.

Examining our plan more carefully, we realize that we’ve decided to create the first anything at the same moment we’re creating the first (everything). Since the first anything will be the only structural and relational source and comparator of the next anything, all future anythings will be instances of this source — regardless of their apparant size, speed, activity, forms of assembly, or organizational complexity. The ‘essential likeness’ aspect can be entirely invisible — in all positions, transports, scales and speeds — but it can never be enitrely hidden because its presence will create evidence everywhere.

So this means that our books, our letters, our libraries, and our readers are all fabulously (and uniquely) somehow each all of the possible things there are to be — at every scale, position, and speed — from every possible (and any possible) perspective. Thus it isn’t so much that our readers are outputs of libraries, books, sentences and letters, as it is that all of these things form a unified and indivisible continuum — which is aware of itself, in all possible positions simultaneously — and in which nothing is ever ‘lost’.

A writer of fictions might call this a transtemporally hyperlocal metalibrary, in which every possible particle, assembly, position and context is instantly available anywhere — because anywhere(thing) is a complete (and updating, in time) unique instance of everywhere(when). But I’ve gotten ahead of ourselves, which is, unfortunately, a part of what happens when we try to slow down to the point of making text about things.

o:O:o

So we want the library to contain all possible books — and we want individually unique books that will each contain all possible libraries. This of course tells us something about the sorts of paragraphs, and sentences we will likely find in our books — any paragraph will contain all possible books, and any sentence will contain all possible paragraphs, and every letter will each represent all possible sentences. Yet each (book and paragraph and sentence and letter) in the library is completely unique.

Even two letters of exactly the same shape, in the same position, in two ‘copies’ of the same book. Apparantly we can’t decide what will represent all possible letters. Perhaps this is where the loop swallows its own tail. In looking into the matter of what contains all possible letters, we may suddenly realize that this is already accounted for — in a domain we’ve not paid much attention to thus far: context. All of our creation is unified in all of these magical ways, because each of the ways is really little more than the ‘scale’ of a context — where the word scale refers to a specific perspective at a given scale of magnification-distance(speed).

o:O:o

So our essential design criteria calls for a set of letters, such that a single letter, in any place at all — will be just as complex as the entirety of books (each containing all possible libraries). And this leads back to our readers; for each letter must reference all possible readers before any actual reader is ever referenced. So the library must be unified in structure and emergence with all possible readers, in all possible phrases, in any letter, in any book...

It gets stickier, too. Each reader will have to be all possible readers – yet unique, in every possible way.

For a reader to be at any library, with any book, in any paragraph, pondering any sentence — we must insure that our reader (who is simultanously all possible readers and still unique) is actually in every possible library...&c. So in a real sense, a reader is a unique instance of a library (which is a unique instance of a letter, which is a unique instance of the everything we are creating as we create the first anything — which, of course is ‘sort of like a library’, as we agreed).

If we put ‘this library of everything’ everywhere, at every possible size and speed — in every possible domain...in the next instant — all the libraries will be ‘a lot more different’ than they were in the last instant. And this difference will cause a variety of dances to ensue as the elements simultaneously develop local uniqueness, and distributed likeness.

All participants, trasports and gardens are at once chasing themselves inwardly — and every other element in every other position of character, time, space, speed, size, &c. Even if we start with exceptionally simple librares — the nature of the media against and with(in) which we establish them will insure a majestic dance as they chase these two tails, or tales.

I mean, if we stick merely to letters, we can imagine the cosmological profundity of what ‘has to happen before’ the first letter can emerge anywhere — and the incredible complexity that the emergence of the second letter ads — even if it is merely a ‘copy’ of the first. We can also appreciate the incredible power and uniqueness of that first letter — the mold in which all future symbols will be cast as been founded there. And so too with sentences, books, libraries...and in point of fact...universes of human experience.

The changing relations of complexity, activity and completeness amongst our elements will immediately engender transports of connectivity betwixt them whose astonishing variety will also grow geometrically — any time it grows at all, and any phase of this growth will add a whole new universe of recombinant ‘dimension-portions’ to each element, as well as granting them consistently more impossible leaping-potentials toward and away from communion.

This (seemingly unintended) part of our establishment will thus result progressively expanding vistas of diversity and complexity which may be optioned, stashed, modified or traded. By progressively, I really mean it; we’re talking absurd algorthmic leaps here, which by their nature and mode of activity increase in iteration-velocity as well as relation-participants.

What we might eventially see (in whatever media we decided to establish everything with(in)), when the elements have sufficiently complexified through interaction are something like stars-systems and galaxies. Incredible localized energetic complexity emerging in its anatomy as incredible localized biocognitive complexity. And at smaller scales, planets — animals — cells. Recominbant biocognitive symmertries in co-elaboration.

This incredible uniqueness of any assembly or transport we might examine — exists and is maintained in part because no two (anythings, everywhen) ever occupy precisely (as if precision is finite, which it never was) the same position at the same instant (presuming time is real, which it isn’t, at least for us).

Even a given letter in a given book is moving, is so many simultaneous domains and directions that to list them would be comical — they’d outgrow the list in the first second of my attempt to set them down in text. Simply writing an element in the list would cause billions of universes to spring into gestation, whose elements I’d then have to include — but my first gesture toward that inclusion would magnify the contents (and scales) of my list geometrically, again. A futile, and perhaps even deadly task — this ‘listing’. At least as it pertains to our first everything.

[mark of translation in process]

o:0:o