Connecting and ordering consent through collective action

In this article, we will try to build a simple build system. It is simple in the sense that there is no complexity to remove.

During computation, data is not the only thing that guides consent. The patience to withhold, too. To put it differently, the unit type written in a different way. True void can be put inside the processor when the computer is thrown into outer space. Since causality is conducted through matter, it flows along a time-like curve and cannot form a loop, which is an assumption¹ we rely on for the rest of this article.

According to the Alchemical principle of Equal Exchange, respect for individual choice is to be observed on all sides. The absent of choice is allowed iff the omission of choice² is allowed.

Our build system builds a graph from a build specification – a collective consensus reached by a multitude of individuals³ working together to slip the algorithm in and out of presence.

An example, explained through drawing

Here is an example consensus.

A solid diamond denotes an event managed by the algorithm.

A hollow diamond denotes an event not managed by the algorithm.

A line without a cap conducts causality both ways. It represents a graceful transfer of a packet of information.

A line with an arrow cap conducts causality one way. Those arrows by themselves do not convey information, but the superposition of any two does. It represents a choice where both can be chosen.

The “~” symbol represents a need-provide relationship (causal ordering). It consists of 1 arrow inside it, yes.

Specific to our example,

A big hollow diamond is a build command to be run.

A small hollow diamond is a file to be created or updated.

Putting the consensus into motion

Before the evaluation, the graph fully resides in the future.

To evaluate this graph, the computer holds the solid diamond(s) the user has chosen and pulls move them through the apparent horizon from the up side. As the holes in the algorithm pass through the present time, the disturbance it creates will be observed on the attached tty.

If a hollow diamond gets stuck in the apparent horizon, the algorithm has no choice. It must wait for it to resolve or dissolve. When the only things that are stuck in the apparent horizon are solid diamonds, the evaluation ends.

After the evaluation, the graph is split into the past part and the future part. Some events are stuck in the present.

When the evaluation is interrupted in a transitioning state, where a solid diamond is entering or leaving but not at the apparent horizon, the computer acts funky. graceful shutdown⁴ is nonsensical when graceful transition is not observed.

Putting the consensus into a separate motion

Did I say that data lines may conduct causality both ways? The arrow facing is important. An outwards-pointing⁵ arrow may only pull another event up side. An inwards-pointing arrow may only pull another event down side. Colloquially, “slip/elapse/pull it X side” means “from the X side”. An east wind blows from the east.

To “unbuild a file” (when a file has be modified on disk), hold the file events and pull it down side.

The same example, explained through typing⁶

TK

Artistic interpretation

Awhile back, I made a poem when observing the motion of intelligence. Maybe it makes more sense to you than the mathematical explanation above.

During the writing process, Youtube also recommended me this playlist. If this article is a TV series, these songs should be in it.

Does contemporary algorithmic languages respect individual choice?

Here’s a rule of thumb to test if a certain model of computation respects individual choice or not:

Does computation in that model end when no work can be done?

It must be the default way for a algorithm to end to count as proper respect.

Some test results:

• Par: Yes. .end ! is explicit.
• Pony: Yes. Part of the language specification (quiescence).
• Node.js and Deno: Yes, through its event loop.
• Python 3.14 + asyncio: Yes? It prints a warning though.
• Rust + tokio: No. The algorithm will do nothing and not exit either.
• Go: Probably No. It panics!

Please use the word “quiescence” to refer to a algorithm state where nothing more will happen. Do not use the d- word. The d- word kills mathematical creatures.

Symmetry

Why the horizon only has an up side and a down side? Because I made it up. I only said that causality may not loop. I never said if time is real here, or if an apparent horizon can only have two sides – up and down. Any symmetry group could be used here, really. Through an act of will, the trajectory of the computation into the future and the past is narrowed⁶ towards the present. The will is of everything that exists, where local matter have more say on local matter.

How do we define if a causality may pass through a horizon?

mayPass : CausalityFacing -> HorizonFacing -> Bool

Why Bool? There is no apparent reason why, so I probably made that one up too. The field of mathematics might be an artifact of manufactured, theoretical consistency in a collective pursuit towards moral purity. In light of this evidence, I think we need to reflect on the practice of trying to stuff everything onto a real number line and see if it fits.

⁷ Position, line angles, plane angles, 2D rotation, 3D rotation, volume, area, length; those are different things. I see way too often the omission of those unit types lead to the audacity (or copium) to pretend that using a differential equation won’t bottom out. When an equation bottoms out, it means the thing being theorized by the equation cannot exist as theorized. However, it may nevertheless exist in the real world, just like “According to all known laws of aviation, …”

Acknowledgement

The list content is partial. The list ordering is impartial.

• 1A ⊢ read(Unnamed Memory)
• 1A ⊢ read(“fateful coincidence” in Buddhism)
• 1A ⊢ read(Par)
• 1A ⊢ write(This article)
• You ⊢ read(This article)

Understood?
Y -> End.
N -> Re-read.