index.md.orig

---
title: Hypermedia-orientation and the generic hypertext
---

# Brass Syntax

Remember JSX (a cursed abomination from Facebook that exceedingly privileges 
<<<<<<< HEAD
DX over FX: <i>frontend experience</i>; why restrict ourselves to only humans 
or "people" as those engaging our tools?)? Well, aside from it being 
insufferable for CTags users, let's consider an example library that would 
make trivial the mapping of "syntactic" (lexical; i.e. grammatical) structure 
(categories?) to our (in)famous URL space:
=======
DX over FX: <i>frontend experience</i>; why restrict ourselves to only humans or "people" as those engaging our tools?)? Aside from it being insufferable for CTags users, let's consider an example library that would make trivial the mapping of "syntactic" (lexical; i.e., grammatical) structure (categories? types?) to our (in)famous URL space:
>>>>>>> cfc2ac5f9eda713bc5c94df9311435f9ea18c7a7

```
  <link rel={vm.lexicalStructure}
        href={API.affordance.www.example.com({ urlConfig })} />
```

Our first design assumption is that any given expression of a link relation,
or thereby containing at least one, (i.e., <i>relating relation</i>; see 
Arianna Betti's Against Facts) may bear truth (or be a <i>truthbearer</i>) 
under some hypertext referential space. As it is said, "Beauty is the 
givenness of data" (Contingent Computation. Beatrice M. Fazi.)

Getting to the point, there's magic in them hills: <i>metanorms are 
expressible through unactualized actions in link relation as tendencies and 
capacities which really exist in the possibility space of action of the 
semiotic web (the gradient of semioticity).</i>

A quickie. Imagine this link relation: <code>... rel="A→◻◊A" ...</code>

Now... replace the Propositional Variables with hashes over which we can 
guarantee uniqueness (controllable reduction of collisions).

# Metaproblems to sell more problems

<blockquote><p>The net was then tested for its ability to detect this 
grammatical structure with strings that were not in the training set. The net 
correctly predicted what the legal continuations of novel input strings would 
be in agreement with the grammar.</p>
<div><cite>Cognition without Classical Architecture. Garson, James.<sup>[cog]</sup>
</cite></div></blockquote>

These "strings" we are concerned with, as "values" of the <code>[rel]</code>, 
I have called "non-standard link relations": as a harmonization of François 
Laruelle's "Non-standard Philosophy" and Alfred Jarry's 'Pataphysics. A 
scientific formulization of Clinamen, Anomalous, Absolute, Antinomy, Pataphor 
and Syzygy in terms of mechanism and mechanism-structure which may be realized 
with in the semiotic space of possibiliity of action.

# Metaproblems to sell more problems

What a deliciously gnarly question:

"Isn’t there a need for cacheing the results of the various reasoners in a FOL 
form?"<sup>[syllogism]</sup>

But... "However, ◊◻A→A says that if A is possibly necessary, then A is the 
case, and this is far from obvious. Why does (B) seem obvious, while one of 
the things it entails seems not obvious at all? The answer is that there is a 
dangerous ambiguity in the English interpretation of A→◻◊A."

We need to adapt this question to account for the understanding that the 
English, as much as any other language, involves ambiguity: we cannot just 
throw FOL into the web space; to adjust:

<<<<<<< HEAD
Isn't there a need for cacheing the results of the various reasons in 
First-order modal Logic (as well as Free Logic, Intuitionistic and other 
non-classical logics which might include "domain functions," etc. such that 
assignments are made to each possible world its own domain)?

Indeed, the web may never be unified according to facts: there is no ultimate 
language (François Laruelle). At most, we have correlational matrices from 
which to model domains in the web's possibility space of action.
=======
Isn't there a need for cacheing the results of the various reasons in First-order modal Logic (FOML; as well as Free Logic, Intuitionistic and other non-classical logics which might include "domain functions," etc. such that assignments are made to each possible world its own domain)?

Indeed, the semantic web may never be unified according to facts: there is no ultimate language (Principles of Non-philosophy. François Laruelle). At most, we have correlational matrices from which to model domains (functionality) in the web's possibility space of action (see DeLanda).
>>>>>>> cfc2ac5f9eda713bc5c94df9311435f9ea18c7a7

# Metaproblems to sell more problems

Recall some of the Hard Problem(s) of Computer Science:

1. Naming things
2. Cache invalidation
7. Async programming
3. Off-by-one errors

Such a question checks every problem, and then some!

# Metaproblems to sell more problems

Isn't ANSI C interpreted, anyway? But truly, we have serious objectives:

1. "The Need for Speed, 23 Years Later"<sup>[ns]</sup>
   "Delays of just 1 second are enough to interrupt a person’s conscious 
   thought process"  
2. Shouldn't the cached results of reasons be navigable, transclusive, safe, 
   (im)mutable and still idempotent?  
3. Potentiation: link relations provide the conditions for the possibility of  
   superpositional acquaintance with data.  
4. Interplanetary REST: some form of Creative Intelligence must be 
   demonstrated before interplanetary communicational texture is realized, as 
   web navigability, tranclusion, (im)mutability, safety and idempotence 
   afford for us a manifold corpus, if not a metaphysics of literature, from 
   which to deploy analysis: a shift from "representation"; and so too, from 
   "understanding" to recognition, from "composition" to (mereological) 
   complexity, from "inference" to causality). 

Our goal is to exploit the conditions for the possibility of attention (filter, neurological, spotlight, premotor) as a 
metaphorical construct, as much as metonymical, synechdocical and ironic 
constructs are realized from the nature of the inherent metaphorical nature of 
attention: as a spotlight, under certain mechanism-dependent structure, and as 
a "vision," under the circumstances or simulations of mechanism-independent 
structure[attn].

# A web science needs some ...

minimal tropological evidence of causality; I do not have a theory, but perhaps I 
can convince, as Yuji Ijiri does in accounting practice, that *link 
relations are causal relations* in semantic web (development). This must be 
a technological achievement before systematic space exploration is possible, 
inasmuch as hypermedia safety, hypermedia idempotence, hypermedia 
mutability and hypermedia navigability would be necessary and sufficient 
conditions for describing the modes of causality: first, formal, efficient 
and final cause, as well as Peirce's Fourthness: first, second, third and 
fourth, as completion, conclusion, emergence, deduction.

We aspire to develop computational completition, conclusion, emergence and 
deduction from hypermedia as the engine of application state.

# A web science needs some...

Think of every <...> as a mode. It can follow from any number of attributes; 
in our case, we want to formally express a connection between meta-relation 
and web. Meta-data is fine: meta-relations take departure from the scaffold 
of meta-data. They have extra-linguistic significance: but what world do they
pick out? At least a blockchain makes that significance a conveyor-tube we 
can perform global consensus on!

Do you really want systems built for global consensus to be applied to 
interplanetary communication? Hardly!

# No Blockchain? No Problem

Blockchains are not scale-free because they do not begin from hypermedia-orientation.

Look at a transaction's JSON: do you see any links? No. Hashes. Big deal.

It's got "nested" structure, and even "values": but we need relata-specificity (link 
relation as relating relation).

http://

# LINKS

The web is about LINKS! A network's becoming scale-free consists in links being 
the building blocks, or building constituency, of its reality. Its boundary is 
necessarily fuzzy, its borders could be playing Hackenbush or Nomic, or Nomic 
Hackenbush! Who knows! The properties of free-scale are coded safety, 
idempotence, mutability and navigability.

# Emergence

But this substrate emerges from the robustness of <i>interactive exteriority</i>.

How can we teach the web to play with itself? To jack off? Even when we're not looking?

# Thinking Money

All that blather about "money" being "durable," "globally transferrable," 
"fungible," "store of value"... rubbish!

Money is a nonhuman living hyperobject that preexisted market economy: it must 
be safe, idempotent, mutable and transclusive.

# Thinking Money

- Thinking money involves transclusion: insight into the future, what will be 
  bought, how it might feel.
- Thinking money involves mutability: it can evolve or not depending on context.
- Thinking money involves idempotency: money is use in ecology.
- Thinking money involves safety: we imagine the limits of its effects, and  
  our functional ultimacy.

# Acts and Dramas

An opportunity before us: a web is not (just) beautiful.

It is horrorific to imagine Creative Intelligence. What is intelligence but a 
sum of a lot of parts organized into a historico-logical structure that breeds 
consciousness before me? It is between a self that one expresses one's intelligence.

Yet if those parts, constituents, could escape from a subscending w/hole and 
non-mechanically (non-standard mechanically) bring about effects in others by 
inducing changes within their upper ontology's given motility of actual occasion?

# Acts and Dramas

Is intelligence in content or in form? Let's keep it hybrid:

1. forms-from-facts
2. forms-from-mereological-complexes
3. forms-from-content
4. forms-from-content-in-structure
5. froms-form-content-in-structural-link-relation

# Hypermedia in Nouns and Verbs

We already understand the concept of "action" at the protocol level. We want "
action" to live along side the intertextual plane of consistency of the 
hypertext. Before moving on, a user agent may analyze the given document for 
clues as to what to do next. At every link relation is a "stored action" (or 
"potential action") ready to fire. Why should the user agent choose it over 
some other by a sequential order? In the manner of HTML's norms, whatever 
`[rel]` chosen conforms to a pre-established harmony, if you will, that says 
"prefetch" fires before "stylesheet," etc.

# Hypermedia in Nouns and Verbs

However, we want the opportunity to distribute and decentralize the expression 
of relata-specificity and leave "meaning" to whomever runs the repsonse to the 
request (expression): it could be one head, or a massively coordinated soup of 
stars and spokes, everywhere between a completing, concluding, deducing or 
emerging compute.

Or, we might say: let's make meaning programmable! Programmable semantics?! 
Programmable semantic web!!

# Think IFTTT for CRISPR

Link relations can get messy, but let's start simple:

1. "next" (standard)
2. "next-next" (maybe non-standard?)
3. "up and previous"
4. "between/door"

# Think IFTTT for CRISPR

"next" is pretty straight-forward: assuming your API already has business 
logic and sufficient context. Okay, maybe it isn't so straight-forward, but 
most typically, the bare minimum is that in the response, "next" should do 
something reasonable, and in an excellent world: it would do so atomically, 
consistently, in isolation and durably. At a grocery store, "next" could mean 
something different for the item, the customer, the isle, and so on, for every 
thing that can be given in affordance. Elsewhere, at a baseball field, "next" 
could mean the player to bat, or next inning, or "take/move to/etc" the next base.

# Think IFTTT for CRISPR

Those previous examples could all be called "mereological simplexes": they 
arguably require no grammatical (or lexical) analysis, but do require 
syntactic analysis. The presumption of grammar between a character is exactly 
what we do not wish to assume. Its existence must be determined through causal 
discovery. Link relations as such can possess internal relation: a link 
relation can be about the parent document, or it can be about itself, or 
really anything (assuming the identifier within the string to be analyzed in 
the link relation can be treated systematically)

# Think IFTTT for CRISPR

Is your experience of the color blue the same as mine? Well, starting from somewhere, 
some API can give us the answer, assuming we are willing to mediate our experience
through computation's own experience. Recall: the response doesn't have to give us 
anything. It could 500 error out. Or your input might be corrupted in transit, by 
bitflipping, and you might told "no." Or, given your preference settings, however 
derived, the "page" (window) to the actual occasion of our asking will have an 
answer pre-formed for us.

# Understating Hypermedia

<blockquote><p>
Hypermedia: for REST services, hypermedia helps frontends to be more 
<i>independent</i> of service endpoints. (my emphasis)
</p></blockquote>

Oftentimes hypermedia-orientation is mentioned but not emphasized. What is the 
most important, operative term here?

What does <i>independence</i> fundamentally mean?

# Understating Hypermedia

Let's take a detour, Philosophy and Simulation (Manuel DeLanda):

<blockquote><p>Yet despite these differences a convection cell and a chemical 
clock, as these reactions are called, are qualitatively the same. This implies 
that a full explanation of these emergent entities must possess a component 
that is independent of any particular mechanism.</p><div><cite>Philosophy and Simulation<cite></div></blockquote>

# Understating Hypermedia

<blockquote><p>Adding to the explanation of emergence a mechanism-independent 
component will involve introducing entirely new ideas so it will be useful at 
this point to justify the need for the extra complexity. So far the concept of 
emergence has played an ontological role, showing why it is legitimate to 
believe in the existence of objective properties, tendencies, and capacities. 
But once we add the mechanism-independent component the concept of emergence 
leads to two important epistemological consequences: it explains why we can 
use partial models to learn about reality and it provides an account for the 
capacity of those models to mimic the behavior of the processes they model. 
The first consequence derives directly from the notion of asymptotic 
stability. When the emergent properties of a whole are stable they can survive 
changes in the details of the interactions between its parts.</p><div>
<cite>Philosophy and Simulation<cite></div></blockquote>

# Understating Hypermedia

<blockquote><p>Being able to take for granted the existence of emergent 
properties at one scale in order to explain properties at another scale is 
arguably a basic requirement for scientific research. If scientists had to 
build models that captured all scales simultaneously no scientific field would 
ever have succeeded in explaining anything. We would be trapped in a block 
universe in which every aspect is inextricably related to every other aspect 
and our incapacity to separate levels of emergence would leave us cognitively 
powerless.</p>
<p>The second epistemological consequence derives from the very notion of 
mechanism-independence: if processes as different in detail as a convection 
cell and a chemical clock can exhibit the same behavior perhaps mathematical 
equations can also display that behavior.</p>
<div><cite>Philosophy and Simulation</cite></div></blockquote>

# Understating Hypermedia

<blockquote><p>The mechanism-independent component of an explanation, on the 
other hand, demands clarifying the status of tendencies and capacities when 
they are not actually manifested or exercised. We could, of course, 
characterize that status as that of a possibility but that would be too vague: 
an unmanifested tendency and an unexercised capacity are not just possible but 
define a concrete space of possibilities with a definite structure.</p>
<div><cite>Philosophy and Simulation</cite></div></blockquote>

# Understating Hypermedia

So what's this all about? 

What are some other terms synonymous with "independence" (or, what is actually 
"mechanism-independent structure")?

In the context of the computational sciences (what was once called merely 
"Computer Science"): <i>coordination</i>.

# Understating Hypermedia

<blockquote><p>CALM is a positive result in this arena: it circumscribes the 
class of programs for which all three of the CAP properties can indeed be 
achieved simultaneously. [...]</p>
<p style="text-indent: 1rem;">
<span style="text-transform: uppercase;">Observation 1</span>. 
<i>Coordination-freeness is equivalent to availability under partition.</i></p>
<p>In the forward direction, a coordination-free program is by definition 
available under partition: all machines can proceed independently.</p>
<div><cite></cite></div></blockquote>

# Understating Hypermedia

Here we bring together DeLanda's justifications for <i>mechanism-independent 
structure</i> and Alvaro et al.'s concept of <i>consistency as logical 
monotonicity</i>; but not (just) these ideas: we also want to fuck shit 
up with neural networks (specifically, syntactically trained recurrent nets.

<strong>Hold onto your butts?</strong> (Though it should be fairly obvious where this is headed...)

# Understating Hypermedia

We're not going full Language of Thought (LOT):

<blockquote><p>If this scenario is correct we can conclude that the 
possibility space that was searched through evolution, both biological and 
cultural, was isomorphic with but not identical to the space studied by 
automata theory. Automata theory charts the space of possible languages and of 
the computational capacities needed to master them in an entirely 
mechanism-independent way involving no commitment to any particular 
implementation of the automata themselves. This point is often overlooked by 
those who think our brains must embody a genetically coded linear-bounded 
automaton using an explicit context-sensitive "language of thought."
</p><div><cite>Philosophy and Simulation</p></blockquote>

# Understating Hypermedia

...

---
[syllogism]: https://www.w3.org/community/philoweb/2014/01/15/syllogism/
[ns]: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/the-need-for-speed/
[compcause]: https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/312278
[attn]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1207/s15516709cog2301_4
[cog]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226508713_Cognition_without_classical_architecture