rebekah on X: "Some thoughts on the shapes we offer each other and the futures they predict https://t.co/L0Ht3D8cDi" / X<br>Post

Log inSign up

Post

rebekah

@bekhovsgun

Some thoughts on the shapes we offer each other and the futures they predict<br>On Collaboration<br>Prologue<br>In an Uber home this evening I saw a QR code on a billboard and wondered: how much information can you cram into a physical document? A QR code can hold a decently long URL, but what about a webpage? Or a book?<br>That took me down a rabbit hole. Aztec matrices, HCCB, continuous-tone optical encoding, holographic storage, and the essential underlying concept: a 2D noise-like field where every degree of freedom carries information. Intensity, color, phase... if it can vary, it can encode meaning.<br>I'm a girl of the people, so I prefer something anyone can encode and decode with materials they have at home or nearby. Consumer printers and phones, possibly scanners. These documents should be affordable to produce, so only grayscale. And some level of privacy is ideal, so the data shouldn't be legible at a glance. Given those constraints, what's possible?<br>It turns out: quite a lot. Four steps of gray earn us between 150-600kb of storage per page depending on DPI. Our 420kb encoder stores ~140 pages of plaintext English (including a human-readable decoder legend) on a single sheet of paper.<br>As usual, I started looking for exploitable angles and greater density: what does orientation get us? Color casting? Can we squeeze more out of the same noise field than it strictly represents by shifting the (metaphorical) frame through which we view it? Can a message be more than its contents?<br>Savvy readers will know the answer: no. Distinguishable states put a cap on information density, and the only way to buy more is with a new degree of freedom. Giving yourself eight shades of gray instead of four. Or four colors (CMYK) and eight shades each. Or metameric grayscale whose spectral reflectance shifts under CMYK. New interpretations are free, but new information needs capacity: a new dimension to live in.<br>That idea hit my brain and scattered. Can information even be created (and not just re-represented)? If so, how does the universe find free dimensions in which to record it? What role do we play in that process? What about our technology? Our thinking machines?<br>Dialog<br>I've spent most of my creative life operating in two modes.<br>In one I explore independently, alternating between intense bursts of free experimentation and dormant periods of passive absorption. Both contribute to the craft in their own way, burning creative fuel (inspiration, personal experiences) while I push against reality's grounding influence (the limits of my skills, body, and available tools). The product is my individual legacy, and it grows in proportion to my effort.<br>The other mode is collaborative.<br>Healthy collaboration is to creation what a degree of freedom is to information. Given the same period of time, it allows inexpressible things to become expressible (picture a soloist vs a choir). It unlocks fidelity that is physically inaccessible to the individual (see: Schubert’s Fantasie in F minor). It reveals paths that were imperceptible to one or both parties, enabling futures that otherwise could not occur (imagine an improvisation between jazz musicians). The interaction between distinct, dynamic minds becomes the source and the structure.<br>The price is coordination. The ability to externalize your intangible internal state. The will to do so even when it risks misunderstanding or embarrassment. The courage to trust you'll be met by the same awareness and vulnerability you offer. Partnerships that operate this way tend to be both rewarding and successful, with an aura that's recognizable even to outside observers.<br>The subjective experience of this category of collaboration is a kind of perpetual motion machine, feeding back positively: whatever energy you put in returns with something extra no one involved can really account for. That feeding-back compounds the longer a partnership lives, amplifying the reach of your actions more strongly with every turn. When thoughtfully directed, its power can be staggering.<br>Epilogue<br>Of course the reverse is also true. Collaboration has its unstable forms, and they tend to follow familiar failures in coordination. The inability to understand yourself precludes your capacity to be understood. An unwillingness to be seen denies opportunities to be witnessed. Fear of betrayal destroys the potential for trust.<br>In its unstable form, collaboration enforces all the limits of independent creation and layers on the weight of failed coordination. Not only does it become more difficult to achieve things together, it becomes more difficult to achieve anything independently, and more confusing. Misalignment recursively reorienting against misalignment, with no stable reality to ground against. A kind of effortful paralysis ensues.<br>In my experience, these...