3 ms·

> So, a folder could be expressed in terms of a page full of links. Erm...that's exactly what a folder aka. directory in a filesystem already is: https://en.w

> So, a folder could be expressed in terms of a page full of links. Erm...that's exactly what a folder aka. directory in a filesystem already is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_(computing) In computing, a directory is a file system cataloging structure which contains references to other computer files, and possibly other directories. Directories don't contain files or subdirectories, they just reference or "link to" them.

monkeynotes 4y ago
I was thinking along similar lines. I kept thinking this isn't about links, it's about relationships and links in this article is being used as a synonym for relationships. There is no revelation in seeing that everything in the entirety of existence, physically or conceptually is built out of related stuff. Nothing exists outside of everything else, except a parallel universe maybe, everything is derived from something.
- lupire 4y ago
  > There is no revelation in seeing that everything [...] is built out of related stuff. This is a major revelation, as it's not people's naive intuition. It's the basis of modern physics and category theory, the foundations of mathematic theories of the real and abstract worlds.
  - monkeynotes 4y ago
    Well I've always looked at the world as being interconnected, like ideas are never come from the ether, they are always inspired (linked) by something. Either way, why use "links" as the analogy, why not just call them relationships? That's what they are. We know what relationships are just as well as we know what links are so no need to pick a familiar concept and extrapolate.
- joshspankit 4y ago
  You may personally feel that way, but I would argue (and now understand that I should have this whole time) that many people do not think this way. For possibly the majority of the planet, relationships between things do not jump out like an interconnected web and therefore that’s not their “fundamental truth of how the world is made up”. If that’s surprising to anyone else who reads this: welcome to the club.
  - monkeynotes 4y ago
    The general understanding of distinct things is not a fundamental truth, it's a language tool to describe what we experience. Things themselves do not exist outside of conceptual thinking. Unless we can get down to the true atomic source of everything, then maybe you've found the distinct "thing", but you cannot experience that, only describe it. For example, my "body" is made up of the ultimate fundamental atomic unit just like everything around it. There is no line of delineation, it's just a sea of atomic units. My body only exists as a distinct "thing" because that's how we interpret this sea of units with our limited senses. I see it a little like pixels on a display. The array of pixels all display light, they are all the same, but as we zoom out we begin to interpret the many pixels forming distinct objects on the screen. This does not change the fundamental reality that the pixels are not that thing, and that thing does not exist outside of our interpretation. And all of this is assuming reality is fundamentally atomic, which has yet to be proven.
    - joshspankit 4y ago
      I agree with you after a clarification (I used “thing“ to mean any object, component, concept, meaning, perspective, etc. Seeing your example through that lens: a pixel is a thing, light is a thing, the objects and the images representing them are separate things, your perception is a thing, your awareness of your perception is a thing, and so-on): In fact, it’s my opinion that it’s possible there is no Absolute Truth at all (if there’s any I suspect it might be math, but that’s way above my pay grade as it were) and that everything is simultaneously one, nebulous, and subjective. However, for convenience we need to have these discussions about interconnectedness somewhere closer to the “We are humans interacting with a solid world” paradigm.

monkeynotes 4y ago

I was thinking along similar lines. I kept thinking this isn't about links, it's about relationships and links in this article is being used as a synonym for relationships. There is no revelation in seeing that everything in the entirety of existence, physically or conceptually is built out of related stuff. Nothing exists outside of everything else, except a parallel universe maybe, everything is derived from something.

lupire 4y ago
> There is no revelation in seeing that everything [...] is built out of related stuff. This is a major revelation, as it's not people's naive intuition. It's the basis of modern physics and category theory, the foundations of mathematic theories of the real and abstract worlds.
- monkeynotes 4y ago
  Well I've always looked at the world as being interconnected, like ideas are never come from the ether, they are always inspired (linked) by something. Either way, why use "links" as the analogy, why not just call them relationships? That's what they are. We know what relationships are just as well as we know what links are so no need to pick a familiar concept and extrapolate.
joshspankit 4y ago
You may personally feel that way, but I would argue (and now understand that I should have this whole time) that many people do not think this way. For possibly the majority of the planet, relationships between things do not jump out like an interconnected web and therefore that’s not their “fundamental truth of how the world is made up”. If that’s surprising to anyone else who reads this: welcome to the club.
- monkeynotes 4y ago
  The general understanding of distinct things is not a fundamental truth, it's a language tool to describe what we experience. Things themselves do not exist outside of conceptual thinking. Unless we can get down to the true atomic source of everything, then maybe you've found the distinct "thing", but you cannot experience that, only describe it. For example, my "body" is made up of the ultimate fundamental atomic unit just like everything around it. There is no line of delineation, it's just a sea of atomic units. My body only exists as a distinct "thing" because that's how we interpret this sea of units with our limited senses. I see it a little like pixels on a display. The array of pixels all display light, they are all the same, but as we zoom out we begin to interpret the many pixels forming distinct objects on the screen. This does not change the fundamental reality that the pixels are not that thing, and that thing does not exist outside of our interpretation. And all of this is assuming reality is fundamentally atomic, which has yet to be proven.
  - joshspankit 4y ago
    I agree with you after a clarification (I used “thing“ to mean any object, component, concept, meaning, perspective, etc. Seeing your example through that lens: a pixel is a thing, light is a thing, the objects and the images representing them are separate things, your perception is a thing, your awareness of your perception is a thing, and so-on): In fact, it’s my opinion that it’s possible there is no Absolute Truth at all (if there’s any I suspect it might be math, but that’s way above my pay grade as it were) and that everything is simultaneously one, nebulous, and subjective. However, for convenience we need to have these discussions about interconnectedness somewhere closer to the “We are humans interacting with a solid world” paradigm.