Setting: The study is quieter now; the sun has moved, casting long shadows. The three sit together, notes scattered, a faint air of satisfaction lingering.
Miss Stray: (pensively) Well, I must say, seeing inertia and gravity through the same relational lens is… oddly comforting. No hidden states, no secret forces, just architecture.
Professor Quillibrace: (dryly) Comforting, perhaps, but only if one enjoys clarity without the usual props. The reward is subtle: insight without illusion.
Mr Blottisham: (grumbling) I suppose it is less embarrassing than imagining a mysterious force behind every wobble. Still, I miss the drama.
Miss Stray: (smiling) You’ll find, Blottisham, that the drama is all in your mind. In the architecture, it’s simply persistence and gradient, cost and re-cutting.
Professor Quillibrace: Indeed. The ontology has shown, carefully and without fanfare, that what classical physics calls inertia or gravity are two faces of the same constraint logic. Flat availability produces persistence; gradiented availability produces what we perceive as attraction. Nothing more is required.
Mr Blottisham: (sighing, finally amused) So, the universe economises, and we call it motion and gravity. Well, I’ll drink to that.
Miss Stray: (laughing softly) And perhaps we can all learn a little thrift from it, in thought if not in action.
Professor Quillibrace: (with a faint smile) Precisely. And the lesson is clear: observe the architecture, follow the constraints, resist the urge to smuggle in hidden defaults, and one can understand without inventing.
Mr Blottisham: (raising an imaginary glass) To cheap persistence and gradiented availability, then.
Miss Stray: (mirroring) To relational architecture, quietly triumphant.
Professor Quillibrace: (dryly) And to the subtle delight of understanding, finally unburdened by unnecessary forces or natural states.
No comments:
Post a Comment