Approaching a Crab Problem

I recently found myself thinking about crabs. Not any particular individual crabs, or crabs which exist, or even crabs which have or will exist; I was concerned with crabs which COULD exist. Earth’s biological evolutionary processes have produced crabs at least five times that we know of, through a convergent speciation of completely isolated genetic sources into the shape of a crab, a process referred to as carcinization.

It is overly reductive to frame this as crabs evolving. Evolution in biology is a system-wide phenomenon, a dynamic entangled process in which present states and their properties play out under thermodynamic motives. We get a clearer view of this when we consider directly something like the coevolution of bees and flowers, but in effect all evolution is co-evolution, just as the substrate of reality within which it operates is one of relative form and relationships.

As time flows, Earth’s biological system itself rebalances into new and novel subsystems, and just like the individual organisms, if those subsystems are not suited for continued existence within the environmental forces they inhabit, they cease to be. If a crab can’t eat, it dies. If predator/prey imbalance meets environmental pressures, whole biomes can be destabilized. It appears, if we read our history, that crabs can eat.

One part of the goal of an evolutionary combatant (probably more accurately conceived of as genetic information states rather than a crab or group of crabs) is to attain stable states of homeostatic operation within an ecological system which is itself stable. The systemic stability is not static, and it must contain complicated multi-dimensional counterbalancing forces, but a stable ecosystem allows for the more effective co-evolution of its inhabitants, increasing its stability, so over time it is selected for. This stability allows a ‘jumping-off point’ from which genetic variance can play out without immediately threatening existence, but with enough healthy friction to test the viability of those variants.

The crab shape was not dictated merely by its food source, or mating advantages, or efficiency, or ocean currents, or tidal precessions, or the shape of its crab parents, although it was shaped by all of those things, it is an accretion of form and function. On another level, the crab shape was determined by the existence of a stable state within the map of all possible states, at least the ones likely to persist for any length of time on earth. Carcinization is the flow of physical reality and informational relationships into this attractor state. This is about where I found myself thinking about crabs. I thought foolishly and simply, where does this crab exist? Where do I even look?

I realized the silliness in hunting an extradimensional crab-form, but I remained intrigued and entertained, so I continued. I tried to approach this as I approach most analyses of system-of-systems situations, by focusing on borders and going from there. I feel this tends to save time, it aims focus, and you can find a lot of interesting things where two systems meet. If I were looking for a particular specific physical crab, this task might be a bit more easily conceived and executed, but in this case I have no shorelines to start from and no ocean to observe. I would have to establish wide boundaries.

At the bottom we have hard physical reality (or actually a bit softer quantum reality), at the top we have the universal reference frame, or whatever reference frame we find to be sufficiently regressed. Between these surfaces exists entropy in its surprisingly diverse morphologies, one of which is a crab. This form ‘exists’ in a sense outside of the corporeal; if every earthly crab were to vanish, this disembodied attractor would exist, in a sense.

When we zoom in far enough on fundamental particles they get fuzzy, and in the ensuing attempts to map that fuzziness, words like ‘exist’ get fuzzy as well. I imagine that there is an argument to be made that just as the modern crab is an isomorphic abstracted reflection of the underlying crab-attractor phase state, that the very fundamental constituents of our physical reality boundary layer are themselves reflections of stable attractor states, albeit ones which happen to be undergoing the formality of actually occurring. This is related to a lot of my ideas about reality, but I fear I may get bogged down if I start trying to derive the ether’s ‘suchness’. There are other matters at hand.

It is interesting to conceptualize the flow of reality as not just being propelled forward, and instead also being pulled from the future into the gravity wells of higher-dimensional abstractions of complex processes. This type of thinking, rather than giving us information about a crab, gives us insight into the ‘why’ of ‘crabiness’, which seems more useful and generally applicable. There are other sources to be studied, not that I am done with crabs. The eye has evolved independently at least 40 times, flight has evolved independently countless times, four times in vertebrate history alone.

To understand a crab, we should look at that crab, of course. But a deeper analysis of these systemic tendencies can give us new avenues of thought from which to approach the crab. More importantly, this analysis can give us new ways of approaching all systems in general, an area broad and nebulous and important enough that I will take whatever tools and mapping strategies I can get my hands on.

I feel a bit like I am dumping all over Newton’s hard work by implying that reality is fuzzy. Organized inquiry and heuristic development is extremely useful, if carried out rigorously and integrated responsibly. I am not looking for quantum fields or theoretical attractors to sink the 8 ball, calculus has very real applications.

Varying layers of description and complexity are useful when applied correctly, and fail when they are correct answers to the wrong question. I find that zooming in and zooming out are best practiced concurrently. Immersive systemic analysis demands that we keep eyes on the crab and the attractor at the same time.

One could even at a stretch try to apply attractor framework to calculus itself, having been developed by Newton and Leibniz virtually simultaneously and completely independently. It could be seen as a stable, consistent method of thought and inquiry just waiting for the prerequisite notation to express it formally. That is a bit loose. But if that meets your threshold, the arch as a construction tool has been developed in at least six separate ancient civilizations. The concept of an airfoil wing cross-section exploiting flow dynamics in order to generate lift was discovered by birds, bats, insects, pterosaurs, and then independently derived directly from the accumulated laws of physics by human engineers. Financial markets themselves appeared independently in ancient Mesopotamia, medieval Europe, Ming dynasty China, I am sure anywhere where the functional prerequisites were realized. Many carried similar structures, debt instruments, insurance, futures contracts; a substantial proportion of our earliest intact written artifacts are complaints about substandard copper and debt ledgers. That is not only hilarious in a Douglas Adams sort of way, but it seems to imply that there are constellations of idea systems and ordering principles entwined with the origins of written history. What new media await us, media which we can not conceive of, perhaps because the need which it fulfills is not a need yet?

This all makes me wonder which information that the crab is giving us right now could be marveled at by future engineers on a scale comparable to our lunar landing, or at least Archimedes’ bath. Maybe it is that awkward ‘one big claw’ setup, or the way that they scuttle about in paths orthogonal to their weird and vulnerable-seeming stalk eyes.

For all their seeming awkwardness, my natural instinct is to find crabs cute. I can’t imagine that plays into the stability of their existence. But I am beginning to think that there is a human element at play in my analysis of attractor states; some strange part of my mind with its own set of preferences finds the crab attractor cute. The way that ocean currents shaped our literal crab, the way that causal inference in a field of potential realities trimmed away that which was not-crab, these processes reveal a beauty like that of a sunflower or a fighter jet. It is also a fascinating framework, and I think it should be held up and scanned for isomorphisms in other systems.

When sound logical conclusions and the abstract human element converge, I find it pays dividends to dig in and pay attention. At worst, it allows me to refine my understanding of my biases and how I detect them. Sometimes, if I am lucky, some unfiltered sub-section of my mind that I don’t understand will find its call to action. Perhaps a part that finds phase-space adorable, or ponders the subconscious reverence of density of information, or simply won’t let something go out of a general need for comprehension despite complete irrelevance. If I am particularly lucky, these acausal notions will walk with me for a bit down my path of reasoning, and if not inform me, at least motivate me. Again, when I am navigating strange loops and unknowable landscapes, I will take whatever help I can get. When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

If I could internalize these processes, carry a model of these subtle ephemeral frameworks of shifting force which I don’t even necessarily share existence with, what could it teach me about emergent phenomena? About consciousness, limits, recursion, value of operational bottlenecks, primal universal structure? About crabs? I was getting ahead of myself, but with insights like that, my reasoning may even eventually border on applicable.

I felt a bit lost at this point to be honest. I felt motivated, and intellectually engaged, but I was spread between the border of the observable universe and quark-spin. I don’t think that a man can live on ghost-crab alone, I have a taste for actionable illumination. Mapping the probability of potential future needs is a bit abstract, maybe if we walk the path again, more mindfully, we will find something of note, something which could serve a need which currently exists. I pondered what the world needs, and I got a bit of conceptual and spiritual vertigo. The question seemed boundless and tiny all at the same time, and so did I. So as I tend to do when I feel scattered, I start over, and I rebuild existence from the ground up.

The difference between precise long-range accuracy and a fizzle is mostly a barrel, so how do we frame this refresh? If base physical substrate is our starting point, even if we aim to wander, what is it that we are setting out to do? When I am really stuck, or just feeling spicy, I go meta with it. We are within an exploration of isomorphic congruence of problems and solutions within the flow of the thermodynamic geodesic, a collision of seeming disparate ideas, an analysis of the interconnectedness of physical form and higher-order abstract function, an exploration in which we find ourselves enthralled with and simultaneously logically seeking density of information in our ordering process, why not allow the problem to fit the case? We may never even get near it, but our assumed goal could be an increase in the density of information.

What is ‘stuff’? Hell, what is ‘is? We start again, face to face with prima materia, and still the strange loops and attractor states persist. The ‘particles’ we were taught about don’t really ‘exist’, but it is simpler and honestly better for everyone that we ignore this in day to day life. Even if it could be explained satisfactorily, it spawns questions like ‘what does exist mean?’ and most people don’t need to get into all that. It is very difficult to question conceptual pillars which are structural in methods of inquiry, and there are only so many hours in the day.

But since we are here, we can suppose the possibility that quantum field theory is possibly a partial description of the medium in which our meta-crab lives. In the same way, the particles we see as ‘existing’ may be in fact interacting phase states, drawn into particular stable configurations of being within particular stable systems of systems. When we have field interactions of this nature, existence could be seen as a state of additive harmony. In this case, the reductive force is interference. This would be the negative space which is NOT a subatomic particle, or NOT a crab.

These states exist because the field interactions are constructive; I imagine that we could presume infinite potential universes in which the structure of the quantum field does not allow coherence of this kind, but those universes would not exist, so that feels like a bit of a cul-de-sac. I fear that we are headed into a dual-slit experiment tangent if we don’t get some rubber on the road.

The forces pulling reality towards attractors are removing interference patterns within the geodesic flow of entropy. How exactly is that going to help anything?

Where could the decreased interference of information and energy flow reduce problems? Probably a pretty broad target. Where could thermodynamic efficiency have the highest-order functional effect on the world? A bit more focused. We can view information density as a proxy for the development of systems which have seemed to produce the greatest human value, the formalization and cumulative propagation of knowledge, the establishment of stability and rationality from which markets sprang, and in an abstract and personal sense feeding that part of our minds drawn to dense informational structures without truly conceptualizing them (from fractal imagery to the golden ratio). We can also look for ways that the practical application of informational density can be leveraged to reduce friction and interference patterns in our systemic ordering principles. We could question this framing, it certainly could bear some questioning, but for now let’s run with the theme and let our thoughts follow the path of least resistance.

As with my own biases and goals, I assume that the highest return on input efficiency will be in reducing friction in the realm of ordering schema and informational analysis, that which allows further expansion of efficiency. Especially powerful would be reducing the friction in the recursive self-analysis and self-modification abilities of such a system. Teach a man to fish, and whatnot. I find AI is a good embodiment of this idea.

AI as a concept is a hydra of implications with no precedent, there is nothing truly congruous from which to extrapolate. Just crudely mapping its potential effects on the system-of-systems which defines our reality would be an enormous undertaking. This is especially true given my recent focus on higher-order functionality favored by the flow of entropy. I should probably turn to AI for this, but my goal in this exploration is not results-oriented, my goal is process, maybe even just for process’ own sake.

So we find ourselves adrift in base objective reality, gaze fixed on the highest-order implications of AI without any particular definition of what they may be, maybe merely just to catalogue what exactly obstructs our view. If I were to develop a plan of attack, I would be doing so from a place of ignorance, and to be honest I just don’t feel like I have time for that right now. Are we to assume that AI will usher in a post-traveling-salesman logistical utopia? Could it be used to democratize medical knowledge, and agriculture? For now we stare at the heavens, not focusing on any particular cloud. How do we ascend? What do these base particles and primary forces have to do with such an operationally leverageable abstraction, an abstraction which has the possibility of affecting the layers of systems under it in massive and unpredictable ways, but also requires those systems in order for it to be brought into being? I hesitate here, because this doesn’t feel like rubber on the road, this feels like stargazing.

So we do the only reasonable thing, we look down. The superstructure of abstract ordering mechanisms casts a shadow through all of the systems which may birth it, may value it, may be saved by it, may be destroyed by it. This abstraction lives in the ether, we may say. This abstraction lives in the system of our spectacular achievements in collecting and organizing minerals into machinations of increasing complexity, we may say. This abstraction lives in the collective psychological phase space of the global market which paved the road with needs which brought about precursor requirements for manifestation, we may say. This abstraction lives in a symbiotic space containing human thought and server architecture, we may say. Luckily, none of these are discernibly visible in the shadow at our feet, so we may take a breather. We continue to look down.

Ultimately, or ultimately enough I should say, what underlies this structure is the flow of information and energy. It feels as if we have abstracted ourselves out of laziness into an interesting place. Rather than try to wrap our heads around AI and its potential functions in some n-dimensional political-economic space, we choose the transmission and analytical use of information. It feels so broad as to be unwieldy, and I may come off like Mr Palomar, but I would rather deal with this than calibrate my thinking to the complexities and inherent discomfort of the human element. Higher density of information and a more refined capacity to process that information has the potential capacity for net benefit. Toothless enough to not even be worth arguing against.

So, in a sense, we have our crab. This density and flow of information, in what ocean does it swim? What currents or mating rituals refine its form? Are we getting too abstract again?

For most of history, our crab’s medium of comportment has been the propagation of current through some of the copper our society has been diligently collecting and refining since the days of our Mesopotamian complaint tablet. It feels worth noting here that it is pretty convenient that we got started on that early. I imagine that the asymmetrical knowledge of early societies allowed the seeming magic of formed metals to transition seamlessly into the idea of a crown and perceived legitimacy. I am wandering again.

In a sense similar to the framework of attractor state interference carving, this copper provides a place in which density of coherent power and information may accumulate, rather than be bounced around and diffused into open space. Another shining example of form and function, that which the substance innately is allows it to be selected for truly transmutational work. This copper medium has expressed itself through the totality of modern society, both physically and intellectually. But that is the world we woke up in, so what?

Again, we let our method of reasoning and object of that reasoning reflect one another. In our analytical method, our goal is not sharp, but perpetually and recursively sharper. In the realm of density of information, and the physical capacity for existence to provide an ecosystem for the expansion of that density, what forms are casting shadows?

In systems analysis, we can facilitate analysis by tracing operational bottlenecks, giving us a bit of the ‘why’ of flow and gradients. If we integrate that understanding into a mapping of the interaction of system surfaces, we can get a basic idea of where to look next. Sometimes, if we are lucky, we just hit the most cogent limiting factor early. We may have found a functional limit already in copper.

The density of information we are seeking, as with the structure of reality and the usefulness of copper up until now, is about controlled states of constructive non-interference space. Compared to open air, or other affordable metals, copper is relatively non-resistant. But just as we should shoot pool with Leibniz and defer to quantum field theory in matters befitting, the tool which was once adequate is becoming incongruent with the aspirations of our crab.

As semiconductor architecture increases in complexity, and becomes more intrinsically tied to the economy, the pressure on our medium is reaching an inflection point. The data centers of the near future will not be constructed of just ‘more copper’, just like we can’t just pile up enough diesel fuel to get to the moon. Beyond the 1.6T threshold, which we are currently standing in, the interference of copper is simply inadequate due to degradation of signals. This is a collision between our primary target of information density and hard (hard enough anyway) physical reality.

There exists a physical wall, at which improperly purposed copper simply melts, but we don’t need to hit that wall for this to be a functional boundary. At some point the thermodynamic cost of moving information exceeds the marginal value of the information itself. As the frequency of electrical signal increases, the electrons (lets just let them be electrons for now) migrate to the outer skin of copper conductors, vastly reducing usable cross-section and therefore throughput. This also creates thermal issues, which introduce cooling issues, which constrains architecture and yield per unit of electrical input.

“Top-of-Rack” switch architecture that data centers have relied on for decades will fail due to insertion loss, in which the dielectric insulation surrounding the copper absorbs increasing amounts of power and inconveniently converts it to heat. At the same time, the high-frequency signals of 1.6T begin to ‘leak’ off the wire and cause interference with adjacent wires, even more thermodynamically unsound. We may consider that this can be solved in the short term with some sort of signal processing to clean up transmissions, but those systems have their own cost and introduce latency, also we are scaling to a point where the power consumed just moving data between GPUs and switches is starting to rival the power used to process the data. This indicates undue power tax on the scaling of Nvidia’s Blackwell and Rubin architectures, and I can’t imagine the bleeding edge of information processing will be built out of hot, leaky antennas.

How will our crab eat? Our crab will eat light.

We are approaching a phase transition in the medium in which information propagates. Seeing that information is an inherited meta-property of everything which exists, we should pay particular attention. We may be entering a situation in which previous modes of understanding are inadequate, a transmutation of what we know and how we know it. Since we are unable to hold a seance with Marshall McLuhan and Nikola Tesla, we are going to have to figure this out for ourselves.

Photonics solves the friction of interference, the thermal issues, the leaking of electro-magnetic interference into adjacent channels. Waveguide geometry will provide near lossless, untaxed transmission. Our crab’s medium is no longer fighting its own structure, allowing it to serve as a stable state. The transition to light reduces the strain on existing copper markets, already positioning to update the power infrastructure needed to supply power to data centers.

This seems too obvious to be big, too big to be obvious. So we scan our ocean for signs congruent with the molting of our crab.

On March 14, 2026, an announcement came of the formation of a consortium referred to as the Optical Compute Interconnect Multi-Source Agreement. The members are NVIDIA, AMD, Broadcom, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI. Not a clunker in the bunch, relatively speaking. These are companies dwarfing any previous concept of capex in the pursuit of AI advancement. They compete on a level I can’t even conceive of in almost every possible overlapping domain. Through different architectures they independently converged on photonics, and they felt the need to let the world know that they all agree on this. The subtitle of their statement was ‘The Physics and Power Mandate’, which seems to line right up with the thermodynamic audit we are attempting, and the emergence of stable solutions which we have been exploring. It is a good reminder that reality and emergent phenomena do not announce themselves, they are not aware of their own becoming. What we have access to is not reality, it is our method of inquiry, and at times we may feel as if the map and landscape were fusing.

We should feel relieved, a sense of resolution even. But in the dynamic state of chaos and opportunity implied by this approaching phase transition, I feel we are just getting started. Upon examination, our new answers are constructs of new questions. The structures underpinning our systemic operators are subtly revealed.

It seems that we have found ourselves in a time to hunt for crabs.