It's very satisfying looking over a big graph overview and being reminded of all the connections you've made. It's motivating and encouraging. I don't think I would have "clicked" with @RoamResearch in the early days without some help visualizing what links and pages are *doing.*
When people share their expansive, color-coded graph overviews, they're showing off the work they've done. The sense of progression and accomplishment is what makes those feel meaningful.
But when someone shows you a galaxy-looking graph overview with 15,000+ nodes, your reaction is NOT "Ah, yes, I see what you mean."
Graph overviews do not, by themselves, *teach* you anything. Most of the actual information in the graph is lost by representing it all spacially. And whatever small amount of information it does retain is not readily digestible to someone unfamiliar with the underlying entities.
The actual knowledge work happens in textual form. The written word is primary.
A graph overview spacially *reflects* the *true* format that stores knowledge. It does not itself give a true (a.k.a. "full" + "faithful") representation of knowledge qua knowledge.
Generating a graph over a note network must, by definition, throw away +90% of the actual information in the notes. Spacial representations are inherently limited in what they can productively convey.
Important clarification that I'm realizing from reading replies: In this tweet I intended "representation of Knowledge" in a specific sense—namely, representation of *complex, interconnected knowledge networks.*
Most of the time when I want to make two pages into aliases/synonyms, what am I *actually* trying to do?
I'm trying to say, "These two page titles *are* different (different enough not to rename to be identical), but for some purpose I'm TREATING THEM as the same."
In what context does it MATTER that two pages are associated that way?
I want to argue, it's NOT when I'm WRITING notes. That's not when aliasing matters.
Aliasing matters when I'm trying to resurface connections BETWEEN notes.
@roamhacker@codexeditor IMVHO (that's My Very Humble opinion—I have no credentials in CS or professional experience coding, just amateur self-education) it's very important to distinguish "data structure" from "data model."
Often people SAY the former and seem to MEAN the latter.
@roamhacker@codexeditor I HIGHLY recommend this video about RISC-V from this one YouTuber with a Swiss Accent:
It's colossally insightful, both about chip architecture specifically and structured thinking/processing more broadly.
Below is a highlight from that video:
@roamhacker@codexeditor Andreas makes some observations about the bare concept of a "technology stack."
Tech stacks are valuable because they allow us to decouple implementation from higher-level function.
E.g.: If you use a PC, whether your processor is Intel or AMD shouldn't change your experience.
@syncretizm@codexeditor I find indentation very, very important. In fact, I would say indentation is the primary reason to consider @RoamResearch a "Tool for Thought" rather than a basic memo taking machine.
I think indentation is at least AS important as backlinks.
A 🧵👇
@syncretizm@codexeditor@RoamResearch Here's the big idea: Indentation neatly models three of the most important features of how human thought works. These are:
I am a Christian. I believe that God is real. I believe that the Christian scriptures (aka, "the Bible") contain God's actual writings. I believe God wants humans to know about and believe the message that is in his book.
The Bible teaches that all humans are born with a terminal disease. All except three, that is—but two of those three were Patients 0 and 1, respectively. Their names were Adam and Eve.
The disease is not genetic. But it is hereditary, and there is no natural cure.
This illness has a 100% mortality rate, and YOU have it, because your parents had it. The presenting symptom: *not wanting to get better.*
The true killer feature of @RoamResearch that I wouldn't be able to leave behind is the Daily Notes page. Roam made me realize that the one truly universal index for all my thoughts is Time.
Having everything indexed by time means that my thoughts are, at minimum, never LESS organized in my db than they are in my brain (but maybe more so). If there is a useful or insightful additional dimension to index along, I can add that WITHOUT destroying the time index.
"Non-hierarchical" is not as accurate as "Multi-hierarchical" for describing most of the concept spaces I work in.