i need to clarify a point that opens up the interpretation of entropy into
a realm of information involving people and technology and nature, because
in the modeling i am referencing all information must ground to truth in
order to be verified or validated as true, and that nature and technology
and people who exist 'in truth' are in this way grounded within it, whereas
those who are short-circuiting are partly or partially grounded, as this
relates to patterns, exchange, and exploits.
the realm of concepts, communication, and ideas also are involved as if a
mental-dimension for the physicality of information, and to not include
this in a security model seems falsely limiting if not allowing or relying
upon a state of distortion, to begin with.
thus the overall goal here is to account for truth as a basis for entropy
in a security context or empirical evaluation...
[machine N] patterns <===> patterns [machine 2]
previously the above relation was established between two machines that
interact and 'exchange' information, in some dimension, knowingly or
unknowingly (as if consciously and subconsciously even).
(machine N) ===> (machine 2 (machine N))
and if one of these machines *investigates or interrogates* the other, and
somehow gains access, it could be thought that in the successful matching
of patterns that what it has achieved _validates its model of relation, by
default, even if only in a partially grounded framework. thus to
distinguish the _belief of how this structural relation is occurring, with
its actuality, the actual condition of this relation in terms of its truth.
in other words the relation between 'machine 2' and 'machine N' that is
achieved as a relation, via the matching of patterns, could be believed to
validate the truth of the worldview of machine N, though the pattern match
could instead be pT=pT, due to inaccurate modeling or framework. and thus a
false perspective could be the relation, yet validate a perception of
things, as if accurate, while not grounded in the larger reality.
likewise, what can occur is a two-way relation whereby this inaccuracy is
accounted for by the entity interacted with, perceived 'known' via such
faulty pattern matching, and thus provide or leak information from itself
that is in a context of truth, though the tells as if subconscious or
unconscious, resulting from a TSCM-like scanning of relational frameworks,
that is if 'machine 2' is functioning within grounded truth.
(machine N (machine 2)) <=== ((machine N) machine 2')
in this way the real exploit is not occurring through granting or gaining
access to validate further _inaccurate pattern matching by 'machine N', it
is that this entity is leaking unknown information as part of this
balancing process, about its hidden state that is insecure due to its not
being based in truth, and thus distortion, bias, warping, and skew reveal
frameworks and structuring, allowing perspectives to be traced back to
originating beliefs and equations within the pseudo-, where a running
cosmological constant occurs to make everything onesidedly correct. and in
this way, the relation on the left side is in a context of truth, via the
errors betraying 'machine N' via its reliance on pseudo-truth and falsity,
and the condition on the right side is a false perspective of a relation
that establishes and verifies inaccurate pattern matches, false positives,
due to a protected limited onesided evaluation *confirming* true belief
which is itself not grounded beyond its partialty.
(machine N (machine 2)) <===> ((machine N) machine 2')
[truth <-----> truth] [pT <-----> pT]
in this way, the advantage is with 'machine 2' (that may actually have more
patterns or n-dimensionality) yet this imbalance may not be revealed or
accounted for, and thus the balancing could appear onesided, as if from
oneside data is being extracted while the other remains protected and
static behind a given boundary, versus betraying its secrets
unintentionally, via this structural, informatic relation (matter/energy)
in other words (more complexity..) there could be more going on than
believed, in this basic relation, and /appearances/ may not accurately
match the reality, and yet this can also be accounted for, in truth, or
become a threshold condition enabling camouflage... in this way the roles
may be reversed yet not accounted for by the naive, ungrounded, mistaken,
or inaccurate 'true believer' observers...
such that machine 2 could actually in its truth be 'N' and likewise,
'machine N' in its unchecked falsity could be binary...
(machine 2 (machine N)) <===> ((machine 2) machine N')
[truth <-----> truth] [pT <-----> pT]
in this way, the 'real machine N' could be granted access to unrestricted
pattern matching in a subconscious or unaccounted for realm of the '
'real machine 2', though this condition could begin by the 'real machine 2'
trying to continuously exploit 'the realm Machine N' and in this way, the
false perspective of the latter (N->2'), allowing the *belief* that the
binary view is actually N-potential in its accuracy and scope even while
this is ungrounded beyond its own skewed, relativist accounting. thus
patterns are verified in pseudo-truth, and in allowing this relation, also
enables the inaccuracies to leak about its actual state to align with the
greater patterning of the 'real machine N', via automatic grounding or
snap-to-fit correlations that occur in their accuracy, vetted and
error-corrected, though in parameters unshared by the differing worldviews
keeping it abstract, this is the same scenario for 'smartness' versus
intelligence...
(smartness N (intel 2)) <===> ((smartness N) intel 2')
[truth <-----> truth] [pT <-----> pT]
when instead the situation in terms of equilibrium, entropy, and exploit
tends toward...
(smartness 2 (intel N)) <===> ((smartness 2) intel N')
[truth <-----> truth] [pT <-----> pT]
and as mentioned many times before, any given concept has its validity
established within truth, whether the concept of [entropy] or [information]
or smartness, intelligence, or whatever. and so just taking it at face
(sign) value, does not make that interpretation true simply because it is
*believed* to be true. and yet that rigor can be missing in the evaluation
process, often a kind of self-corruption accompanying the ungrounded
observation and especially true believers who operate within a protected
boundary, 'managing' outside influences, and yet in this very interaction,
per entropy, they reveal their own state beyond their own accounting for it
and control over it, via energy and other relations.
[pseudo-truth 2] patterns <===> patterns [truth N]
getting to the essence of the structural situation, of relativism versus
the empirical accounting for truth, shared and unshared, grounded and
ungrounded, and involving both accurate and inaccurate pattern matching and
if it is corrected or relied upon in its error, the above model in an
context of entropic two-way exchange... (a balancing of the forces if you
will...)
though through a false perspective, this basic relation could be reversed
via tromp-l'oiel effects, such that a masked condition exists and the
structural relation is asymmetrical and of masquerade...
[pseudo-truth N] patterns <===> patterns [truth 2']
whereby:
(pseudo-truth N) ===> ((pseudo-truth N) truth 2')
though in this structural imbalance, via the ungrounded condition, it is an
unintentional two-way interaction that through this opening allows
unintended access to the protected perimeter via this basic exchange...
(pseudo-truth N (truth 2)) <=== ((pT N) truth 2')
...in other words, the *appearance* may exist one of a one-way hierarchical
exchange where information is being extracted from oneside via an attack or
interrogation or biased relation... where pseudo-truth "knows" the state of
'machine 2' from its island viewpoint of relativistic truth...
(pseudo-truth N) ===> ((pT N) truth 2')
[truth <-----> truth]
...and yet this viewpoint or belief can be _ungrounded, the perception of
truth illusory, inaccurate, even while achieving a pattern match verifying
and validating its inaccurate, corrupted model of truth. in addition, via
transference, the reverse occurs, whereby the observer is theirself
effected by the observation and thus 'observed' in the entropic exchange,
via structural information that aligns with or is at odds with the given
modeling and its parameters of existence, that leak data that compares or
contrasts with unknowns and vetted truth and thus can establish and
correlate with this truth even while restricted or protected externally,
believed inaccessible (even invisible people in other dimensionality betray
themselves this way, via allegiance with or hostility to higher truth)
(pseudo-truth N) ===> ((pT N) truth 2')
"true!" [pT <-----> pT]
so what is proposed to occur is that in this biased situation, ungrounded
belief can be confirmed and match a pattern (A=A -> B=B) whereby it can
verify or validate limitless notions (pseudo-N equivalent) yet that is not
accurate or actually true, yet uncorrected and due to protected boundary,
allowed to be 'real' within given constraints- for lack of feedback that
would challenge the belief system, else to censor or have deception going
on that promotes this relation as a false perspective, the setup necessary
for the subsequent takedown.
(pseudo-truth N (truth 2)) <===> ((pT N) truth 2')
[truth <-----> truth]
the idea then was that this goes both ways, and the appearance of 'machine
2' within the domain of 'machine 1' may go unrecognized in its hidden and
unaccounted for dimensionality that is active within a realm of entropy and
information exchange as it ties into energy and matter in terms of
patterning and perhaps provides a basis for imagining its intuitive or felt
quality, as knowing is accurately grounded and becomes compass and
navigational aid, versus ungrounded knowing that leads to being lost and
having inaccurate maps and wrong directions and sensibility, at odds with
actual nature...
(pseudo-truth N (truth 2)) <===> ((pT N) truth 2')
the point of seeking to account for this condition of masquerade in terms
of its shared and unshared patterning and in terms of its groundedness in
relation to empirical truth, is that the situation could *appear* from a
given perspective, and within restricted parameters, to validate a given
viewpoint while actually existing or operating beyond it, in other
parameters and boundaries that remain a protected threshold, that cannot be
observed or that goes unrecognized more finite observers, thereby the limit
of sensibility, or computability, of patterning, as it relates to what is
and what cannot be matched, via its identification, recognition in real
terms versus terms of belief that can be in error, inaccurate, unreal, or
self-serving to a given bias, predetermined viewpoint, or values that
restrict, seek to control, and-or rationalize existence in a too-small
framework (in this way, the belief in 'N-awareness' can actually be that of
a restricted binary finiteness, where expansion of view and its
limitlessness could result from warping, skew, distortion serving falsity
than in truth that is expansive... in this way, the boundary folds upon
itself, encompasses itself as ideology, creating a false dome and
constellations, given enough time)
(pseudo-truth N (truth 2)) <===> ((pT N) truth 2')
[truth <---> truth] [pT <---> pT]
the unintended consequence would be that 'machine 1' betrays and grants
access to its inner state via this exchange and interaction, yet
unknowingly. and thereby its unaccounted for truth is accessible to another
who exists and observes truth, while it may be denied within operational
beliefs, (left) thus the leaking of information that balances the
interaction, the seeming benefit of onesidedness (right) actually has a
hidden cost, a revealing involves via equilibrium and entropy, balancing
the exchange. yet the evaluation of data, its parsing and verification, may
also not be accurate across this span, and thus 'pseudo-intelligence' could
glean factoids that validate ideological beliefs, via relations in
masquerade between pT and T, as pT assumes the role of TRUTH and truth
related to and perceived as if the 'known' mimic, when in actuality the
situation is reversed.
(pseudo-truth 2 (truth N)) <===> ((pT 2) truth N)
[truth <---> truth] [pT <---> pT]
this modeling remains abstract, a story about these dynamics, like a cave
diagram seeking to convey the communicative or other aspects of information
exchange as symmetry and asymmetry are involved, and how this relates to
pattern matching, and resources based in comprehensive pattern evaluations
and how this differs between grounded and ungrounded observations and
relations by default.
(pseudo-truth 2 (truth N)) <===> ((pT 2) truth N)
[pT <---> T] [pT <---> T]
...these are the more accurate dynamics, though even moreso:
(pseudo-truth 2 (truth N)) <===> ((pT 2) truth N)
[pT.2 <---> t.N) [pT.2 <---> t.N)
though the appearance may indicate otherwise, from a biased perspective.
>>> truth would be moving throughout this system, and the emulation of it (its
>>> mask) would likewise be transferred, yet only one version is accurate at
>>> the level of verification as truth, while the other validates and relies
>>> upon its [signage] instead. this is the fundamental issue of patterns and
>>> their connection with truth, in a security context, as related to
>>> "information" and quasi-entropy, entropy-as-sign and entropy-as-truth.
>>>
>>
E1335, 42, 812
