// disclaimer: all my posts on cypherpunks are copyright-free... i just watched a video from the Numberphile on youtube and it perfectly captures a conundrum at the intersection of mathematics and language, in a context of communication and interpretation, as this involves read/write processing and potential errors or different pathways to grounding supposedly common [variables], as this also involves boundaries and limits and thresholds that influence it please watch the video before reading the analysis below, so as to consider the information prior to a particular evaluation of it: Politics and Numbers - Numberphile // 7:31 m http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfoKor05k1I ---- in the way that [categories] can move from one context of interpretation [A=A] into another [A->B'], so too it is possible that the relation to the data or variables in a given framework could exist in another framework, beyond a given boundary of presupposed interpretation. therefore, hypothetical issues of [skin cream] and [gun control] could be remapped into another context, via ambiguity and relations of observers, that is the dimensionality that potentially could be connected to the concepts in their {superposition}, and thereby euphemism could also exist as a subtext or subconscious or alternately referenced domain that is outside the "normal" interpretation yet still existent in terms of mapping into a shared meaning structure. in this way, responses equated with "correct answers" imply correctness in this secondary realm, as if grounded by the equations and their conclusions. in this way, referencing [cream] and [guns] could relate to sexual politics and their interpretation as well, as if part of the larger inherent dynamics of language as this influences and effects "variables" of math. that is, such parallel processing could be occurring beyond a given boundary, and be camouflaged or hidden by variables as a means of -secret communication- thus: the clear-answering via such quasi-computation that "skin cream is worse" and "ban on guns is better" has different political meaning when evaluated and recontextualized in this hidden framework, which may be the default situation for observer-observer communications, in shared unspoken frameworks. implicit yet operating beyond the given boundary, unlike, or stealth, though of a realm of shared consciousness in some domains and not others. this is indicated in an instance of double-talk (or perhaps there is a more effective word for this) when the narrator confirms YES-YES that his colleague is "good at math" when looking into the camera and then doing a second take- indicating "no", as if there is a parallel realm or juxtaposition in double- or triple-layers of meaning, that instance perhaps mathematic specific (e.g. good at math meaning can deduction of simple analysis (yes) versus literacy of mathematician (no) as a result of arriving at the correct answers, or interpretation). the inflexion then, when the narrator sums up that "there are people who do understand science perfectly well, who still let beliefs CLOUD their judgement", could be grounded in this 'other context' via its use as an analogy or metaphor, shifting or confirming a certain secondary or tertiary meaning that co-exists alongside or embedded or nested within the 'mathematical framework' that undergoes reasoning clash "processing" as if entirely 1:1 by default, even though having these paradoxical aspects of language that it is mediating, that are unstable, and 'multiple' in interpretation, which ground to different circuits or could be _ungrounded yet validated by this transference of 'proof' or 'correctness' via pseudo-mathematical analysis, a secondary reading inferred and -believed- as if primary, yet unchecked in its own framework of assumptions yet by default held as valid, due to its coherence as language via shared awareness, meaning, and thus TRUE by default of its being reasoned in these terms. a context of an educational classroom with a field of lavender chairs perhaps implying a royal instructional dimension, even, as part of an ideological predisposition to how information is transferred on several channels simultaneously, yet also secretly. in this way, so too, programming in relation to the [ideas] thus categorized and used for computation. the inherent potential for möbius code that turns a given interpretation inside-out or is transformed in some elusive way, where a boundary is surpassed yet there is no seeming accounting for its different from the inside. this is how observer-observer relations could occur, where there is discrimination occurring in a given context yet afforded plausible deniability as these issues can simply be denied or disallowed as part of the 'shared awareness'. it is also seemingly how code or programs could exist at other levels or have other unaccounted for functionality, given how they are interpreted and in what dimensions- based on what is shared awareness and shared as boundaries and consciousness. perhaps much goes unnoticed and much is allowed in this same way, as to social dynamics yet also brought into computational contexts, of reasoning and 'seeing' and observing and communication itself. so what if there are hidden rules traveling alongside a given communication exchange, and that these are oftentimes the primary language that is mediated by "equations" as it were, discourse or formulas- and yet it exists beyond an accounting in truth, of the actual issues mediated in this hidden way. to me that is the very basis for tyranny of A=B governing the ability to consider A=A relations, because it is the boundary that limits that consideration, and is ideological and beyond error-correction, functioning as dogma yet also, potentially, shared governing falsity that itself becomes infallible due to its existing in language, as code, or especially as a mathematical construct which actually is subjective and ungrounded. in this way the tyranny of mathematics and linguistics and their hidden service to political agendas, as programmed and codified and parsed, becoming platforms for the false-perspective, while the real reality is muted, unable to speak, deemed crazy to try to account for what is going on that is officially "missing", the hidden data and hidden viewpoints that corrupt and conspire towards certain opaque functioning, given perspective, literacy, boundaries. in other words, [ideas] that become programs and exist in computers are not error-checked or error-corrected at this level of accounting for their functioning, and this could be a realm of the security exploit or 'other coding' by default of the A=B difference in interpretation and this may be inherent and inescapable yet also could be designed for or around, yet requires modeling of paradox to do so, to address the contingencies of variables in their multiplicity. perhaps it is a cognitive exploit, the human processor and human computation that is the issue as it then may read/write or interact with, interpret, and parse other code, whether computer programs or others ideas-- yet the assumption should be this is an ungrounded observational position from the start, that so much is unaccounted for in basic relations, and so much is "believed" even in common terms without the ability to question conclusions or observations, which can skew to only certain predisposed beliefs- very likely due to limits and boundaries allowing for this. and thus the issue of infallible observers who by default may base relations and evaluations upon their unchecked through always already "true" viewpoints, itself is the basis for decentralized tyranny of 'shared beliefs' that by their being shared or confirmed, are equated with truth itself. illiteracy in this context not only involves bounded or limited analysis, it is also dangerous for others who may be silenced from this same activity, where the common false perspective rules and everyone must conform to unspoken yet actively communicated hidden agendas. thus, the mathematics can by default of their being related to and through, as interpreted language, be subjective and provide cover or a mask for other language, as a sign system that provides for such calculations to be confirmed, yet only in pseudo-truth. this is the essential corruption. and it appears to reside in individuals themselves as thinking and non-thinking beings, such that the integrity of an observation may not be required to exist within the observational self, instead it could be assumed a function of language and its external mediation even, 'over there'. in other words, 'errors in truth' may not be recognized or accounted for within the observer themselves, yet form the basis for shared observations with others in these secret or hidden channels in that their being shared is used to confirm their truth, via their usefulness. and yet the self is held beyond account for this, and can continue in error or unchecked in limited or warped or skewed interpretation, and this may be parallel to other observations or coincide with them, beyond a given boundary, where it is shared by some and unnoticed by others. yet this establishes the observer in this realm as an infallible viewpoint, which can then interpret or use structures parasitically while assuming equivalent deduction by inference, yet which would be ungrounded and pseudo-truth by default of its skewed accounting and not being testable or error-corrected in the terms it exists, and instead offer a one-way communication of "belief system" that is not held to any account, yet may govern over what equations can be utilized within what limits, while secretly exploiting them at the same time in this way. thus to propose this is the default situation, until made transparent, and ideas grounded otherwise- and all of this accounted for in modeling of language and mathematics, which until that point would be more false than true, given the probabilities involving continual use of shared frameworks of pseudo-truth that are detached from empirical accounting in the wider context of truth, thus tending toward zero and total falsity by these very same covert means. ad nihilism. 16 -> ig-noble