third and last observation: the other day i was considering how 'security' seems to be achievable only by putting someone in a secure area or box, and keeping the world outside this box, and how absurd that seems to be because it requires removing the world in order to try to attain security, if indeed this is an accurate assessment. the thing that struck me about this is that the world changes outside the box, and so this could either force detachment from the world, which then increasingly becomes out of touch with the external realm not included in the box, or that only people who are inside the same box can safely communicate, as long as they are modeled or entirely known in their parameters. in other words, if a person is all alone in the box they may be secured, yet the moment anything changes, or the world itself changes, this situation could be effected within this supposedly safe and secure zone. in that, if the person is inhabit or engage with the world they need to be able to interface and interact with the world. and thus perhaps the boundary or threshold issue, of entropic balancing, should anything change or the two realms somehow begin to crossover into one another. in this way, interaction beyond the box of security then potentially allows vulnerabilities into this secure zone, via the unknowability or inaccurate accounting for how these external relations exist, both outside and inside the once secure box. so too, any persons that are also included in the safe zone of the box inherently carry with them unknowns if not modeled and accounted for accurately that potentially jeapordize this internal condition, presumably more secure than no security, though with more interaction and access to 'the outside world' the more vulnerable in various dimensions, parameters, dynamics, known and unknown. so it just seemed like security itself would be impossible to achieve if the idea involves keeping out the world, or not accounting for things within a security context, yet having this be a hive of activity likewise, unless security accounting were happening to the Nth-degree beyond what may be external signifiers of security, 'the sign of security' versus its indepth practice in undocumented terms that may not even be mentioned or perceivable, given the advanced context that could exist in certain scenarios. it is somewhat like the scenario: a person walks into a bar... except that it is a supposedly secure box where they exchange secret messages and meet at conferences and function in industries (boxes within boxes) where various vulnerabilities are interwoven with activities and how could this occur in a real context of actual security unless much more was happening than meets the eye or ear. maybe this leads back to the idea of unknowability as the threshold for security, beyond a realm of awareness, where it cannot be deducted because things do not add up beyond a threshold condition and sensory awareness fails to provide a framework to evaluate what conditions feasibly need to exist for security to exist, which tends towards the metaphysical, the invisible, the utterly alien, etc.