[9] patterns and randomness

[brian carroll]

// again, disclaimer: observations of a naive observer...

--- on pattern matching ---

there is a significant difference between evaluations that search for
recognizable patterns and structures based on relativistic pseudo-truth
versus empirical models of truth, removed of falsity.

in the former, a pattern match thus verifies pT=pT in some way that retains
the error rate as part of its structural assumption though likewise could
be considered true by default of the match. in this way the [sign] itself
becomes the truth, as if the pattern itself is true, an accurate model. it
is thus possible for an ungrounded viewpoint to be validated via pattern
recognition and *believe* in the legitimacy of the model because it is able
to locate and recognize and categorize patterns, validating the approach.
that it works confirms that what it is doing is true, as an assumption.
statistics and mathematical modeling often can validate this as forms of
'objective reasoning' that are themselves likewise ungrounded, as if an
approximate algorithm is by default removed of its estimations or need for
ambiguity and via binary 'reason' these inaccuracies can be denied and-or
discarded from questioning the approach itself, the error rate relied upon
and becoming structural to sustain the viewpoint, functioning as belief.

   [sign] = [sign]  equated with truth

the point is that the sign could be ungrounded, weakly or inaccurately
modeled, and thus a rounding error or observational bias is involved...

   [pT.sign] = [T.sign]  via pattern match

a quick way of saying it is that there is some unaccounted for subjectivity
involved (a=b) yet also ignored that presumes A=A is the evaluative result.
the issue appears to be that the [sign] itself is arbitrary to an extent,
and does not require investigation beyond its context in language for the
observation to be considered true- seemingly that a concept represented as
a sign effectively is equated with what it is meant to signify, therefore
it may not actually have external truth outside of the language system that
instead functions as if this truth. the pattern match is with the [sign]
that is the word, not what the word references, because the word can be
viewed as its truth. that would be a worst-case confusion, lack of rigor to
the point that this distinction is not being made, allowing the shallow or
weak correlations to exist. at the very least 'computers' could do this,
though likely many a person could likewise who does it think it through
further or allows ideological presumption to take hold of observation by
default of existing structures, without correcting for errors or ambiguity.

an empirical evaluation in contrast would secure the [sign] in relation to
truth firstly, thus when a pattern is match, this match does accurately
correlate with truth, the concept having been removed of known errors.

  [T.sign] = [T.sign]  via pattern match

although again it must be said this remains contingent and in a realm of
the grey area, within the middle N value (1-N-0) in either a 3-value or
N-value paradoxical evaluation, tending towards absolute truth yet bounded
by worldly limits to only allow a high percentage or reliability (nine
nines) and thus the binary 1/0 instead may function as a sliding scale, in
that it may be effectively '1' yet never absolute, always contingent and
always returning to a state of perpetual questioning, testing of hypotheses
against new evidence and additional structuring. thus a match is still not
'absolute truth' -- instead it is an extreme likelihood and highly weighted
toward truth, yet upon further investigation or data could be overturned as
an observation if the model is somehow flawed and thus error corrected. in
this way a failsafe exists in the observation allowing for correction,
whereas a binary model (either/or) would not be able to make this change
after having decided its state, or if it did it could break the entire
worldview whereas for a paradoxical weighted approach it seems much more
likely that a paradigm shift would rearrange or reconfigure the
perspective  and that it would be possible to do this within a malleable
framework that is capable of handling ambiguity, unknowing, multiple
hypotheses at once. and perhaps what this indicates is that a [sign] for
paradoxical pattern matching may exist in superposition, in various
different configurations by this probabilistic weighting, and only over
time resolve the overlapping or contrasting dynamics- which then would
indicate a field of its inquiry, versus a binary approach that would choose
one interpretation over another while discarding its validity within the
model, or so it is assumed.

and perhaps this last aspect of superposition is a new take on synthesis as
it relates to the paradox of theses and antitheses for a given [sign], that
logical reasoning mediates this condition via panoptic observation.

--- on turning ---

this is speculation though i have a strong intuitive sense that forcing a
binary ideological structure into a paradoxical condition would in turn
double everything that exists in that system, via the new codebase. (?!)

another way to say it is that the pT.1 of binary observers would exist in a
context of truth (T) of empirical observation and the removal of error will
destroy the ideological structure needed to maintain pT.1 as if absolute
truth, thus forcing it into recognition as a partial view, pseudo, while
incapacitating the false ideological structures that prop up the viewpoint,
such as invalid or false assumptions. in its minor state, pT.1 can no
longer determine shared truth in the larger empirical context, for others
and must submit to the larger interpretive framework and shared context,
insofar as it is valid and legitimate and removed of errors. In this way
the binary observer _must accept 'other truth' that accounts for the larger
totality of truth (T), that is pT.2, pT.3...pT.N, and thus everything that
is T minus pT.1, which could be this doubling of truth that must in turn be
mediated beyond the binary constraints. If the observer is unwilling or
unable to do this, they would be incapacitated in logical reasoning with
other observers insights as a shared model, to uphold an ideological POV.
yet if they accept it, their minor truth by comparison is limited in
controlling the interpretation and thus forces a compliance with truth that
in effect no longer allows the old presumptions and positions to be
retained. if this was a ploy, internal contradictions would likely be
noticeable or a fakeness in this process. It probably could not be very
well mimicked though if it were, could only last so long before tension
between competing views internal and external caused psychic collapse. it
is to say that without 'grounding' in truth, or its actual observation,
that 'going along with things' in a paradoxical framework without truly
believing in the process, recognizing truth in such a way, could be a self
destructive process if the person remained binarist, and this intolerable
conflicting position between logics could force submission due to madness
of having once all powerful observations instead become minimal at best in
a larger framework, if psychologically unable to see beyond the self's POV.

to try to defeat the larger truth the binarist would have to maintain two
versions of truth, while being able to externally reason in their biased
framework with others, or rely on false frameworks for their evaluations.
it should be readily evident and easy to discern this kind of deception
because binary rationalization would be the governing OS of the person,
even though they may say or indicate otherwise by following, mimicry.

--- questions on random ---

basic electronic circuit with reversed diode for noise. wondering if size
of diode has been correlated to noise patterns-- does a larger diode
generate more randomness. is there any boundary issue for randomness. it
would seem like there would be for linear algorithms versus parallel sets.

for instance, if it were analogous, imagine an aquarium is a smaller diode
and a swimming pool is a much larger diode. and the same effect is going to
be used in both to test for randomness of numbers. how would their output
be compared and evaluated in the same terms, and is it related in any way
to the size or boundary of the diode itself, as to randomness generated.

here is why it seems like it might. if dropping a rock into an aquarium
there would be a splash and waves would immediately start as the rock sinks
to the bottom and thus the boundary condition would influence how much this
outside interaction effects the inside equilibrium. in that higher waves
may form and multiple, if not causing a local splash, and the structure
inside the aquarium could be altered by rock entering its domain.

throwing the same rock into a swimming pool may not have similar effects at
the larger scale, it may sink further to the bottom yet not disrupt
anything else at that scale, and the waves it makes may be minor compared
with the smaller closed environment. whatever influence it may have on the
equilibrium would appear to be much less of a disruption or influence.

then consider throwing the same rock in the middle of the ocean which may
have large waves already and it may not sink for a long time compared to
the other two environments, and it may have negligible effect on wave
creation and may never effect the outer boundary, essentially 'infinity' in
comparison to the aquarium or swimming pool. and thus it may no discernible
effect on the structure that may exist or be considered random, even though
it may have some influence, because it is so infinitesimal.

in this way it is to ask if the 'bounds' or region of randomness may be
related to what is accessed or output as randomness, also in relation to
accessing this state externally or interacting with it, as an influence.

now perhaps this is not an accurate correlation, though i thought i read or
heard mention of various approaches to gleaning information from closed if
not blackbox systems via external diagnostic evaluations seemingly similar
in nature, where a signal may be injected into a realm and read back to
learn of its internal functioning, structure or timing that could be used
to gain access or subvert its operation.

and in my naive mind i relate that to throwing the rock into the bounded
environment and monitoring its trajectory, what is known about it, and
using this perhaps in a way like a random number generator.

if structure of randomness is discernible whatever that mystery is in the
box (aquarium, etc) is assumed to be bad for generating numbers because it
could be used to compromise the security of cryptographic algorithms.

and so if someone were to evaluate the water (numbers generated) and they
could somehow discern a bounded condition that forced patterns somehow,
that would compromise the number generation. or, what if a diode could have
an electromagnet placed next to it and align force fields somehow that
would change the structure of what is generated, yet this may not be
detectable on a circuit board or in an unseen encased or protected device.

and while this is foolish to consider from this naive perspective, without
any knowledge or likely inaccurate assumptions and faulty framework that
does not correlate with the issues -- it is to wonder still if it might
have something to do with a linear approach to this computation that is
requiring of 'no discernible structure' as an a priori constraint. for
instance, what if multiple bit sets queried the diode state for numbers
simultaneously and their interaction was randomized atop the diode return
values, or that these were mapped to 0-9 and not just 0/1 for numbers. or
what if it were possible to do this fast enough such that various sized
randomized numbers could be input into a running stream, such as 1 to 12
variables stitched on after another with concurrent randomness. or multiple
diodes in an array which could be queried both in serial and parallel and
return 'variable' output that may again randomly stream into a string (or a
bit string, if each output were to become a set in a running bit superset).

if someone could influence the operation of those devices, could they still
access the cryptographic secrets of the algorithms or could defenses exist
in the construction and access of randomness that separates these systems.

in a parallel approach why must structure be assume to be a default exploit
for knowing the computational structure if it is actually arbitrary and to
me in terms of bit sets and calculating multiple infinities, this is an
issue seemingly equivalent with the rock and the ocean. whatever local
structure that rock may encounter or microscopic wave does not indicate it
will be able to discern overall structure of the infinite boundary. you
could throw a million rocks in and it still may not have any compromising
effect on whatever detail or area or structure the computation resides in
in a temporal shifting structure that may or may not be 'on' or accessible
in a given interaction- and thus repeated targeting against randomness may
not reveal any greater insight into particular messaging in the infinity
context, or so it is proposed, if 'vertical' computation is involved.

this fool does not realize how foolish they are to consider such questions
so it is funny for me, to neither know nor care how ridiculous this is.

the ragged presumption then is that infinity calculations could function as
a type of 'mystery box' that computation and encryption occurs within and
that randomness is part of this, yet structure within randomness may not
indicate what is or what is not encrypted in that particular approach. it
would seemingly offer randomness, even if structure exists, because
whatever is accessed would be so minor compared to its interior boundary.
if you have multiple sets as a starting point and each has a potential for
infinite x infinite x infinite possibilities, that involves far greater
randomness than a string of binary digits made arbitrary. and it cannot be
easily accounted for by an algorithm, to decipher its meaning, if that is
indeed its basis for randomness because the algorithm could be random, as
with the output, within certain parameters. anything x anything + anything
/ anything = context. what computer is capable of figuring that out, prior
to accessing the crypto code, and doing it repeatedly in real-time in an
ever changing array of numbers and autogenerated code, variables upon
variables. it would seem even an issue of forensics would be no good, as it
could be arbitrary, non-repeating and repeating structures that may or may
not be active or reappear again, themselves shifting or within structures
that open up or close or phase change. maybe a part of a structure is part
of number, touches upon it, and yet that is it. if it is a random would it
in any way indicate the structure it is related to or would it be arbitrary
and thus like looking for a skull in a sand dune based on a ridge that was
formed on one day and gone the next, yet not knowing where the skull is.

so while the serial approach seems to seek out noise, the parallel bit set
approach appears to exist within the noise as a default condition and may
involve a different realm of questions and new assumptions. processing
noise, ubiquitous noise, contextless needles. localized skews, uncorrected
shotglass scenarios.  potentially 1,000s of permutations of encrypting code
-- because it is of an empirical 'many' versus 2 or 3 or 5 layered crypto
approaches.

another analogy might be a cloud chamber, wherein if a serial string or
crypto algorithm may be broken if those fleeting cosmic rays were somehow
to momentarily light up and reveal a hidden structure via this interaction.
and yet the detachment of multiple sets in a bit string may not readily be
recognized as a totality because it could occupy more noise than the cosmic
rays introduce into the system or may not work-back to a solution for the
shared framework if it were generated randomly or disconnected from the
output in its arbitrary range of meaning- the boundary where signal may
exist nested in the structure of noise yet not be readily differentiated as
a single structure or active unless those dots are connected or revealed,
which encryption could seemingly hide and would require a key to decrypt.
as if the entire cloud chamber would need to be decrypted, potentially, by
brute force, and thus throwing every externality into the interior realm
yet it could expand infinitely and still not reveal what is on its inside.
or so that is what a conceptualization of nested sets appears to indicate,
when in a noisy, randomly generated environment, signaling not overt.

a monkey-typewriter situation, any probing potentially to reveal meaning.
maybe the mystery box has produced shakespeare upon a dictionary search or
query, and an elaborate false universe opens up, a portal that instead
could be activated and sustained as a false corridor and then be made
operational with doubling and turning of those trapped inside the mirror,
containing and parallelizing the reality, merging yet bounding its action.

thus, probabilities in context of nested infinities could remain unknowns
and unstable. querying the arbitrary data set as randomizer would generate
its own internal meaning, may or may not be connected to other frameworks,
yet ever changing, irrespective of decrypting interpretation. therefore, a
stone thrown into this realm could create its own data yet may not have any
structural effect on what already exists as it exists, or it may access
some angle or detail of a shared framework yet within another perspective
or meaning and thus bounded in another use of the same signage, via not
knowing what is activated or not in a given moment.

why is the RNG not of cloud code formation, such that:

  RNG = [N1][N2][N3]...[N^n] => #

  such that: N = 0 -> infinity

  (or any calculative function or sign or computation, randomized)

this would create a noise ocean, versus a string of binary bits in terms of
a generating structure (seemingly aquarium, in terms of potentially being
able to manipulate the environment to create effects to subvert it).

--- cloud formations ---

to me the issue of encountering a recognizable pattern or symbol formed of
clouds in in the sky provides a context for the issue of bounded infinity
and its interpretation by an observer.

if the universe (U) was considered the largest boundary, and of all the
clouds that may be referenced, it is only the set in certain encounters
that provide this meaningful connection, only a limit portion of the sky at
a limited time and duration, and involves weather patterns, quality of
light, types of clouds, and also the particular observational framework
that provides meaning or links to the symbolism. thus in the set of all
clouds it is only a specific cloud code that has this function, and if it
is not determined by the observer, it may even appear arbitrary from their
perspective.

thus in cloudspace only some clouds are code like this, and it is very
small portion given all the clouds in the sky, for a particular observer.

   cloudspace (clouds {code})

now it may be possible that the generation of cloud code is not arbitrary
and this reverse-engineering of individual perspective could deliver a
meaningful cloud formation on demand as if by a script, so an observer may
see in a given instance a given symbol that may not be noticed by others or
be perceived meaningful, except by the observer in a particular framework.

and thus a forced perspective of a sort could format the sky in such a way
and thus write this symbolism into the environment, via magic seemingly.
how it occurs beyond the boundary, observational limits and threshold of
understanding of the observer, and yet there it is, decrypted as it were
from the other surrounding clouds yet if reliant on a time and unique
perspective (ID) it may not be noticed by others or be recognized as having
meaning that may instead have heightened significance in a given moment.
and thus the cloud could, as a sign, relay a signal and communicate ideas
and information this way.

(the comparison with a realm of interior infinities is that it would be
entirely populated by recognizable fragments and 'clouds of meaning', as if
a particulate gas that is held together by various atmospheric charge and
that can be combined or separated and recombine with others layers, and
that universe upon universe of cloud formations could be mapped out, and
may be ever changing, including if patterns included weather-like flows of
data that transform or shift the interior context or keep it destabilized.)

a man in the middle attack for looking up at the sky and instead of a state
of nature, the clouds could be formed within a simulation of nature and
thus the clouds may be data objects that can be manipulated as [signs] of
nature, representing nature, yet not actually nature themselves, only
images, substitutions. the Wizard of Oz scenario, earth populated by
robotic pigeons. the messages could be transmitted in a false POV and false
framework, and thus involve a deception that could lead a person to doom.

'the mystery box' contains both scenarios, potentially. allowing for both
the open extension into the hidden uncompressed domain that could be
developed as an interiority, mapping out infinity structures, and it could
also function as a boundary space that is a false perspective of this, in
some ways sharing the same structure yet within a different zoning that
expands otherwise and is controlled otherwise, involving knowing which
clouds are real and which are pseudo-real, a split of logics the difference
as the signs ground into different frameworks yet remain correlated and can
establish and sustain entangled dynamics within protected boundaries. or so
it is imagined possible, given the nature of labyrinths and perspective.

--- what the hell ---

if i knew anything about electronics i would get a cracked artificial
quartz crystal ball, internally fit it with piezo sensor, temperature
sensor, photodiode on the outside, put tinfoil around it, get a feverish
rotating DJ laser and point it on the inside and output readings from the
various sensors into various combined number producing sequences.

if really clever i would ask a nanotechnologist to prototype the lottery
ball randomizer at nanoscale or have micromachines tooled to do something
equivalent that could be put on a circuitboard. and yet, i wonder, why not
just use the internet as the randomizer and multi set search and randomize
the output. or take a photograph in multiple parallel set evaluation and
randomize that. that is, the reading or data interaction is arbitrary yet
bounded, though the calculation itself could be random, nonlinear and thus
add more variability. and maybe this is already the default, though the
photograph would have structure, yet if the computation based on input is
also random, how could it be so readily traced back to crack encryption.
maybe it is the more times it is referenced and an issue of boundaries, or
that computers are not able to compute 'infinity' numbers to allow this to
occur without constraints, such that speed is all important thus binary or
single streams of random digits not pieced together set after concatenated
set ad infinitum. so maybe it is the serial approach that requires it. if
not this, why not have non-binary character sets as the output and use
that, something potentially arbitrary or unmappable even, as a system. why
must it be a number. why not a glyph or fragment or symbol instead.

--- cryptic symbolism ---

the HIOX symbol is a square Union Jack, easy to identify.

as far as i got with research was the Egyptian Sacred Cut for its origins
as well as Plato, Meno i think it was, where the geometry of the square is
first cut diagonally, this making a quadrant of the HIOX symbol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno

also important in this is dimensionality, nested platonic solids, whereby a
single unit (say toothpick) can be used to generate five different perfect
forms (the elements: fire, air, earth, water, aether or electromagnetism)
and they each nest within the other forms. this is an entire philosophy
that involves geometry and relations between hierarchical structures. a
small amount of polymer clay and toothpicks should allow the forms to be
built and nested via experimentation.

though an inversion of the HIOX form exists, or an opposite structure which
is the same graphic yet half of it is mirrored, so that the diagonals that
radiate outward instead touch the midpoint of each edge. it is as if a
female version of the form.

there is also a combined symbol with both the male and female dynamics
within them, and from this my contention has always been that data could be
written into this structure fractally, as if sentences could be wrapped
around its at decreasing scale as if encrypting to planck scale. in that it
would lose its legibility yet like a QR code could be read by machines as
if a kind of microdot or data signature file. in other word, what would the
result be if you took the letter A within such a master symbol, then
decided where you would next write the letter B within its matrix, at
another level of scale, and onward through the alphabet. What if you took a
sentence or a book. How much data might be tied to structures that could be
written in the empty space, as if a coastline, if in a decipherable order.'

what if data was written into HIOX and decoded by its inverted symbol. or
shifted inbetween the two, etc. questions, possibilities. cryptic code.

Paris - Eiffel Tower
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/178525572702304954/

attachments: 1.5, 2.0

☸
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 26736 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20130922/2a24d9b2/attachment-0001.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1.5.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 11376 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20130922/2a24d9b2/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 11754 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20130922/2a24d9b2/attachment-0003.gif>