[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[5] moar koda

disclaimer: if doing this is illegal then the alphabet is illegal and
'ideas' themselves have been criminalized by the terror state

--- (continuing...) ---

hint for previous code:  _ |v JL 3 p\ w Z 7r : 2 6

perhaps should have made the last character (6) this instead: O J

the idea then of a digraph substitution: JL = inverted T, etc.

Thus, for instance if someone has a perceptual bias and is only looking at
single characters as single units, the diagraph, trigraph, etc approach
would be beyond their threshold of observation, beyond the perceptual
modeling and thus such bias or limitation in interpretation can allow other
information to exist beyond how it is perceived to exist by a given
observer, unless they figure it out- so it would involve rules or learning
how to determine what schemes are active or not, multiple or none

further, the idea of a search of the original string as anagram or other
approach, such that the breakage of units into fragments or components or
elements thus can defeat brute force meaning unless checking all variables
which would tend towards infinity, via probability. thus the secret is in
some sense the noise, the more it is looked for the more possibilities
arise and fill in the void with additional meaning that may or may not be
active -- whether intended or not, which is the spooky aspect of this, if
systems or data is somehow entangled whether as information and-or
objects;  seemingly /metaphysical keys/ even.

so a hypothetical example would be, putting the original 15 characters into
a structural search in which the original concept cannot be located in the
analytical results (in ordinary terms, the 'word' does not exist within the
letters/numbers themselves) and in this way, while it was was the basis for
creating the 'string' (bit set), it may not be active in its interpretation
or its activeness may exist in the permutated results and thus not require
a decode by the receiver if already having the key because they know the
shared reference yet the structure exists as infrastructure- and it may or
may not have relevance though it could be mapped into that structure as if
a conceptual root structure that could have calculative or geometric
aspects- meaning, there could be many simultaneous structures some related
and others not, that may or may not be activated in particular signaling,
perhaps similar to neurons and synaptic structures in the brain that fire
together yet whyso remains a mystery due to the limits of observation and
an accurate model for analysis at the level of activity being observed-
thus phrenology or scrying in an ungrounded sense providing security by
enhancing warped, skewed, biased, limited interpretations, erecting walls
and false rationales by "relativistic frameworks" in a realm of halls of
mirrors within halls of mirrors. distortion by unknowing autogenerated, and
in some sense 'signal' can be masked as noise also, shell games within the
parallelism of infinity and the computational limits of parsing those
dynamics accurately, which could easily exist beyond technological means

thus also in the realm of literacy, 'reading the signs' or abstract
markings can become the limit between those intelligent and those smart yet
illiterate and not in service to the conceptual foundation involved, and
their perceptual frameworks can be used to construct false perspectives
that become labyrinths to control future options, yet while creating the
illusion of being in a 'shared awareness' or framework (partial) whereby
pseudo-truth, its reliance on error, can allow extra-dynamics to exist
while also coexisting within 'some truth' of the shared condition; perhaps
this is zoning within a threat containment model, or subversive takedown
approach, establishing booby-traps and trap-doors and pyramid defenses

so, a letter or number could be de|con-structed and words or concepts or
meaning could also be tokenized by a substitute system of relation which is
what symbolism also allows, a type of exchange existing with a symbol and
its network of conceptual structures aligned with it, an infrastructure of
shared meaning and dynamics that also has myth and magic and spiritual
dimensions as a potential, these tending towards darkness and light yet
also accounted for in a shared universe (U), this richness and depth then
perhaps closest to the forces involved and their dynamics, versus its
caricaturization that presents its substance mainly in cartoon terms, a
popular culture framework as if yet another commoditized ideology, thus the
assumption of surface-relations versus actual depth and core functioning

--- sidenote: after the expansion ---

it should be added that after a 'string' is permutated, say it goes from 15
characters into a million character / word combination space, that is in a
precisely bounded model that defines the perimeters and parameters of its
expansion and analysis frameworks (if not via infrastructure standards),
that it would seem this is a one-way calculation and as impossible as it
may be to find something inside the expanded set combinations, it would
appear even more impossible (exponentially) to try to put it back into the
original pandoric gift package, the originating /bit set/ even if knowing
the rules and trying to apply them in reverse, to go from 'many' words to
only a 'key string' as exampled here (said: bit set now, as a description
of the set relations between characters, not linear string if it is
"calculated" and worked-out in its probabilistic interrelations).

in other words, could you go from one million characters and various word
combinations back to the original 15 characters- and my presumption is no,
it would be even more highly variable in reverse if computed this way, in
that substitutions could occur at some point that introduce (noise) extra
data, such as a S=5 and starts to shift meaning out of the original
context, and so many of these shifts could occur, 'recenterings' as part of
analysis, that if not having them in their entirety and evaluating a
massive set, even if having the majority correct, that small area of error
could continually expand as noise and veer interpretations off course and
bound the backwards analysis- which could be useful if having a code that
generates something yet cannot be worked back, yet still is linked to it or
exists within the unpackaged expansion as an entangled conceptual order,
which again may or may not be activated- say like streetlights turning on
at certain hours, or animal migrations under certain conditions- the data
may appear momentarily or in a given context and then be absent the next

so in this way a 'noisefield' could be inherent in the expansion and
messages could be hidden within it, perhaps even texts or documentation,
that would be reliant on the originating bit set yet disconnected from it
if not available to analyze, yet it may also have carry any signal or
secrets when analysed, such that it is feasibly arbitrary, one of many
frameworks, and unless knowing what the perspective is, it could be a false
corridor and lead to *answers* that are inaccurate or 'counter' to the
actual view yet expand into another parallel stage-set universe (U2) based
on error-reliant pseudo-truth believed to be accurate yet moving further
into falsity (pT-> A=B). in this way, paradox is the limit, as if logical
reasoning and 'shared observation' and if identity is unshared, fiction out
of what can be shared facts in a limited model based on other rationales,
thus exploiting bias and other false assumptions and their structures

perhaps a way of conveying this is those with a human POV versus antihuman
perspective and how consciousness would be correlated differently both in
observations and interrelations, especially with doubling or imposters

for instance someone may perceive a human as 'racist' for an observation
because of a potential interpretation that is a particular framework thus
bounded reasoning to that viewpoint structure, whereby: humans {ethnicity}

in terms of sets, different skin tones and cultures could be secondary to
being a human being and thus 'human' would be the superset...

   human {ethnicity}     or

   human {race}

This versus the opposite, determining interpretations locally as if the
main basis for primary awareness:

   race {humanity}      or

   race {ethnicity}

In other words, subset {set} if not: subset {superset}, can take on the
interpretative 'universal view' (U) and it may have 'some truth' in a
certain relative framework yet it may not be the larger or overriding truth
of the observation and this ambiguity needs to be taken into account. say
with my previous instance of a 'song here song there, here a song there a
song, everywhere a song-song' as it may be viewed instead of a common
rhyme   instead a device to channel bias about 'yellow people' as if the
intent. note also several such devices were used, not indicating this

it is to say that multiple readings can co-exist, and there can be some
partial truth (whatever truth exists is true) yet it may not be the total
or overriding truth or even generative truth and instead exist as anomaly
or entangled instance that arises out of noise, as with a crystal ball that
takes in outside patterns and merges them into a common spheric surface.

i think when i wrote that i noticed the potential ambiguity yet the idea
was not that and decided to keep typing versus try to edit and invent
another device for an ongoing theme (about endless communication in terms
of 'linear string' assumptions as if automatically meaningful versus hollow
and how a lot of people can be singing and saying *nothing* in terms of how
it adds up empirically, versus fragmented relativisms which are basically
noise allowing the cultural degradation to continue under that mirage of
depth and hand-holding feel good hedonism, as if it is all that simple).

though counter to this, it is true that certain cultures have names that
align with 'song song' and thus it could be associated with that, even
though that was not the interpretive framework and it could have meaning,
whether or not true or accurate in the specific context, what is true is
true. and thus if a military strategy and its associated ideology involves
emigrating vast populations into other areas in order to subvert them, and
then holds up a politically correct boundary saying it is discrimination to
speak about what is going on in those terms- it probably is going to cause
collisions in discourses like these, where such dynamics are mediated
outside the "official silence" and politics of the everyday societies.

again, humans and antihumans would be my response to this, and humans are
in every culture and activity. and so they are in the superset and not
viewed as 'subset'- though an antihuman ideology that tries to stop such
analysis of human awareness via censoring debate or activities then is
seeking to overpower and bias interpretation via unshared identity that is
privileged and beyond error-checking or correction, thus requiring and
demanding a safe zone of *secure interpretation* that prevents accounting
for these dynamics via peer pressure, etc. essentially:

   antihuman {humanity}

as this is institutionalized, effectively:

   subset {superset}

if you give any credence to the higher cosmic order involved in this, such
that the earth today is being governed by 'the lower' to which to higher
functioning have had to adapt to allow the takeover and takedown to occur.

Most excellent in terms of this cross- and intercultural dynamics is the
work and ideas of Edward T. Hall, especially in terms of language and
cultural systems, how signs are interpreted differently yet also in this
variance the richness of truth beyond limited observations of a given view.
here is the ~50 words for snow in eskimo and so on, as it relates to this
same bit set issue of where someone is interpreting the data from.

another possible way of conveying the approximate idea:

   (humans {ethnicity}) <--> (antihumans {race})

what matters is truth, who serves it and to what extent it is recognized or
subverted for another agenda than the shared set, its values, goals, and
principles- and this aligns also with coherence and its limits in ideology
versus ideas, rigid limits to allowed thought versus freedom and liberty
and serve to life or its annihilation by rules to prop up false universes,
and the larger context for this being cosmic accountability and the role of
crypto and both sides of these issues- that complex /ground/ of operations
that could be binary or paradoxical, actually grounded or only virtually...

so this gets to a basic idea of 'code' -- what do you trust? -- do you
trust some cryptographic standard, do you trust a person or system or
machine, do you trust 'ideas' without having parsed them completely and
thus rely on 'unknown knowns' determined by others, perhaps of unshared
identity and thus exploits-

and to me it has become self-evident that only TRUTH can be trusted, that
it is the basis for trust, and in combination with logical reasoning allows
this trust to be evaluated and accounted for, and anything less is
potentially an issue of 'trusting signs' in its place, mimicry or facades
or ungrounded connections or relations, such that 'signs of friendship' can
substitute for actual friendship, and other types of programmatic
techniques whereby truth is not shared as the basis for interactions, and
this occurs within 'shallow language' and 'wrong assumptions that are
carried onward' within the scaffolding of viewpoints, /errors/ normalized,
that devalue and degrade truth- yet become structures for *TRUST* within
computing and social systems, again the Binary Crypto Regime as ideology
the peak of this institutionalized untrustworthiness made into religion.
Faith in crooked code, crooked administration, crooked relations, crooked
ideas, and accounting in truth and via logical reasoning nowhere found
outside the *protected limits*, thus allowing the antihuman agenda to
proceed friction-free in fallen environments that serve this 'mastery'.

if you trust in people, it is within their truth, the truth of a person not
their falsity or pseudo-truth (unless mistaken) -- it is a critical
distinction and of wide-ranging consequence.  so too, ideas- the truth of
ideas versus their approximations and warping and skew and distortion and
biasing- to defend and uphold that is a corruption, a compromise that is a
degradation and deteriorates whatever truth exists- thus, compromised code
as if secure also compromises the person wrongly believing its integrity
without being able to evaluate it in truth themselves or relying on others
who are untrusted or of unshared identity to guarantee ideas through trust
of technology or 'trust me' models- which if 'shared awareness' is not the
same or exploited, leads to exploits. whole OS platforms built upon this
and similarly exploited, though in a realm of double/triple schemes, etc.

so FAITH in TRUTH and in the truth of people and in the truth of ideas, yet
accounting for this truth, understanding it, being able to grapple with it
versus make and build assumption upon unreliant assumption that could be
built upon a threshold exploit (unknown unknowns) that bound interpretation
and yet another could be decrypting everything from the start because it is
built that way- just not understood by the users- thus 'trust the
algorithm' without dealing with 1:1 truth allows the A:B exploit its
tyrannical freedom to overlord and invisible hand events onesided. for
instance, if time travel there is a high likelihood the present day would
be governed from the future context and its administration over the
present  and taking this into account would be one approach and ignoring it
another and thus 'standing lies' could be seen as part of that SCIFI
framework in that actions do not add up in normal terms in day to day
policy and why is it that situations are being run off the cliff regularly
in parallel if not some 'beyond mainstream' policy decisions making sense
of shared madness

so if the truth of ideas is not dealt with, and the truth of people and the
truth of machines and technology, and the truth of code itself, and not
using actual *logic* beyond the binary evaluation, how much truth is there
really in these systems and relations by default of ignoring the reality,
and how much of the surreality that exists is based on the shared FALSE
framework that allows the oppression and oppressors their advantage... thus
the role of the logic bomb in taking down the kernel of the corrupt belief
that sustains the lie and the code that stands in truth truth as its sign
yet ungrounded, an entire standing empire built upon a too simple ideology-
now that is a security nightmare waiting to happen, for those on the inside
and with vested interest in seeing that it and their lifestyle continues,
say versus feedback from the oppressed and exploited... payback time.

--- more on bit set dynamics ---

here are some additional examples of various approaches; you could use
numbers in place of letters or vice versa, perhaps co-existing and thus to
flip and unflip sets...

   A B X

   1 2 24

Such that A is the first letter of the alphabet, B is second, and X is
twenty-forth. it could be taken further and sent back into letters by a
second pass:

   1 2 2 4

   A B B D

Optionally, from these same numbers it could instead be reformatted in that
the original 1 2 24 could become:

   12 24

    L X

Another approach could involve flipping the bit set characters prior to or
after expanded into massive constellations of data of the interiority, and
thus layers of overlapping interpretation could exist from the start which
could be part of the symbolic algorithm as it were:

   h i o x   /   x o ! y

there is a potentiality involved that could result in different expansions
and keyspaces and so it is an issue of what these are and how they could be
determined or shared- perhaps in the bit sets themselves or other keys or
it could be arbitrary and truly crystal ball 'seers' in given instances,
altered states that may align or be shared or unshared yet deliver info

also: this could occur without software in a massive distributed model yet
with software tools it could be something more in-line with crypto systems
of today and massive computation that probably could find ways to encode
and embed programs or documents via such techniques versus SMS equivalent
peer networking. say for instance the following bit set were evaluated:

  U SI 20 1LL 2Z O X LS

Perhaps it expands into a thousand character document, and that 'X' symbol
were notation that it should be twisted 45% and read at an angle, dropping
out certain symbols as noise and others would be retained by symmetry or
having multiple readings (say: N S Z in terms of rotation & reflection). In
terms of the mirroring of language, reading upside is a useful skill or
being able to have /superposition/ of alphanumbers and those substitutions
in mind and parsed in real-time evaluation- perhaps relevant, perhaps not.
yet a computer system could likely mine such data very effectively given
rules and decipher or encipher and puzzle data back into jack-in-the-boxes
that could be reused as structure, or so it is hypothesized

continuing with approaches, there is a certain interesting correlation with
certain letters and logic notation, such as p q p d that in their relations
demonstrate mirroring and so this is part of the structural of numbers and
letters that can indicate function or have distinct features as if puzzle
pieces that can and cannot fit together in given parameters of co-alignment

   p   q   p   d

   b   d   b   q

The ambiguity of this, yet also other options...

   b = |>   <| = d   etc.

perhaps even |> / as a trigraph as 'twist b, thus q'. yet any of this could
also be compressed or have multiple meanings depending on perspective and
the framework/s for evaluation.

the corollary to this is potentially sequencing of data structures though
again -- not linearly. multilinearly, nonlinearly, as permutative sets, the
total ecology of combined and related dynamics, CERN-level and weather
forecast modeling intensities... and still there may be infinite unknowns
even within the structural data if not having the keys to unlock it

another foundation aspect of this is character overlap and subtractions and
additions via their combined state; it is very difficult to convey without
images because it can be high resolution in a standardized context (16
segment display, square UNION JACK symbol of the ancient mastercode, HIOX).
and it is logic dependent in certain instances to figure out... first hint:

   b 8 d

The numeral '8' essentially can be a character in /superposition/ whereby
while the 7-segment is the seeming source for hexadecimal letters, it has a
potential substitution of: A, B, C, D, E, F, H, J, L, O, P, S, U.

Thus the words: bad, bed, bod, bud, in addition to other acronyms could be
seen as a potential, held within the shared overlapping structure of 8. it
is thus a *wildcard* bit, in terms of alphanumerics. The HIOX or union jack
symbol is 26 letters + 10 numbers for a single bit, by comparison. so
imagine the set evaluation of: b88d, in terms of including the hidden 13
other letters and how this may influence anagrams or other permutation

In a similar way, you could have a letter 'm' and break it into two letters
'n' or invert them, 'vv' which could be mirroring 'm' or 'w'. or turned
sideways and becoming 3 or E, that is, M or W. or c & c in a given view,
depending on the construct. consider another approach to overlap:

=  8

And further, into the larger alphabet...

=  8

This approach would include retaining the overlapping elements, thus
additive, whereas if subtractive- combining the number zero (O) sans null
slash (0) and capital letter i (I) assumed having full upper and lower bars
at top and bottom of vertical, would equate to an: equal always equal
symbol, orientated vertically. what is dissimilar is retained. this
abstraction in part required by the tools, unable to communicate most basic
information for lack of standard formating and basic display of 'code' as
it actually exists and is used. example of subtractive:

=  3

Perhaps this aspect of superposition is closer to that of /spin/ for
certain character features, whereas for a large capacity symbol such as '8'
or HIOX it is a much more vast range of set potentials to unpack via these
interrelational dynamics.

--- messing with HASH ---

it is still unknown if the parallel structure of a bit set as the string is
comprehended, such that [xyz] could function as a string yet also co-exist
in parallelism as [x|y|z] via set recombinations and expansions. [x] could
be anything, say 'the internet', [y] could be pi/1.666 and [z] letters A-H.

likewise, [x] could be symbol 1, say a purple dinosaur, [y] could be '8'
and [z] could be symbol 2. the slot machine really is vastly variable and
could involve multiply turning bounded infinities that tally in custom
circuits (outerlimits of enigma), and the 'string' could also be infinite,
such that both the bits and bit set could move towards infinity, such that:


how could any machine possibly rationalize all of that? impossible. and
what if most of it is *noise*. it leads to interesting conditions for ideas
and algorithms, new territories perhaps, places without any maps or
infrastructure within existing _known technology. randomness, yessir.

like the Moholy-Nagy painting (ref.typo error) in a previous post, there
could be calculative dimensions involved in ordinary language, through its
transmutation and reimagining in its 'other variability'. imagine colliding
[hash 1] vs. [hash 2] and arriving at some kind of structuring... what if
it is the same 'bit set' that is collided with itself, yet transformed
from  bit set A to bit set A'. thus A x A' = new bit set

  u x w h  ==>  y m x u   ==  ? ? ? ?

Thus it would matter if it is additive or subtractive for what the new bit
set would be and what would be expanded in terms of its interiority.

so what if the english alphabet is 26 letters, A-M/N-Z and you run half of
these against the other, what kind of structures result. and what if you
take half of the alphabet and mirror it above itself then add/substract or
flip, or recombine in various ways, or two-letter sets, adjacent and
non-adjacent-- suddenly it is off the map, unexplored symbolic territory
perhaps, and that is seemingly something else entirely in terms of meaning;
and for the naive like myself, how might this relate to various encoding
schemes that use character sets and symbols for data transmission, are they
substitutable or could they even function as a deep data code (signage
going into and through data instead of only across as linear strings), and
what kind of access/entry and egress and circulation may this allow, open
up or prevent in terms of traditional data models and also processing. it
would seem in some way related to a compass with magnetic north and true
north, though that could be widely variant and easily polarity could be
lost and someone could be heading south or 'up' or 'down' without knowing
it, in flatland terms of bounded interdimensionality

also, language translation, western european languages, umlauts and other
details related to extra-textual cues or clues perhaps

   venezia & venice

what would the different keyspaces expand into if only some of the
structure is shared, yet the idea is essentially identical, such that the
signage maps onto the same concept, empirically, via translation-- is it an
issue of distortion, cultural frameworks of language that format structures
and how might these be bridged or is it a limitation to the model, thus can
bit set dynamics occur only in A:A frameworks or can A1:A2 also function to
a threshold limit, until A:B is reached, or may it also function at A=B,
insofar as the structure of A is retained within the structure of B:

   A <---> B{A}

and further, consider if the 'translation' was a particle collision and
thus the probing of molecular structuring shared and unshared between the
two concepts, attaining higher resolution of their shared dynamics via
interrogating their relations, grounding and mapping and testing of
assumptions into a common empirical framework- as if language is the basis
for conceptual infrastructure

--- note on correlations ---

having written about this elsewhere and forgotten a specific clarification,
pattern recognition itself is about this sign=sign matching, yet assumes
that the match itself equals truth and this is not the case, it is a faulty
assumption and an ideology that the truth of language is in the sign itself
and not what it is referencing. thus an apple would be the word apple
versus an apple itself and the 'idea' of what an apple is, its potential
superposition of meaning. this is the binary plague of ideas everywhere
evident in technology-- the potential of technology now making toys for
adolescent adults based on limited viewpoints, goals, and shared purpose.

mathematics begins with patterns. understanding and deciphering them.

yet it is this recognition that must occur in a A=A framework for it to be
actually true (1), and thus the refinement of ideas and removing falsity
from pseudo-truth and using hypotheses prior to declaring theories, as is
the empirical methodology. and so TRUTH is foundational to mathematics,
knowing what is true from what is false, and relating this to an A=A and
A=B evaluative context, which is Plato/Aristotle and others of course.

and yet if a mathematician arrives at an equation, or a person proposes a
universal idea, it is not just that they have found a "pattern" that seems
to fit, it is that it must correlate with other structures and patterns in
their known integrity, that is "truth". so there is a relation in truth for
the evaluation of truth. (thus: binary assumption of truth extends all the
way to all subsequent assumptions based upon it).

so testing hypotheses and ideas and equations and finding flaws is the
vital process and obligation of error-correction and refinement and the
changing of the model or hypothesis or pattern conceptualization so as to
better align with what is known to be true, verifiably so (1=1) versus
relaying on something know false and relying on its structure (1=0) for
further such 'ideas' and 'equations' as an error-based structure and
viewpoint, which can get religious even, and is hugely invested in the
ideological, where questions have long ago been answered and unasked since
even when facts and evidence refute the claims. thus limits, boundaries
allow even faulty pattern-recognition to persist by keeping out
error-correcting observations. and 'empirical' observation is thus limited
to only those facts and views that support the claims, ideas, equations.

this is why logic is so critical to determining and accounting for truth
and evaluating 'structures' that supposedly carry its /momentums/. the
trusswork of ideology that may be corroded to such a degree to collapse yet
carry the weight of a society, these areas of weakness offlimits for any
interpretation, protected by retaliatory violence to allow virtualized
viewpoint to continue, while endangering all who rely upon the error-rate.

the 'binary logic' that is falsely absolute yet unaccounted for can thus
"exist" in a bubble civilization yet only through dictatorial tyranny that
is against its evaluation, most especially in logical terms, these also
being the most self-evident and only way to actually describe what is
occurring as it occurs conceptually, structurally. everyone knows, yet the
'reasoning' itself is made off-limits and thus the incapacity to say for
lack of a way of accurately 'recognizing' and accounting for the events.

in this way a [sign] could be interpreted one way by a binarist and another
by an observer of 3-value or N-value paradoxical logic. the pattern that is
encountered may appear identical yet its mapping into structural frameworks
of truth could be entirely different, and more accurate than another.

so it is an issue of intelligence, how these signs are interpreted, and in
a more general sense [patterns]. and thus C.P. Snow and the Two Cultures
allows consideration of the mathematical evaluation versus linguistic, or
'literature' as a basis for this interpretation, leading to numbers and
equations in the former and alphabets and writing in the latter. though
perhaps with mathesis that division related to pattern recognition is of a
previous era, and instead 'literacy' has moved closer whereby concepts of
"programming" (ala Lewis Mumford) have "symbolic processing" as a skill
that present-day once future populations were predicted to need to survive

  symbolic processing ===> [patterns] (signs & symbols)

thus, patterns could involve both mathematics and language, equations and
words, and some overlap could occur or exist as it relates to the nature of
thinking itself-- such that, while 'binary' views may be easily taken on as
a quick route to decision-making, looping probabalistic reasoning via
multiple hypotheses autonomic and conscious are the ways the nervous system
and brain actually work, in a context of navigating absolute truth and
falsity, including constantly refining and add and querying data against
contingent models and not simply discarded what is unlike thus 'false'.

in this way, an approach to thinking that is ungrounded in experience and
natural observation itself can become religious dictate via indoctrinating
people into an inaccurate framework and basis for shared awareness and
relations that are A=B in terms of pattern recognition, customizing POVs to
a warped, skewed pseudotruth that tends to zero, as a compass and guide.

The kernel is wrong, faulty, yet cannot be error corrected, power says,
government enforces, institutions crushing the facts, observers, denying
and censoring and outlawing illegal patterns, universal perspective.

Thus there is truth and falsity where A=A and A=/=B reside, and this is the
basis for establishing logic. that is, A=A is the pattern match, and A=B is
the false match, the errored idea.

  T/F <--> logic

And depending on the 'logic' used for evaluation, that will then influence
what is and can be observed, such that:

  T/F <--> {binary|paradoxical}

  T/F <--> binary --> 1/0

  T/F <--> paradox --> 1/N/0

such that, the logic then influences the observed patterning:

  T/F <--> logic <--> [patterns]

In this situation 'code' could be the patterns that are assumed true and
accurate for sake of being operational in a binary framework, whereas with
a paradoxical evaluation this truth is not presupposed, instead questioned
because it is and always remains contingent- a hypothesis that requires
testing, challenging, verification, validation and continual error-
correction-- else, via entropy itself, the inherent fallibility of partial
observers within limited frameworks would be taken as if truth itself,
absolute, even though inaccurate, faulty, by lack of godlike omniscience.

logical reasoning is what this testing and error correction are all about
yet if it occurs in a binary framework the observational bias continues to
see itself as 'correct', infallible observers because they can equate the
sign they believe is something with the thing itself apple is the word and
not the larger external reference- and thus 'signage' stands in for and
begins to mediate truth irrespective of its external validation, within a
false empire of signs and symbols-- mathematics and language that becomes
and is detached from reality, its own virtual word of anything goes...

that is, it may in part connect with truth, yet be assumed 'all true' or
absolute, by selective observation based on power dynamics for reasoning,
which gets into brute force peer pressure to engineer truth via bullying
dynamics, censorship, violence against unshared views, blacklisting,
attacks on equipment and tools, etc, to shut down the other observations
that error check and correct and *falsify* the believers code, who make
their bread on lies and deception, knowingly or not. thus:

 truth <--> logic <--> [math/lang] <--> [patterns]

and in this same way, the observers and perceptual framework could exist
in  a paradoxical approach, more towards mathesis in terms of higher
literacy, whereas the binary is by comparison illiterate to everything
outside it limited and controlled framework...

 truth <--> logic <--> [code] <--> [patterns]

And all of this about 'reality' and issues of shared observation and
identity, shared and unshared, that allows 'truthful' and false patterns to
exist and /represent/ ideas, events, people, accurate or not.  mathematics
and language are both reliant on logic and truth, and the verification of
pattern recognition is in A:A and A:B dynamics, which are evaluated and
justified via truth and logic, and a too-simple approach is a basis not
only for structural insecurity, it can be a planned exploit of civilization
and thus as the "language" or discourse continues in confusing by assuming
A=B, many nefarious activities are allowed within that inaccurate context.
true evil, and its justification on the normalization of these dynamics and
the mediocrity that is allowed and allows for it, as a 'consensus view'
that is based in non-truth, only ideologically accurate to a partial view
(pT=>0, whereby B>A).

that is a context for crypto then, because 'secret communication' and
'hidden writing' can occur both within mathematic and linguistic structure
that is in that same context, including an undifferentiated logic, whereby
the binary may exist in a bounded realm that the 3-value or N-value could
likewise inhabit and move in and through and outside of, via its other
dimensionality, yet more accurately account for absolutes (1 and 0) due to
a weighted, more accurate evaluative framework for shared empiricism than a
rough, coarse, inaccurate all-or-nothing approach that is knowingly false
from the start, in that it is unreal, detached from limits of observation
and made into a fiction, and thus fictionalizes everything as its result.

in other words: [patterns] can be in superposition, yet not in a binary
mindset because they can not be evaluated this way, as /ideas/. instead it
remains shallow and on the surface of the sign, too simple pattern
recognition whereby the belief that A=A is its own confirmation as long as
the pattern matches, the image is believed to be what it is, then it is by
default correct and true (1), due to the sign itself, not its grounding.

  truth <--> logic <--> crypto <--> [patterns]

Thus if considering ideas in this context, ideas of patterns, ideas of
crypto, the models of what are going on _must be accounted for within truth
and within an accurate logical evaluation and a binary approach (via logic)
is not this-- it is like playing paddy-cake paddy-cake to get the results
and seeing the layer cake as an end in itself, its own verification and
self-validation, if not narcissism-- i wear the badge, therefore i must be.

in other words, as is mentioned many times over a crypto system is not
inherently or necessarily a secure system just because it is cryptographic
though some may relate to [crypto] as a sign that equates with it without
getting into the error checking of ideas, truth of models, and assume or
allow models that cannot be tested and thus, limit/exploit scenarios by
this approach, where crypto functions against the role of crypto in society
and 'the sign' becomes its own antithesis, whereby 'to encrypt' is actually
'to decrypt' in another hidden context-- and that logically, when only
partial truth is active, this is probable, beyond 50% likelihood given that
several false assumptions may be relied upon that the truth is only minor
about what security may exist- say with factoring outside of quantum or
other computing architectures, which become dogmatic, faith-based beliefs
that everyone knows are bounded observations- thus contingent, unless you
have access to the deep underground labs or other galaxies resources.

it is the same situation with architecture and anti-architecture or those
who look human yet have antihuman agendas (bladerunner-esque), in that the
sign of something can be camouflage, a ploy, a substitute or stand-in that
is not the thing itself (mimic) and references another unshared grounding
(say A-> B) versus what is assumed (A-> A'). so, the signage could be
pointing in a given direction, yet going in the opposite, and in this way
instead of modeling truth and aligning with it (A=A) it could be subverting
and moving away from it (B), yet appear to static or "said to be moving
toward it via language and reference to other signs" (A=>A' actually B=>B').

in this way, [crypto] can move towards falsity in a binary framework, yet
with paradox this falsity could be multiple, beyond those controlled by the
binary approach and its /controlled signage/, beyond the limited threshold
and its particular interpretation, thus feasibly invisible, incalculable.

this would require reframing thesis-antithesis (and synthesis) in a dueling
context of binary and paradoxical logic, which itself would be the compass
and basis for a kernel, from my naive view, for the core of the dynamics.

another way of saying it: you can have all the code you want, yet if it is
not grounded you're fucked.

--- conceptualization of hidden interiority --

i found these paintings online that to me indicate a conceptual correlation
with visualization of the expanded bit sets in their venn context...

# Ordered Chaos 12 & 14

# Tao Of Physics, Quantum Space

--- decrypt for feedback ---

_ |v JL 3 p\ w Z 7r : 2 6

 I N T  E R E S T  i N G
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20130916/0ce64949/attachment.html>