Do We Need a Space Time Navigator?
Introduction
The concept this framing paper seeks to illustrate is a means to create a high-bandwidth informatics bridge between our observational reality, our biosphere and our infosphere in a temporally navigable form.
In-effect — the product concept is to create a form of multi-dimensional space-time navigator that is designed provide a means to scaffold and render informatics narratives, with meaningful linkages between concepts and causal events, cascading inferences and multi-dimensional space-time flows and occlusions.
As I’m writing this; I’m thinking, it sounds like a bunch of big words that don’t mean much put together in such a way… At least, not without some explanation about the underlying considerations that I’m thinking about how to creatively weave together into some sort of useful embodiment of a ‘thing’ / product, information systems framework, etc… Yet…
There is also are an array of underlying investigative belief’s or assumptions; which in-turn, link to an array of dissatisfactions about the status of world events broadly; and in-turn, how to fathom a possible future path that may better distinguish between ‘reality’ and ‘fictions’, whilst taking into account complex issues.
How are complex issues about reality employed via ICT in a way that could or should, add meaningful value towards humanitarian growth; towards, what I consider to be a possible future of a ‘knowledge age’.
A type of capability that is far less susceptible to dynamic propaganda and other ‘reality distortion’ mechanisms.
It appears to me, to be the makings of an existential crisis or series of threat, whereby the vast majority of humanity would in-turn be led down some path that would have the result of having very little influence over current affairs (in reality) due to fictional dystopias forged by powerful actors that act to extinguish sense-making — because there’s no laws against it & its profitable!
Or moreover; that there’s a bunch of people who understand pragmatic aspects about reality; and then, there’s the vast majority who merely act upon speculation and propagated ‘false-hoods’, without any meaningful pathway to seek legal remedy nor could legal remedy be sufficient to fix the causal impacts brought about by said few bad actors, upon life.
Human Factors
Within the realm of ‘information sciences’ or cognitive social functions; there’s an array of old moral principles. Within our Human family; some people like to suggest that people are very much, fundamentally different on a basis of which part of the world they were born and which book was used to learn about higher-order social functions.
In some parts of the world, such belief systems were developed without books…
These sorts of discriminating factors are also put upon all other living things in our world; both flora and fauna, which as an entire system leads to beliefs relating to the mobilisation of persons for practice-based efforts that lead to addressing issues in our natural world. On-top of these sorts of ‘layers’; are others that live within the social, linguistic, economic, financial and governance domains.
These layers form ‘beliefs’ about concepts such as wealth, value, trade, law and lore; and how to provide for social systems that are said to be beneficial for our biosphere broadly but moreover therein — life…
Parts of these considerations are lent for employment to provide for a social valuation of a persons ‘value’ in a society; built upon such rules.
The thing about these social / human factors, is that there’s still natural forces at play broadly.
More often than seems to be beneficial or healthy; forceful acts are made to disassociate people from ‘reality’, on a basis that there are ‘gains’ to be made and that systems can be manipulated to limit risk to those who are setting-out on a path to obtain the commodity like equitable value of those gains.
Without seeking to assert ‘value’ or ‘credit’ to said sorts of ‘reality distortions’, the purposeful intention of those acts is to engender a particular sort of outcome via influence.
So — what is the impact of those influences, and how could we better employ ICT to investigate associative causality? If we know our ‘thoughtware’ is being weaponised against us to cause us injury, to ‘rent seek’ or enslave — what can we do about it? How can our ‘interference patterns’ better impact causality?
STEM Factors (inc. physics, quantum physics theory, etc. etc.)
Regardless of what people ‘say’ there’s aspects about our world which we’ve developed syntactic language to describe that in-turn has meaning that is very well founded in the concept of ‘our reality’ (a shared temporally succinct universe of some sort); whereby considerations made via MATH, physics and more broadly science, technology engineering and arts fields; present an array of common capacities to support an understanding of ourselves and the world around us.
An inability to perform these functions neurologically is a form of dysfunction.
This is distinct to the capacities for people to understand and iterate and/or illustrate fictions, or the products of ‘imagination’ in both wakefulness and times of sleep or ‘day-dreaming’.
At what level could it be argued that ‘thoughtware’ platforms could be engaging in behaviours via cyber-physical systems that could be inferred to constitute a form of criminal abuse and/or such related crimes against humanity, if found to be a purposefully sanctioned activity for specified reasons known to be injurious.
The mechanisms surrounding decision making is still seemingly somewhat unclear to science; and certainly the more science and technology seek to investigate how to wield tools of influence that have a secondary implication of learning more about it, the more dangerous the world can appear, for others; or indeed, the more dangerous the world may become — in reality.
Amongst the areas of salvage that should exist as a reliable foundation; is the ability to employ STEM in various ways.
Yet this implicitly means there needs to be tools available, to make the process of doing so accessible.
Another constituency element which is also, slowly being explored more and more by fictional films and popular fantasy media; is the concept of ‘multiple realities’ or multiple universes…
Often the way these sorts of concepts are portrayed are about some person getting into a time-machine or through some magic door that leads an observer to a different reality; but for the purposes of illustrating my considerations in relation to this concept / project,
The underlying theoretical model is to allocate each ‘observer’ its own causal structure or ‘universe’ / reality.
Therein, from the ‘status of the observer’, the observer in and of their ‘own minds’, have different processes…
Linkages between ‘observers’ can show commonalities, and in-turn also; provide temporal links back to foundational concepts.
SO, if a group of persons are seemingly compelled for some reason to go perform some otherwise strange act — such as emptying shelves of toilet-paper, as has been a recent phenomena; space-time evaluation may provide insights and a level of consideration for circumstances in relation to those acts, that could better explain ‘why’.
In other instances; there’s an ability to look at a particular statement made by a ‘trusted authority’ which then has influence across a broader space-time field.
Should any such article be found ‘true’, it may be considered useful for productivity and consequential coherence as an additive to our shared reality; if any such article is found ‘false’ or a wilfully intended ‘wrong’, then it may be considered to have done the opposite.
Herein; is a consideration of some sort of ‘space time fractal’ that may be measured via nominal integers; and in-turn form branching mechanics.
The sort of ICT infrastructure required to evaluate these sorts of hyper-complex graph structures, become radically energy intensive to process / compute; but equally, increasingly within the sphere of our capacities, particularly given the amount of energy presently ‘spent’ on processing various forms of ‘blockchain’ based ‘statements’, about coins or contracts…
Socio-Economic & Biosphere impactful Factors
Whilst there’s a lot of ‘talk’ about ‘saving the world’; where the inflection is about improving the management of our relationship with our biosphere, it is increasingly difficult to understand anything about cognitive legitimacy.
Vast, global centralisation of powers now illustrate manoeuvrable mechanisms that can lead to billions entering somewhat voluntarily into self-imprisonment on a belief that — the human race will be wiped out — in an event, that has seen over a period of more than a year — the worlds population of human beings (and wealth for some) grow.
I believe, there is a reasonable basis to be very concerned about the sensibility of considering liberalised democracies bound by values outlined in human rights doctrine — that includes reference to ‘rule of law’; as having legitimacy in ways that appear to not be evident based upon the substantive nature of records grown; and references becoming ever more absent.
It seems there are different classes of human beings, who are furnished different structures of protection for having engaged in acts that are knowingly harmful to others; without any repercussive implication being bound to nominated classes of persons, whilst others are treated punitively.
Where this in-turn intersects with biosphere management; if an actor or group of actors prosecute a particular path, this has a causal structure associated to it.
IF that process is defined by few people, by design, that is part of the design of that process; if it is designed to be ‘binary’ in nature, as to exact fully discipline qualities; that is part of the design also.
Where it is found that a group of parties make particular decisions that have long-term impacts — it seems there is a preference to ‘bury’ the history of how a problem occurred, as to support power of those who may well be incompetent or worse.
Some troubling examples relate to major environmental events, with major impacts upon our biosphere.
There are many troubling examples in almost every sphere of ‘group activities’.
The problem becomes one where there is an inability to distinguish between opportunities ‘honest mistakes’ (unintended harms) and wilful or negligent (/torts) behaviours that are knowingly executed to sacrifice ‘good actors’ to benefit bad ones.
In these sorts of temporal examinations, another problem becomes that people who are considered to be ‘speculating’ that a particular path is the wrong path, at the outset; may be easily dismissed, then silenced if found to be correct later down the track.
This sort of problem leads to distortive relations with reality that have causal effects. The way ‘powers that be’ may often seek to manage this sort of thing; is with overwhelming power, that progressively transmutes the ability to distinguish truth or set-out upon a more optimised path of progress (innovation, equity, etc.); via artificial means, that are now in-turn increasingly embedded into our tools, as rules.
These problems now seemingly interact with the networked tools we use to communicate; as such, it is increasingly difficult to understand to what level our thought ware is exploiting us, do we have a capacity to build new ideas and have meaningful relationships between the way we spend our time doing work and the benefits of those efforts?
Or, do we, as individuals, become ladened with the costs — whilst the useful resources become harvested by the platforms we must use should we seek to communicate or undertake some sort of work that requires us to do so…
A conceptual starting point — to build a different sort of exploration engine?
Perhaps a way of structuring an effort to ‘better think’ about all of these very difficult and challenging problems; is to start by looking at how to create some sort of temporally associative, multi-layered, geospatial app framework;
that could better leverage the underlying ‘data patterns’ (informatics, often without ‘good interfaces’) to change how it is we are able to investigate history, how it is we think about these ‘different universes’ as is distinct to our ‘shared reality’; and to evaluate which actors are found overtime to have had positive influences vs. those that may in-turn be found to have had, what may become considered new types of criminal behaviours, knowingly harming others for some gainful purpose that can be more easily identified through the use and development of tools; that have a capacity to maintain better coherence between what we know of as a form of reality and/or reality-based perspectives (considered ‘reasonable’ or similar);
as becomes distinct to the behaviourally linked considerations that become more easily distinguished as a form of usury or other ‘wrongs’ that can be associated to knowingly or improperly distorting and/or impairing the capacity for persons to live in peace; towards a biosphere prosperous world.
Therein — whilst making an important note about the importance of considering aspects in a more sophisticated or ‘ontological’ sort of way; and that it is important that it is ‘real-world’ actors who are linked to decisions, whether they be decided via groups (quorum) or moreover in association to one of more natural persons (individuals / humans); in so far as various elements of a framework could or should be formed — there is always compromises.
There are also instances where the underlying nature of the cause’ is well beyond the realm of influence of mankind.
Yet, this is a multi-faceted thing / concept / ‘reality’.
Furthering works on ‘social encryption’
These concepts are not ‘brand new’, rather, this document is a reflection of progress in a field of work; that has been undertaken for sometime. Perhaps moreover, this is a iterative step forward; whereby, I’m reviewing what may be usefully done to support some sort of progression in a way I think may reasonably become a useful step forward.
Both; in the form of theoretical thinking and the insights that become engendered due to spending time on some pursuit; and, because if it does turn into something useful for others by way of a product, it may have a positive impact.
My thinking is that if the tooling is made sophisticated enough, it should be fairly difficult / expensive, to ‘hack’. BUT therein is another aspect, which is something about being able to temporally lock records via distributed computational frameworks that provide some level of security to support means whereby a ‘reality track’ may be deemed somewhat reliable (by comparison to others); in a manner that may have meaningful safety (/security) applications.
One of the many areas of development that deeply concerns me; is the way ICT is being used to distort ‘realities’ in a manner that is not temporally engageable.
In-effect, a bunch of organised behaviours can have taken place in a temporally historical time; which can later be engineered to be suggested to have never of happened, or to have made different representations to the statements made at that time; as may cause injuries.
Build Concepts
In thinking about an architectural design, the following considerations are some historically referenced yet newly illustrated; perhaps with some aspects of ‘new concepts’ built into the methodologies / considerations, as a high-level outline that should be considered in terms of a conceptual design (until otherwise stated).
Use of DLTs
I have not historically been a fan of Blockchains due to the computational costs associated to the technology. The counter-argument provided by enthusiasts has historically been that; whilst the energy consumption profile of the technology is indeed significant, it is still considered (by enthusiasts) to be more energy efficient than alternatives.
I was particularly dismissive of this claim where it was applied to the application of currency (ie: BitCoin).
However, it is becoming increasingly concerning to me that there appears to be a lack of security with respect to ‘facts’ and the ability to review and associate ‘statements’ made at some point in the past and associative growth of actors irrespective of what sort of pathway their actions have led others (perhaps on mass, or globally) towards consequentially.
In-other words; If someone makes a bunch of false-claims that leads to harms across the planet through which they make ‘gains’ socio-economically; what mechanisms ensure that person is held accountable for their actions as to associate past behaviours with future decision making processes of affected parties?
Presently — there is very little in the way of solutions to improve and/or meet the challenges had, in our world, in this ‘space’… Perhaps it becomes more certainly the case that the energy cost when put upon ‘reality checking’ (#realitychecktech) does indeed need infrastructure that would mean if one bad actor tries to ‘hack reality’, they only way they are able to do so — is by taking down the entire network — that is — literally — they’d have to take over the worlds thought ware as to make it redundant for all involved… This in-turn limits the capacity for an attack, via traditional sorts of means.
Licensing considerations & Underlying Data Structures
I think the only way this could be made to work is via highly permissive underlying licensing techniques; perhaps with a stipulation that says something about compliance with human rights or similar. Some sort of way to try to make the use of the platform — have integrity — without asserting royalties or similar… not sure, will have to think about it.
The ‘free for the world’ thing has historically been shown to benefit bad actors, not the ‘good ones’, so, IDK.
There are an array of existing ‘data structure’ works that can help provide various layered approaches to informatics processing. Historically, one of the first times something like this was attempted by me, I sought to apply the theory via heritage (history); but found the lack of commercial models challenging — as most people only put effort into things that can help them have a better life recreationally (inc. support for food, family, etc.); traditional approaches that seek to target issues like history, including but not limited to — ‘encyclopedia’ projects (ie: Wikipedia); seemingly end-up getting distorted in-part due to the economic limitations, that thereby ends-up empowering ‘paid actors’ (paid for some commercial / agenda related purpose) to define their views about something; whilst the lived experiences of others, are set-aside.
A recent example of this includes the apparent situation where there has been fairly enormous protests in many places around the world whereby members of our human family in various countries / jurisdictions, have gone to the streets protesting initiatives being undertaken by all governments as a form of alliance globally — yet — the protests, fail to attract acknowledgement by media or otherwise; This doesn’t really make a lot of sense… in terms of a framework of hyper-media capabilities if its designed for ‘truth telling’…? (seemingly it isn’t).
So there are meaningful questions that remain unanswered about how to forge infrastructure that’s better equipped to support the semantic, temporal needs of ‘good actors’ whilst having designs built into the structures that can act as a form of ‘hygiene’ agent; as to effectively limit gains engendered by ‘bad actors’ who seek to manipulate circumstances for benefit, without negative repercussive implications. Some may say this goes against basic aspects linked to ‘human behaviours’ yet, this in-turn also seemingly associates to ideological contexts.
Design Paradigms — Philosophical considerations
Traditional approaches sought to prioritise inventive support for authorised officers (human beings) to append and/or modify records in a manner that was thought better equipped to respond to various socio-legal needs; whilst ‘securing’ records via a semantics approach that still furnished a capacity to limit risks and/or provide support for ‘tamper evidence’. Therein; were also, an array of underlying aspects linked to assumptions about ‘trustworthiness’ or implied efficacy with respect to ‘trust’ frameworks in a form that were not simply, more computationally secured.
The alternative that has long been advocated for by an array of despondent industry professionals, has been various forms of blockchain based alternatives. This was considered, by me, to have an unacceptably high energy profile; although, in consideration / with hindsight — some assumptions have since been found to be flawed, so, I am relatively compelled to revisit these underlying assumptions; and thereby, look to undertake a redesign that may have compelling characteristics able to respond to various threats more progressively; although, this is not simply a software engineering / architecture design task.
Since ~2013 where ‘last version’ designs were more concretely instigated, progress in various areas has come about, which provides opportunities that were not prevalent then.
Nonetheless; there are costs and benefits to designs that immutably secure records, which would in-turn have an array of consequential social implications (governance, law, socio-economics, etc.) that would need to be responded to as a consequence of said designs being formed in a manner that is considerate and accommodating to provide means that may better respond to other threats.
All of these sorts of things have fundamental constituencies linked to ‘design philosophies’ and values articulation.
No sensible procedural analysis related — pragmatic approach — should ever be designed to be temporally static.
That is to say
Things always evolve and so part of the paradigm requirements that are becoming increasingly relevant are means to ensure social-productivity towards values-based undertakings. ‘what we design, impacts how we think, how we live and how we are made able to address emerging challenges’..
Design Paradigms — Computational Approach
Sense Making Layer
The overarching design intent Is about forming a ‘sense making’ derivative infrastructure outcome; that’s better equipped to support inferencing in relation to causality, category theorem (fiction/non-fiction, genres) and more.
There will need to be an index or vocabulary linked structural framework for communicating ‘confidence’ factors.
A way to describe this is via a fictional example; imagine quantum computing is far more advanced than is known and that there are underlying compression techniques that provide a capacity to communicate information via an in-built payload of 100x less bandwidth than would otherwise be required for ordinary actors; ‘like the aliens made it’.
So, even though the scenario invokes a situational position of requiring far less energy than is otherwise required; there is still a computational process required to perform a ‘situational analysis’ procedure, that requires (access) time & energy. This is similar in a way, to undertaking a survey; so, one can ask a few people or a ‘nation wide survey’ can be performed — but for the purposes of this scenario, its done by querying the network electronically; then processing the records, which have a plurality of different graphs that become procedurally compounded.
In-effect; even if there was a means to fully evaluate the causality related drivers of all persons lived experiences over a period of time to evaluate influences and root-cause analysis processes across a ‘humanitarian sphere’; there are enormous entropy related constraints, that may have solutions via distributed quantum computing infrastructure (like nothing we have today); but for the purpose of the scenario — ‘insight capabilities by aliens’ (legal aliens or otherwise); there is still a cost/benefit to how ‘deep’ the process operated for whatever purpose is undertaken to achieve; which in-turn, links back to energy consumption and cost/benefit analysis (from a ‘status of the observer’ — meaning, if the job is really hard, but has a life/death implication for some innocent victim — its worth spending a lot of energy — for them — to try to find ‘truth’).
Herein; from a physics (and vocabulary) related point of view, this is kind of where some of the ‘multi-universe’ linked interpretations of ‘(quantum) physics dynamics’ takes place. In-effect, the outcome will most-often be some sort of ontologically communicable matrix of ‘assumptions’ to ‘some level’.
So — in-effect, what is being illustrated here is a range of considerations about ‘energy use’ that is ordinarily considered ‘out of band’ from a position of what generally the applications for ICT are presently; and those that are yet to be further developed in some way that have a meaningfully positive impact upon our biosphere / humanity.
As such; there are qualities of how this considered topological structure is considered possibly able to be made equipped; to get a better outcome for dependents of ICT (causality structures); but this comes at a cost, that would in-turn need to be furnished an array of intended economic modelling strategies, that could be made to work.
Environmental / Commerce / Energy Considerations
Whilst there is a lack of ‘insights’ built into the protocol definitions presently employed by ‘the web of today’; There are an array of compelling reasons that seem to be ‘quite sensible’ (indeed in other areas, advantageous) to bring into the design requirements at the ‘root & stem’ level; a means to support evaluation of energy and more broadly otherwise — a variety of computational economic metrics. This in-turn links to the semantics layer (SIL, per below); but is also, in many ways, interoperative with a design paradigm that is thought better equipped to scale (work / grow). Essentially, part of the underlying ‘problem’ (per analysis / speculative rationale) is the need to fortify a position that is equipped to respond to various incumbent actors (of varying ‘grey scales’ from light to very dark).
Therein; the consideration / hypothesis becomes, one where the cost/benefit of different topological designs for infrastructure operations can be better communicated in economic (financial / cost-benefit, etc.) terms; if, there is an ability to perform ‘smart network management’ features in ways; the ‘historical’ web, presently struggles to achieve.
YET and underlying coupled problem to this hypothesis, is that there’s also operationally related ‘efficiencies’ or ‘productivity’ benefits, across multiple spheres of operation; that are ‘out of band’ from the more immediate implementation capabilities (on-network, in-effect).
Whether via ‘e-contracting’; or otherwise, there are an array of more modern business systems that could be applied, to stimulate cost/benefit value-statement communications; perhaps best achieved via ‘integrations’…
NOTE: One of the important underlying & related aspects to these considerations associate to alternatives that may be brought about within the Content Distribution Network (CDN) infrastructure industry & Linked business models.
Whether this be considered on an adversarial / commercial / competitive basis; or via means seeking alliance, is considered independently to the underlying purpose; of seeking to articulate various deliberations for protocol re:design.
Semantic Information Layer (SIL?)
For the purposes of this document; the concept of ‘information layer’ is essentially defined as a document layer; at the data-informatics level.
Essentially the consideration is about how to furnish multi-agent consumables in structured, unstructured and transformable (unstructured to semi-structured / structured) forms.
The ‘root’ approach is essentially built as an adaptive ‘semantic web’ informatics infrastructure; although, shifting the resource infrastructure from primarily HTTP source approaches; to DLT URIs, and then forming meaningful rules about provenance attribution (ie: version control) in association to procedural targeting of particular URI Fragments; whilst maintaining (or moreover enhancing) reasoning capacities; as required to improve support for ‘temporal’ and ‘geographical’ (inclusive to legal / jurisdictional) renderings & Insights.
The ‘SIL’ layer provides the resources required for agents to undertake permissions based computational analysis; but, this level of systems design does not in and of itself direct capacities of any particular agent.
Data Layer
Essentially, the ‘data layer’ may provide various forms of encryption / Obfuscation related techniques; that could in-turn employ methods that would in-effect create ‘data-packages’ for consumable code via a plurality of constituencies / elements. These sorts of early considerations link in-turn to how a ‘key structure’ is (computationally) defined; in a format that provides meaningfully efficient and effective renderings.
In ‘blockchain land’, there’s concepts such as ‘sharding’ or ‘sidechains’; which I am then considerate of related calculable procedural considerations (over-time); about dependency modelling and ‘moore’s lore’ ( & similar).
Part of the consideration could or should include deliberations about how a ‘family’ of protocols may be used that could work as part of an intended ecosystem (and/or different profiles, similar to media encoding methods); that would in-turn support a broader array of use cases, more efficiently (or so would be the intention, overall).
These sorts of considerations revert back to the deliberations associated to energy calculations; and a resilient means to define / approach designs, in a modular and backwards compatible framework (ideally +/- cost/benefit analysis); where energy expenditure (if modelled correctly) should result in calculations about efficacy of any particular approach and/or advancements (improvements) for any-such approach. (devil is in the details).
Computational sensemaking
There are meaningful questions about the cost/benefit analysis linked to ‘computational sense-making’ as does otherwise associate to network based endification of associative actors and/or agents. (Pervasive surveillance).
There are multiple levels to this problem; and presently, too many of them have significant ‘security’/ safety issues.
Without getting into the underlying ‘anti-hacking’ techniques that should be evaluated (by a specialist group, etc.)
There are ‘higher-level’ considerations that could better apply to all agents (software / human / thing); as to create a semantic fabric that may result in an improved ideological structure for the protection of critical infrastructure / things (from pace-makers, to energy infrastructure); decision trees with respect to these sorts of things, have a very high-level of ‘marketing influencers’ — as some ‘protected’ infrastructure, has special needs; other public places, shouldn’t infer ‘rights’ in inappropriate ways, on the basis someone ‘sells’ the ‘opportunity’ due to special needs in other places. In-effect, there’s a hygiene requirement; with or without new networks, and the definition of underlying principals will likely interact with broader socio-economic immune responses (ie: law cases) that fix problems in different ways, in different jurisdictions.
Implicitly; the next constituency of how an opportunity structure may be formed; somewhat links back to how its instigated — which has a cyclically relational problem, between the institutional actors who should have done a better job earlier as to not require some sort of ‘radically distinct competitively alternative solution’ to be formed; whose intentions, likely on an individual basis relate moreover to ‘money’ at a fairly ‘low level’; but at a group level, perhaps implicitly something else that could hinder meaningful progress (linked back to that ‘money’ thing);
Yet if its done by ‘activists’ — its susceptible to other problems, that may end-up stifling real-world positive outcomes. Similarly, if works are done in the public domain; they may empower bad actors, if its done privately, it may be owned by bad actors… Therein — is a need to define what a ‘bad actor’ is; in some sort of framework.
There are already works on ‘rules as code’ or in-effect, law as code works; but, I’d consider this to be ‘early days’.
Similarly, whilst the structure of this article forms a type of quasi-bonded, synergetic methodology between a bunch of memes and a bunch of important underlying problems that may have implications of a serious nature today; and a variety of different ways to solve it — or not… there’s two more useful articles that are amongst my many article put under the flag i made years ago called WebCivics; and therein, some images linked to the underlying considerations linked to reality / causality apparatus (diagrams).
This diagram below makes a basic reference to an ability to create a limitless amount of topic based, expert systems; that can then exploit how the web works today to prosecute a particular agenda via a form of AI Violence…
or similarly… / moreover… That underlying ‘moral choice’, that starts with consciousness; and leads to a choice, do we do ‘work’ that focuses on ‘information’ systems, where it’s ok to mislead people, distort their views; or do we make an alternative decision, to work on ‘knowledge systems’; when its known, you can’t really spend time doing both simultaniously, there’s an opportunity cost that needs to be considered, with each step…
What is it we want to best engineer…
Is an environment that supports Human Agency, Representative Democracy important to us?
Do we need to build blockchain based capabilties to immutably provide alternative infrastructure as a consequence of decisions by others to intentionally cause injury to persons for wrongful gains with the express intent of ensuring our records management systems makes access to justice, mute…
Or have we now been isolated long enough to have had time to think…
Or is the situation, overwhelmingly moreover, just more simply a lost cause…
This draft, will be improved upon and likely extended…
I hope, you enjoyed the memes…
back in 2016 (christmas day) i made this video… it’s a bit long, but it goes into some of the history that’s linked to the tech used for ‘vaccine passports’ and whilst i am not a fan of ‘that agenda’, the video may help explain why.
