Causal Relationships between Social informatics design and Quantum Mechanical Phenomenon.
Defining #RealityCheckTech
Draft 2.0 — Cyber Infrastructure design considerations: Reality Check, Tech.
Introduction
As noted elsewhere, I’ve been working on this informatics system thing for sometime. The journey started in 2000, where the design was highly influenced by the notional concepts that relate to a relatives Nobel Prize on how synapses work (john carew eccles) whilst thinking about how applications and online data storage may be made to work from that time.
The considerations about ‘quantum physics’ is comparatively new to me, whilst underlying considerations about forming a particular form of online framework has been something i’ve been progressing for a very long time.
At around 2015, works defining tools (web-standards) to build an informatics ecosystem led to some work exploring the implications of quantum computing technology and its potential impacts on cryptographic systems. This in-turn led me to finding a reference to John Carew Eccles work in relation to quantum mechanics and consciousness; alongside an array of other works, including various algorithms.
This was a discovery that both confused and worried me, at the time.
The considerations that were then explored posited the questions of how one might redesign a system as to be resistant to quantum computer powered decryption capabilities; yet this in-turn led to an incorporative process of theorising, what i’d now define as causality relationships between information processing, AI ‘dynamic agent’ functional properties, and what is engendered as constituents of ‘lived experience’ interactively with social informatics systems. Considerations being a direct relationship to ‘sense making’ capacities and in-turn, relationships to / with - causality.
After continued considerations, i included some considerations in a video i prepared in 2016 outlining a broader series of issues that were seemingly coupled in preparation for a conference that i put together delivered at www2017
Trust Factory 2017 Primer: The future of your society, is in the hands and hearts of its people.
‘fearlessly’ publishing my considerations online in early 2018.
When first seeking a mans to explain my considerations, i made use of this two point interference illustration. The point being, that from two otherwise isolated emitters from a specific point in time an interference array is formed.
In relation to Graph Theory there is therein an exhibit of Enumeration of intersections; that may in-turn reflect commonalities in communications modality, which may in-turn give rise to reason, in far more complex informatics processes — relationships between ‘understanding’, human experience; and the significant difference that may be engendered by AI systems that do not take into account the interactive role of the human agents.
Excerpt from: The many worlds of quantum reality with Sean Carroll
A way to explain this in another way; is that, the supposition dictates in a binary manner that quantum physics either interferes with causality, or it does not.
there would be different outcomes in patient care if the full records of a patients activities were available to an AI agent acting to support a doctors decision making process; than could possibly be achieved via systems where the only informatics resources made available for clinicians are those that are written into information management systems by (clinical) observers.
Yet another way to illustrate the consideration; is that every person (a) another person (b) knows, defines their (a) ‘identity’ differently, which temporally changes overtime; and that human agency requires and is reliant upon the means for information / informatics systems, to support ‘observers’, & ‘Interference’ patterns. Therein, there is a distinction between a response or action based upon decision making processes that relates to unknown factors vs. wilful choices that have implications in relation to others, that are made on an informed basis.
The second point, which is loosely coupled with the former considerations, is in consideration of forming a means to harden informatics security, without undue requirements for energy consumption — in a highly scalable fashion.
This led to derivative unanswered questions becoming a component of my research; which in-turn led to discoveries of prominent quantum physics speaking of their views that there was a relationship between human thought processes and quantum physics.
The practical consideration being, that whilst i’m not a quantum physicists; similarly, one doesn’t need to be a physics expert to consider the implications of gravity and/or acknowledge that ‘gravity’ exists.
A snippet from The Race For Quantum Supremacy I VICE on HBO
References to illustratively related considerations
I was alerted by way of two comments on this article by Barry (per below) alerted me to the book ‘The Quantum Self’; and this clip from world science festival (2014) titled: “Measure for Measure: Quantum Physics and Reality” with the note to watch the first ~18 minutes
This video really helps to describe the underlying problem.
There’s a lot of Quantum ‘Bullshit’ out there…. but that’s not what i’m about..
The subsequent demonstration shows how quantum mechanics theory works, it isn’t easy to associate this to causality in relation to social dynamics.
When i first started writing about it, i was ridiculed. Yet, believing it was important and that i couldn’t simply drop it; I put my considerations into this medium post and have been updating it since; and alter this post as more media references supporting the considerations are found.
Considering the Implications: My concern was that if i simply ‘dropped it’, then important design considerations would be left without rational / reasoning, that may have implications in the long-term about the meaningful underpinning concepts embodied by my more practical designs.
Therein - if quantum physics does indeed have ‘nothing to do with it’, implications would include,
- lack of requirement for ‘social encryption’ considerations; cryptography methods would not similarly require a more multifaceted view on the future (and current) influences of quantum physics in relation to informatics and computing infrastructure.
- Social Informatics design principles, would needlessly consider any influence the effect false information might have on ‘sense making’; and the repercussive implications that may consequentially,
- influence the means for a 3rd party to define AI Agents that properly serve human entities in the construct, governance and definition of their ‘digital twin’ has nothing to do with who does it, as it’s a clockwork universe.
So, without wanting to stake any claims as an expert, I figured the best way to approach my understanding of thee problem; is to explain why i have a problem with the purported view that ‘quantum physics has nothing to do with it’ (at all), and now, sometime down the track — i’m editing this article to articulate more about how my considerations are becoming increasingly consistent with the views of others.
I have not as yet found any references online; that consider the (potential for) influence and/or a causality relationship between conscious experiences and informatics design / AI. This is called ‘ontological design’.
Jason Silva: Shots of Awe What is Ontological Design?
Considerations with respect to Natural World.
For some unknown reason, whilst the field of quantum physics is being employed to produce tools in a way that is underpinned by the body of knowledge and study termed ‘quantum physics’; there appears to be a suggestion, by those who are experts in the field, that it has nothing to do with the natural world & is only relevant in association to the things they make — or moreover, it appears that sometimes, this is the case.
“the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made” Anton Zeilinger
Therein, the inferred position made vigorously, by some, appears to be that quantum physics has no role in explaining how it is that natural life exists and is made able to function.
For various reasons, to me — this doesn’t make any sense…
Nature.com describes the field of quantum physics as “the study of matter and energy at its most fundamental level.” As life is built upon both, the suggestion that this field of science plays no role seems misleading at best.
As such, the emergent field of quantum biology would have no practical use or benefit if quantum physics had no role in the mechanics of our natural world. Sources that include the BBC report that Quantum Physics plays a role in the functional properties for plant life. Similar considerations are made in PhysicsWorld, ABC alongside a great many other sources online, that are rather easy to find online with a google search.
When considering the history of law, there is a roman law concept termed ius naturale which appears to correlate to works such as those best known associated to the work of noam chomsky known as ‘universal moral grammar’.
Excerpt from: Noam Chomsky: 2009–10–29 Human Rights in the 21st Century
Within a sophisticated and complex array of considerations; the problem i continue to face is the issue that when i ask quantum physics experts they tell me quantum physics is not one of them; and this suggestion hasn’t make sense to me, nor overtime has it been resolved via the online talks by global experts.
The consequential inference becomes one where it is likely that the vast majority of specialists in the field of quantum physics most likely have limited if any knowledge about semantic web & AI. Yet, this doesn’t explain away the suggestion that the way people learn through observations about the world, has nothing to do with quantum physics. After all, a human being is alive aren’t we? or is it that they think we’re in a simulation? or is it that this is more accurately about their professional focus and/or any potential for constraints or gaps in their knowledge and/or personal agency?
I couldn’t / didn’t understand how to form closure of my thoughts in this area.
Moreover; perhaps it is the case that the relationships between linguistics, behavioural science, neuroscience and information / informatics theory (inc. AI) may be another area that is not part of what makes up an expert in the field of quantum physics. perhaps there’s an array of professional practices and obligations that leads to good questions being provided poor answers to the general public.
Perhaps, it’s just not part of what they know or think about.
So the suggestion that quantum physics plays no role, given my journey, has seemed to me to be less true than any would-be oversimplified suggestion that quantum physics has everything to do with it. As neither seems correct (non-binary); the question that remains is how to get a grasp of what is relevant, and how to improve discourse as to ensure things aren’t improperly left ‘out of scope’.
The supposition being, that it is of vital importance to consider the role quantum mechanics / quantum physics theory has on the means through which humans illicid consciousness and positive decision making capacities. That there is phenomena of tangible and meaningful value that form meaningful informatics systems design relationships with informatics / information systems; that have the effect of forming meaningful causality relationships, and that perhaps without consideration for ‘the status of the observer’, the observational implications will be poorly disaffected. That without consideration, the effect may systemically lead to undermining human agency, in a manner that no one wants nor intended to apply.
The Stakes — in the present or sometime in the future; If there is a way for enormous international companies to make use of billion-dollar Quantum Computing infrastructure to ‘optimise’ ‘fake news’ systems, or perform other activities that are knowingly leading to manipulated outcomes, isn’t that an important thing to figure out? or does it not matter at all?
IF quantum physics does play an important role with the means for human observations to garnish the development of a learnt outcome, wouldn’t it be important to figure out how to incorporate it into systems design thinking?
other than for the specified purposes that are otherwise employed today?
What if, informatics design processes as does inform the means to simulate the experience people would otherwise have in-person whilst discussing object concepts, ideas and theories; cannot be made well, without considering aspects of what is required in consideration of quantum physics?
How is enquiry at all justified, if the position is that quantum physics has nothing to do with it and that anyone who explores it, should be discouraged?
Experts who seemingly consider similar things overtime.
As to form some sense of a ‘sense making’ for a sensible and defensible opinion, as to inform underlying considerations; whether or not quantum physics has anything to do with ‘sense making’, I’ve been studying / reviewed an array of online materials that seem to consider similar ideas, which i’ll now canvas with a summary.
I think, AFAIK, in the field of intelligence there is an idea that one part of the practice method is in data collection; and the other, is in knowing how to interpret the information subsequently collected.
I think i’m much better at the former process, than the latter — but i’m not sure what to think about it; and indeed, feel quite discouraged as a consequence of seeking feedback.
Perhaps you can make your own assessment and let me know what you think?
ONLINE VIDEOS & EMBEDDED OPINIONS (WITH SUMMARIES)
Henry Stapp on Quantum Mechanics (9:22)
This was one of the earlier videos i found that spoke about the idea of bringing the observer into the equastion. it also speaks about the idea of a closure of the wave function.
My thinking of what this could mean is that the practice of forming conscious thought is considered to potentially relate to a quantum mechanical process, whereby the creation of reality relates to a theoretical closure event; that is embodied in human behaviour as ‘choice’, or ‘freedom of thought’.
Therein, it appears to me that he considers this in relation to the importance his considerations have played on his ability to understand and communicate in a way that is of practical use to others, the role this has on his processes.
Sir Roger Penrose (7:08)
Sir Roger Penrose is the author of the book, The Emperor’s New Mind which was in-turn produced for TV as can be found on YouTube.
In this video, professor Penrose speaks directly to the idea that the brain is quite simply a (traditional) computational activity that simply requires computers to evolve as to perform the same functional capacity as human beings / consciousness, and that what may be going on is something that is beyond “present technology in our experiments” (said in a historical context)
I felt this talk was helpful towards a pursuit of seeking to understand whether quantum physics / mechanics, has anything to do with consciousness.
I subsequently found this video of Professor Penrose with Joe Rogan (22:38)
Jim Al-Khalili (16:09)
Jim is a theoretical physicist & Professor of Theoretical Physics and Chair in the Public Engagement in Science at the University of Surrey.
In this video, Jim speaks of the merits of quantum biology and uses a number of examples, whilst explaining the traditional problems of getting a grasp of the concepts that are known to exist.
The considerations that this video helped me get an improved position to garnish some sense of a theoretical comprehension, was the relationship between the function of living cells and that the consideration that quantum mechanics has some sort of relationship to it; does indeed have merit.
Another referenced video (1:10:56) of Prof. Jim Al-Khalili is supplemented below, that has been produced as to introduce quantum biology.
The above video has been sourced from the Artificial Intelligence Channel on YouTube. The idea that the two topics are entirely seperate, seems wrong.
Richard P. Feynman (57:52)
The Wikipedia entry about Richard Feynman describes his history in the following way;
was an American theoretical physicist, known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics for which he proposed the parton model. For contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 jointly with Julian Schwinger and Shin’ichirō Tomonaga.
In this video, he refers to an array of psuedo-science human experience related thoughts of how quantum physics might relate to widely discussed “phenomena”.
This is of course importance as to clarify the fact that any meritorious effort that seeks to retain some relevance in truth, must ensure some level of good hygiene as to exclude the nonsensical.
More broadly, in this presentation Richard Feynman provides a fairly comprehensive overview of the study of quantum physics in 1964.
What i learned from this video, noting that many more modern quantum physics experts often refer to, or quote - notes made by feynman; was the means to observe and experience some of the foundational theories as they were presented from a time long before our modern web, and its capabilities.
That part of his methodology sought to extend belief that some things that we do not understand may exist; and that, this formed part of the ‘schools of thought’, that led to further examination, study and exploration of this field of science. Part of what is therein considered is the role of ideas… He then later considers the pragmatics of figuring out something that ‘is right’.
John Hagelin (46:09)
Dr. Hagelin graduated in physics in 1981, and began post-doctoral research at the CERN for less than a year, then at the SLAC). Dr. Hagelin has spent much of the past quarter century leading a scientific investigation into the foundations of human consciousness.
In this video Hagelin posits an array of arguments in support of the view that quantum mechanics plays a key role in brain processes especially those associated with consciousness.
John Hagelin & Henry Stapp (42:13)
(as have been previously introduced)
In this video, concepts of the ‘collapse of the wave function’ is discussed…
In this video the concept of ontological design is expressly noted, alongside relationships between consciousness and the role of observers. A concept of ‘a quantum state’ is applied, which led me to draw associations between the concept of interference and derivative influences that may be associated. Importantly therein, the particular use of vocabulary appears to be of reasonable consequence to the way though which the representation of their theories has now therefore been presented and the ‘objective concept’ that is embodied within the concept that is ‘our knowledge’.
This in-turn appears to support considerations made by other means, by those such as Noam Chomsky (“moral grammar”).
The considerations made about ‘probabilistic’ modelling is also of particular relevance to the mechanical computational methods employed by ‘AI’.
Brief summary by John Hagelin with Russell Brand (7:45)
In this video, a link is drawn between thought, meditation and quantum mechanical relationships thought to relate to consciousness.
Which provides a useful segway to,
Dr Stuart Hameroff (multiple)
Stuart Hameroff is an anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Arizona known for his studies of consciousness and his controversial contention that consciousness originates from quantum states in neural microtubules. He is the lead organizer of the Science of Consciousness conference. source: wikipedia
Dr Stuart Hameroff is known to work (closely) with Deepak chopra on his studies that connect the functional properties of consciousness, with quantum physics / mechanics. In this video Hameroff reviews the views garnished by his works that provide some insights into the frame of his thinking, and how this (may) be bedded in neurological sciences and how that might be used.
The shortest video provided as to communicate his video based presentations of his work, is this one — delivered as a ted-talk (10:20)
This longer video (43:05 — below) gets right into the science of his ideas,
The journey i started in 2000 that has led to this long-term mission, seeking to build a ‘human centric web’ or ‘knowledge banking’ framework for the web, was highly inspired by my creative ideas influenced by the stories i was told about a relative, Sir John Carew Eccles, whose work is noted via stanford in relation to the underlying science that is referred to in this presentation.
Whilst i find this underlying science, baffling, i find it hard to simply dismiss.
His ideas / works are further discussed with Deepak Chopra in the video below,
These presentations helped me garnish a position where the idea of seeking to make further enquiries about the set of concepts discussed here, became something that was a defensible position to undertake — in my opinion…
Anil Seth (17:00)
Anil K Seth is a British professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex. source: wikipedia
In this video Anil discusses his views on how the brain ‘hallucinates’ reality
and a publication by nature, shows an experiment that brings into consideration more support for the relationship to linguistics
Daniel Amen (14:36)
Daniel Gregory Amen (born 1954)[1] is an American celebrity doctor[1] who practices as a psychiatrist[2] and brain disorder specialist[3] as director of the Amen Clinics. source: wikipedia
In this video Dr Amen presents ‘the most important lessons’ from 83,000 brain scans (and its implications in relation to the practice of psychiatry)
So, this set of considerations led me to consider how social-informatics as may be collected from all (un)available data produced in relation to a persons life, may be beneficially made use of to support this type / field, of work. Whilst this sort of capability would be unthinkable as a potential outcome, the means that are now used for very specific and specialised purpose based needs; have the potential, to be employed for a great many other useful applications.
Michio Kaku (4:17)
Michio Kaku is an American theoretical physicist, futurist, and popularizer of science (science communicator). He is a professor of theoretical physics in the City College of New York and CUNY Graduate Center source: wikipedia
What is Consciousness ? — Three stages of Consciousness (19:47)
So, there’s a number of quantum physics people who share with some coherence a set of views that seemingly share some set of principles.
At around this time i’m now more simply finding resources and collecting them with a deep sense of discomfort about the possible implications and the challenges that are brought about in feeling that it is indeed warranted to find a means to resource expert advice; as to understand what this all means, specifically in relation to the design of informatics systems, for humanity.
Russell Brand & Jordan Peterson (1:30:48)
Russell Brand and Jordan Peterson discuss an array of social considerations in a fairly accessible format, that moreover speaks to the concept of social stability factors; defined in the title of the clip as ‘kindness vs. power’.
This more philosophical format for derivative considerations, relating to the stories embodied by religious teachings amongst other things; and the practical considerations of critical thought and its association to such concepts of the benefit of ‘truth’, discuss qualities that relate to human agency.
‘the ethical requirement to be ‘good’’… which echos the considerations made by Noam Chomsky as is noted by the concept of ‘moral grammar’…
In this presentation by Noam Chomsky (1:25:57) speaks about language and philosophy… a particular except is provided below
Cyber-Physical
As was communicated in the press in 2014, facebook apologised for running psychological experiments on its users. (Guardian)
In an article published by nature entitled ‘The message of the quantum’ by Anton Zeilinger the following statement is made,
“the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made”
(will insert videos of presentations by Anton Zeilinger)
When considering the role informatics have upon the social activities of humanity and the meaningful usefulness of communications infrastructure, i continue to find that is is impossible to honestly define an informatics systems framework that i consider to be ‘fit for purpose’, clear and accurately illustratively considered in terms of related considerations; whilst doing so in a manner that would decisively exclude any consideration of influences ‘quantum physics’ sciences and any related concepts, likely have — in reality..
I have equally felt that i have been vigorously pursued to do so; which i’v found difficult to navigate as i have been degradingly pursued to accept these often fierce suggestions, that the practical solution to be considered by peers that i have the firm footing in reality, is to exclude considerations about quantum physics as sought by others for me to quite simply accept as truth.
The underlying consideration brought about - as far as i can tell, is in-turn complex. From a Science point of view; if these effects truely have no basis in science whatsoever, then there is no meaningful difference between systems that do not support human agency in the ways i have described; as this ‘mechanical universe theory’, supports the claim that 3rd parties can evolve their systems to define human beings for AI perfectly well.
From a social point of view, it is certainly the case that i would have been better off personally, socioeconomically, if i didn’t explore the topic at all.
In contradiction to the perspective put forth to consider the topic ‘out of scope’; the science related hypothesis and related considerations that appear to be ‘up for discussion’; seem both to explain why i get that sort of feedback alongside other implications — that may include,
The means evaluate whether and/or how; the organisationally augmented approach to the supply of information services through the lens of informatics infrastructure produced and operated by persona ficta entities can ever provide an operational outcome that retains coherence with reality; and whether or not, the design paradigm leads to a fundamental influence upon the derivative meaningful utility of those systems, in some important way.
This consideration relates to cyber-infrastructure influences on human agency at a fundamental level. The basic explanation of this is about ‘causality’ and its relationship to informatics management practices.
Good people may act as to harmfully influence the circumstances of others, not due to any would be desire to do harm, and in-turn cause an ‘interference pattern’ that may lead to further harms being consequentially brought about; but rather,
“the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made” Anton Zeilinger
In associative consideration; amongst the many implications, are an array of unproductive influences that include, but are not exclusive to,
- Diminished capacity to perform ‘root cause analysis’ and discern circumstantially derived poor decisions by well meaning and/or subjugated actors; vs.
- Exposure and enhancement of influences benefiting bad actors and/or bad actions / decision making practices.
Amongst the consequential notions brought about; is that human decision making at the very fundamental level of how our minds curate decision making upon the basis of how it is we are conscious, and mechanisms that may act to exploit and/or subvert human agency — implicitly relates to informatics (systems) design. How it is, that human actors are able to form interferences as do in-turn causally act to inform how systems should be produced, defined and made useful. Therein considerations are, about the moral grammar and specified constraints of what human beings need both individually and communally, to retain agency as is influenced by interference phenomena that inextricably influence decision making practices by human beings, inextricably involved in social systems. This in-turn forms socioeconomic influences impactful for the advancement of our useful arts and sciences; and, means to support the growth of economic productivity in our new age of a world coupled and in reliance of cyber informatics interoperable systems.
Therein - the implications, with respect to societies and our means to manage sustainable development of ‘liberalised democracies’ as is distinct to other forms of sovereign or global governance — may well be that these underlying factors significantly influence the design requirements for modern information / informatics systems we rely upon to maintain social-contracts between parties, using what we consider to be ‘trust-worthy’ records.
Jason Silva: Shots of Awe — What is Ontological Design?
Whereas — it is the case today that ‘human identity’ on the internet is considered a ‘content issue’, where natural actors do not have independent agency via existing business systems; that is principally designed in a manner whereby global corporate (artificial) entities define informatics and supply human beings ‘informatics services’, including identifiers; in-turn, often also ‘freely’ which is not free, but rather deployed via business systems built upon capitalism, which in-turn act to commodify and commercially manipulate informatics — to make money — so much so, human beings are most-often labelled ‘consumers’; as is illustrated by UN Consumer Protections and OECD Knowledge based Capital publications which are amongst the many.
The implication is; these systems unsustainably distort ‘sense making’, which is particularly damaging to societies governed as ‘liberalised democracies’ upon an array of particular ‘human rights’ principles that include ‘rule of law’.
No matter how systems employed as a ‘source of truth’ for discerning opinions; that in-turn relate economically to productivity, are applied,
‘Communications Tooling’ has an extricable link to actions ‘of consequence’ to biosphere entities / ecosystems. Today it is a commonly accepted view that the way these systems are currently operate, developed and commercially exploited — upon the basis that 3rd parties produce ‘source of truth’ records through the lens of roles as employed persons, and that ‘end users’ are consumers. These business systems particularly apply to records about human subjects, alongside many other record types that are considered to be ‘facts’.
Yet, the consciousness equastion seemingly suggests that as there are few means today to support data-entry into these systems by the human subject, any such considerations or inferences that may be formed should that information be available to decision makers would result in different outcomes; which in-turn appears to be similar to the concept of interference, quantum encryption and informatics systems distortions — linked to wave function related considerations, which i think may be responsible for many erroneous consequential decisions, of no positively useful value.
“What an amateur is, is a lover of a subject. I’m a lover of facts. The fact is the savior, as long as you don’t jam it into some preconceived pattern. The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance — it is the illusion of knowledge.”
Source: The 6 O’Clock Scholar By Carol Krucoff January 29, 1984 Washington Post
Social Informatics
As considered previously, this illustration of a interference pattern created as a consequence of two points of origin (and not three or four at a particular point in time; or millions over a temporal period). The modal diagram is thought helpful to illustrate a concept described in quantum physics as ‘interference’ whereby overtime (even very short periods of it) the ‘waves’ intersect with each-other overtime creating an interference pattern.
Social informatics as are employed by online systems, can be (somewhat insufficiently) represented in relation to a social graph; which amongst its many inferencing frameworks, temporal considerations (timestamps) play an array of important roles.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network
Whilst these sorts of images do not produce a similar temporal representation (akin to the ‘interference’ image above it); the underlying concept is that relations are tracked and made use of; to support intended beneficiaries.
Therein, these systems work by making use of the information it has available to it; without the means to make use of information that is not available to it.
This area of consideration is kinda where the vast majority of ‘quantum physics’ subject matter experts seemingly start to ‘lose it’…
The video below gives a quick (~6m) overview….
The Terrifying Cost of “Free” Websites | Adam Ruins Everything
Longer content includes the video — Big Tech Stole Our Data While Democracy Slept: Shoshana Zuboff on the Age of Surveillance Capitalism in addition, notably, to the debate Mark Zuckerberg on Trial: Facebook is Damaging Society by iqsquared — whereby one of the suggested statements is that if people don’t like ‘facebook’ they don’t need to use it, without fuller consideration of the implications — both, in terms of broader cyber-infrastructure services that extend far beyond social media platforms, and the implications to society.
Therein — On platforms such as facebook, there is an array of topics that people more openly speak about, alongside the means for platforms like facebook to obtain additional data in relation to the person as to support ‘inferencing’; but there’s also a great deal of important considerations that are not part of its commercial models. The implications become far more important when considering the same principles, when applied to critical infrastructure required to support wellbeing, systems of democracy and our means to address real-world issues; including but not exclusive, to the advancement of the useful arts and sciences & sustainability of our biosphere.
The diagram i authored (some time ago) per below, illustrates a set of informatics considerations that now relate to data that’s stored somewhere.
NSA Prism program slides — Source: The Guardian
Whilst the capabilities of the world-wide-web to communicate information from billions of sources around the world in seconds can be most easily demonstrated by simply performing a search on google (or similar), most have not fully considered the broader capability that is now exampled by ‘leaks’, such as those brought about by activists including Edward Snowden; in addition to, considerations about the implications of globally centralised informatics control systems that feature poor employment of category theory nor seemingly, consideration of the broader destructive implications.
- If we have this capability, why isn’t it available to those who need to immediately make use of it to preserve their safety & rights as are authored via apparatus that is employed to define ‘rule of law’?
- Given the ‘status quo’, what are the productivity implications?
- Upon what basis is it considered reasonable to expect that if 3rd parties did the wrong thing by someone, that the information about any such wrongful acts would be properly documented in that organisations systems?
- Is it reasonable to expect that systems should be built to protect ‘truth’ through means that expect those who enter information into their employment related systems to self-incriminate themselves?
- Given electronic storage medium is dynamic, how thereafter are organisation legally responsible for the repercussion of their actions if they are the sole custodian for records employed as a ‘source of truth’?
The implications being;
- By providing a means to support the means for humans to retain useful agency over their information — incentive structures are materially influenced. The consequence being that; Accessibility to materials that support situational awareness forms an interference pattern with incentive structures.
- That a properly designed cyber-infrastructure structure that provides the means for individuals to safely make informatics decisions about their interactions with other agents and in-turn themselves; will change their observable behaviours.
Therein — when the question becomes “whether this has anything to do with quantum physics at all”; and/or, why is it important to bring these sorts of otherwise ‘fanciful’ considerations into the practice of evaluation & design,
The point becomes one about intentionally bridging our natural informatics environment to an external ecosystem designed for ‘ontological design’.
On a social level, the inferred hypothesis is that about the material impact on what is called in philosophical and psychological fields of study; human agency, or as may otherwise be considered — ‘soul food’.
Cyber informatics systems have the implication of building systems that serve to operate and get in the middle of everything; inextricably linked to economics via specified means, that have direct impacts on what information is made available to civilians; which in-turn has a direct impact on how it is we behave, how we are made able to survive and/or thrive — as human beings.
By not taking ‘reality’ into consideration; the result brings about something that may be akin to a ‘dissociative’ effect that could be answerable for significant social and ecological harms and that this is in-turn unavoidable.
Therein — as is seemingly a manifest causal situation today; an array of pervasive problems are being applied upon our world as a consequence of the particular design characteristics embodied within information systems; which are incorporated by how it ‘owns’ and operates an info sphere of artificial systems; and the influences those systems have upon human activity.
Therein — the problems is actually about ‘evil billionaires’, but rather a pervasive systems approach that is influences human consciousness and therefore the capacity to align with instrumental ‘quantum mechanical’ phenomenon. Conversely, if a redesign was employed ‘in good faith’, the same ‘quantum mechanical’ phenomena may actually be usefully employed to grapple with ‘the big problems’, considered today to be impossible to resolve.
Therein implicitly, it is not that the vast majority of human beings WANT to participatory harmfully consume the planet or that people WANT to go to work and meaningfully harm others, or consider themselves best served by knowing that they’ve done so; and seeking to forget about it, as to focus on their own needs as to care for their families.
Its just that our information systems poorly serve every-body. Our means to enhance our capacity as members of our human family requires systemic changes.
Conversely to the idea that those who work for government mean to cause its civilian populations harm, and then make ‘policy reforms’ ignorant to the impacts that are known to have occurred, without available remedy; the principle underpinning consideration is that its about situational awareness.
Ontological design as a means to consider the dynamics of how to form ‘prosthetic extensions of self’ in social systems; seemingly needs to take into account these sorts of phenomenon as to forms part of the intentional design of societal systems by people of good health; and that those who do otherwise could reasonably be considered to lack such qualities (ie: be operating with poor mental health / fear).
Conceptual relationship between semantics of societal informatics systems design and material outcomes brought about in use of them; is that, without consideration for the relationship between quantum mechanics / physics, and human consciousness; is to allow for these mechanics to be manipulated by sophisticated actors via new medium, in a manner where targets can never be appropriately equipped to extend a natural persons human agency into any federated persona ficta centric without increasingly enormous sacrifice.
Secondly, responding to these design issues also relates in-turn to considerations made for the above; relate in-turn to the formation of networked informatics patterns that can be properly employed to support ‘trust’ or the illusions required in purporting to be trustworthy, for the same.
Social Encryption
illustrated benefits of a decentralised multi-tenanted informatics systems
The concept i call ‘social encryption’ is in many ways very old and is employed for an array of applications that have an impact on ‘sense making’. Internet brings with it an array of new types of attack vectors that can be employed to cause harm to injury to personhood and human agency. Therein, one form of these attacks types is to modify records relating to observed reality as to distort, undermine and/or revoke the ability to rely upon records purported to be ‘of an event’. Others include forming a means to protect against InfoSec attacks by quantum capable computing infrastructure and/or reliance upon ‘broken ‘cryptography reliant’ systems tooling’ & linked components.
The useful derivatives born via these theories are built upon semantic web works that illustrated the usefully important distinction between ‘accountability’ and ‘security’; or moreover secrecy / obfuscation, or in thee human domain ‘privacy’ vs. ‘dignity’. Technically, this is one of the areas where ‘permissive commons’ plays a vital role. Yet the broader challenge is in social / societal systems. Societally, there are many instances in temporal circumstances involving many observers where ‘sense making reality’ is considered to be ideologically derived rather than having some fixed and firm foundation in science. In informatics environments, this is an employable ‘sense making’ attack vector for employable manipulations.
Sense making attacks
Sense making attacks are better equipped when targets are isolated. The ability to drive an agenda to exploit reasonable doubt, and therefore undermine the capacity for observers to retain prosecutory enforceability of agency in relation to lived experiences, is increasingly under attack. As many will debate whether or not ‘reality’ and/or ‘lived experiences’ exist with coherence at all; to illustrate the consideration; imagine a football stadium filled with people,
In this environment, lets assume a temporal event is held whereby tens of thousands share some particular experiences, in person. In this way there would be an array of ‘lived experiences’ that would less debatably contain facts that would commonly be understood to be part of a ‘shared reality’.
Should a foreign agent then seek to wipe the evidence of that from existence; then in the real-world, they’d have to go about finding each of them, and convincing them all that they’re crazy.
Online, it would just take a process run on Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter & Apple; and, its done, for everyone. Whereas, alternatively — should ‘knowledge banking’ informatics topological structures be employed, changes would need to occur by successfully making changes to a plurality of online systems.
The consequential notions consider the importance of observed experiences both on an individual and social basis as do in-turn influence the future via a causal link between the perception of the past in manifesting decisions, in the present, that are employed as to materially influence the future. Put another way, informatics forms an interference array with sense making apparatus. Changes by machines, whether it be ‘fake news’, autocorrect ‘mistakes’ (AI algorithmic training practices, modalities & Linked functional properties) or cyber-physical informatics distortions (willful or unintended) have consequences that form a ripple effect across societal and biological environments. Economically, this acts to undermine productivity, amongst the many poor repercussive effects. The theory as to why this is scientifically the case, as illustrated by the stadium example — reality exists, and cannot be subverted for the benefit of bad actors who seek to exploit / undermine the ‘sense making’ capacities required by others, to support human agency.
Secondly; It has been a topic of many articles online that quantum computers are going to have an impact on cryptography.
Sources such as Wired Magazine speak of the future of cryptography, and the way that’s envisaged to be a means to solve that problem is to distribute resources across the web, so that an attacker targeting something of importance; would have to hack all of it.
So, by distributing a multitude of records across the web in a manner that is then in-turn employed by software agents to support ‘sense making’ wilful subversion of these non-centralised systems, would require an attacker to ‘hack the web’, which is envisaged to be far more difficult than one system alone.
Conclusion
Einstein is known to have spoken about the ‘spooky’ nature of quantum physics, whilst others have also made remarks of a nature that appear to present a similar level of humility. I do not consider myself an expert. Yet, one does not need to be an expert to define future actions on the basis that particular ‘realities’ exist, whether that be gravity, knowledge that thee world is not flat; or the (desirable) means to rely upon observed reality, for agency.
So, whilst i’m surprised my journey led me to spend some time studying this field; I am hopeful that some who ‘do know what they’re talking about’, can make sense of the sorts of things, and better discern those who do not.
From a causality point of view, personally; I’ve considered as part of my design works towards a human centric web; and that, the otherwise dismissive considerations made by others, should now be made-able to be better clarified by someone ‘socially authorised’ to do so, alongside others.
As i’ve noted, whilst i’m a bit lost in all of this; it seems wrong, to simply strip it all out as though there is no relationship at all, as is otherwise convenient.
If there is merit in these considerations, i’m fairly confident ‘experiments’ could be run on infrastructure operated by Google or Facebook in particular; but the broader reason why i care to write about it; is in an effort to form alternatives.
Therein; the consideration with respect to societal systems, information systems and human consciousness is that, irrespective of whether or not distortions are intentionally deployed for ‘authorised purposes’, with or without full ‘situational awareness’ of the repercussive effects, there is indeed an impact.
In complex multi-agent systems, the ripple effects overtime influence our ‘lived experiences’, capacity to retain human agency, and ability to respond to issues relating to personhood; both, of good actors and of ‘bad’ ones.
Where these dynamic systems intersect biosphere informatics, including those relating to moral grammar and the conscious experiences of persons; poorly designed systems would seemingly, minimally act to deteriorate mental health as those who more readily accept ‘fantasy’ as ‘reality’ without temporal upset overtime are better equipped to adapt to socially engendered circumstances built upon fabricated events not founded in biosphere informatics.
That is to say; where a meaningful engendered separation between reality in the ‘info sphere’, by proclamation of ‘fictional world’ views created via media (plural of medium) which contains adversarial and/or ‘creative works’ represented categorically as to be consumed, as knowledge artefacts linked as ‘reality based facts’ — the ripple effects are not incidental in nature.
As such, the role of quantum mechanical considerations when defining practical tools that may form an ecosystems approach to informatics that, i believe, may have the effect of uplifting humanity from our ‘information age’ to a knowledge age; as has moreover been discussed in my articles, is seemingly well described by the short-video made by DeSilva
Jason Silva: Shots of Awe — Captains Of Spaceship Earth
Amongst the many ‘ripple effects’ the world-wide-web brings about, is an apparatus that fundamentally links humanity world-wide in a way that was never before possible. The evolution of propaganda to this medium, whilst understandable; results in an array of new traits due to the societally interconnected nature of cyber-physical systems. In-order to make these systems work for humanity — the needs of human consciousness are part of it.
‘Semantic web’, is made to work through the use of ontologies which are in-turn supported by a broader ecosystem of socio-economic and ‘online’ tooling.
If there was one derivative underlying question that may be subject to experiment; those experiments might focus on better understanding how ontological design influences both the reality of those who may be more vulnerable to new types of attacks that act to undermine human rights principles; and those around them. Those who may become economically dependent to the exploitation of others for socio-economic exploitation and how that may in-turn be employed to define you via an engendered cyber-ceiling of human agency as may be applied upon you; whether that be fabricated upon principles that are scientific and built on fact, or fiction.
In consideration of the opportunity for intentional designs and the implications of what good decisions might mean, for humanity; as to empower our means to bring a positively effect, to the world around us…
Design philosophy of cyber-physical systems and the methodology employed to design, build and operate them; has a significant implications upon human agency and the deterministic communications systems infrastructure design support for freedom of thought and the means to encourage persons to be honest and considerate, in their utility of human agency & personhood.