brian carroll on Mon, 3 Sep 2012 10:14:58 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> subjective math |
(Hello Nettime. This essay is a footnote within a larger essay proposing a future computing infrastructure based on 3-value logic versus binary, as it is today. The result would be moving from an NAS-based model of networking and cloud computing toward an AI-based 'data furnace' model. The issue centers on the question of language as a barrier & limit to such development due to the lack of logical accounting of truth within communication, where a corresponding condition of babel is ideal for sustaining computers and search engines of today as its rationale, perhpas equivalent to global networked player pianos which requires music roll scores to continue being made to maintain its operations, even if people no longer play the instrument or are in control of it. The blackbox condition of technology today, reliant upon this language. In essence it is the nature of the Sokal Hoax yet extended into the Enron techniques of unaccountability. The corruption of language and mathematics becomes a technology, perhaps equivalent to hacking and cracking the economy, political system, and societal dynamics via such techniques which functionally govern it, yet displace people in the process who are no longer constituents within the communications.) -- Subjective Math --- Perhaps better said ungrounded mathematics could lead to calculations that are forced into partial or particular frameworks due to distortions of logic. For instance, if relying upon numeric evaluation of a situation as it is modeled and mediated in language, by default this processing relies upon calculations correlated to the signs represented, categorized and accounted for, presuming their accuracy by default of their existing as language – as if truth itself, correlated to number. This is a fallacy. Language does not have this capacity today, it is a false accounting based on a false perspective, an issue of presumption. At most it is an approximation or generalization, supporting and requiring structural error for calculation. In this sense perhaps it is not ‘pure’ and mediates the issues of language, inherently, if interacting with it. Why this is important is that if someone creates an equation if not algorithm, say ‘XYZ’, and claims it can achieve ‘A’ as a result of various mathematical (logical) operators in its processing of some situation, that the accuracy of this is contingent upon truth that is involved in the different variables, A, X, Y, Z. It could be presumed by default that A and XYZ are themselves true because they are ‘signs’ and if the pattern is matched between what is said to be XYZ, for instance a category, that it equates with the particular variable representing it. In some instances, due to limiting considerations, representations of these categories could ‘match’ the variables in the equation yet perhaps in only partial ways. So it may not be purely or entirely true, only partially so. For instance X and partial-X, or ~X. It also may involve an issue of inherent approximation, whether rounding numbers or ideas into a context. For example the number 10.2 could turn into X = 10.0 instead, or referencing The Crossroads could involve X representing nearer proximity to it. In this way an inaccurately accounted for input can subjectivize the equation from XYZ to ~X~Y~Z and yet it may still be faithfully believed that the description of events is by default coherent and removed of error by its use. The claim then that A may be derived from XYZ could more actually involve the result of processing ~X~Y~Z in its place. Even still, the result A may be believed ‘pure’ because of the role of language and a certain uncritical evaluation of truth within these evaluations. If the result is generated by partial truth, and is only somewhat true, then the answer or result would also be influenced and effected by this tentative condition; therefore ‘A’ also tends towards ~A by default, that is: partial-A. The approximate categorization thus turns XYZ => A into a scenario of ~X~Y~Z => ~A instead. This is no great shakes. The problem with such a basic condition of ungrounded truth in relation to observation is that its mediation by existing language defaults to this scenario. It is where things begin because communication is short-circuiting. Truth is not separated from the structures of falsity that are used to sustain it and thus exists in a state of impurity, day to day, in the world of existence. Far from pristine or easy to access at the level of fidelity of equations. It is just not that easy. The problem is that binary thinking can tend to believe it is, which allows simpler thinking to believe itself knowledgeable about all things simply because it can be mediated within existing language in terms of the exchange and communication of signs. XYZ and A instead of the truth they seek to represent and model. If you add the critical detail of relativism into this ideological cauldron, which occurs when falsity exists in such computations and processing, is that the error-rate can be very high to whatever truth may be partially sustained within a given category. For instance, A could be assumed to be ‘all true’ if as an answer it is removed of any and all falsity, so that only truth remains. Whereas if it was only partially true or ~A, then a lesser accuracy exists by which to correlate the variable with actual reality that it seeks to represent and model, via ‘math’ not language and yet it is behaving like subjective language exactly in this way. In some sense, in binary terms, if A is not entirely true then it is ‘not-A’, that is it would be considered false. So if it is 99% true, it is still false, because A does not equal ~A. Another way to say it is that A = A would be assumably objective, yet if A = ~A it would be subjective, not wholly true as a representation of one condition by another, and can invalidate the claim. If this difference is ignored, the result is Truth = Falsity. What happens through too simple binary processing and ideological frameworks is that the truth is whittled away via such processing, until only a minor or fractional truth exists and subsists within the variable or sign which seeks and purports to represent it, though it is a misrepresentation likewise. In other words, the result A then defaults to ~A, which instead of hovering at 99% instead moves ever closer to an accuracy of 1% if in an uncritical and ungrounded evaluation, exchange, circulation where the belief that A = ~A becomes standardized, viewed as A = A though more actually functions as ~A = ~A, uncorrected and unaccounted for. It is not an issue of trust to determine this, it is the impact of relativism calculating upon itself via its biasing, yet not correcting or accounting for its errors that instead become foundational for the views. What this is to say is that a minor truth, the kernel perhaps, of a category or sign meant to represent some ‘truth’ then can only exist in a partial truth without its empirical grounding, removed of error. And this truth must be sustained to some minimal degree to allow the correspondence between patterns to be believable, that ‘this’ equals ‘that’ given the evidence. The original presumption that A = A can be viewed as: [truth] = [truth] Yet if the condition is actually: [truth] = [some truth] What it amounts to is: [truth] = [some truth] + [some falsity] Undifferentiated, it becomes: [truth] = [some truth & falsity ] Yet it is not simply A = ~A, because [truth] ≠ [partial truth] Instead it is something more: A = ~A + (something else) ... if not: A = ~A + not-A (falsity) What occurs is that A is not able to be represented accurately by ~A or not-A, yet they substitute or stand-in for it as placeholders in the equation or computation by default of not logically accounting for these dynamics. In this way, A is removed as an actual variable, perhaps only becoming virtual or ungrounded as a representation: ~A = ~A + not-A or: ~A = ~A + falsity Which then automatically translates into: ~A + falsity = ~A + falsity This is tautological. The purity of ‘A’ then becomes equated with ~A + falsity And this can include contradictions, such that beliefs of ‘A’ = partial-A + not-A. The reality of ‘economy’ can be negated and a partial economy can be substituted for it, all within a realm of calculation and numbers, where the words are matched up with numbers seeking to represent the concepts outside logical accounting. Thus a partial view can operate an ungrounded virtual economy that functions ‘against economy’, etc. To put it in more direct terms, going back to the version evaluating truth as the variable: [truth] = [some truth] + [some falsity] Yet this purity of truth is not sustained, ‘some truth’ cannot represent ‘all truth’, so it must be acknowledged that at most only ‘some truth’ will be accessible within the equation, turning it from A=~A into ~A=~A, though with additional errors/falsity: [some truth] = [some truth+falsity] Thus ~A equals ~A though with errors or falsity that could even be not-A or contradictions to the original consideration, which not only exists virtually, in that ‘A’ is not actually be represented by these variables, it is an ungrounded assertation or belief. Accounting for this, then, whatever ‘truth’ exists in this evaluation, it is an an impure context: [some truth+falsity] = [some truth+falsity] Another variable such as ‘virtual-truth’ would be needed address this ungrounded condition, whereby actual truth is mediated and represented by partial-truth indistinguished from accompanying falsity… ‘virtual truth’ = [some truth+falsity] wherein: ‘actual truth’ = [some truth+falsity] is FALSE. It is not for sake of abstraction this is demonstrated. Language functions under the presumption that ‘actual truth’ is accessible without accounting for truth within logical analyses and verification of claims made, whereby reasoning is detached from truth, its accounting as truth, and instead is ‘partial truth’ that is not separated out from accompanying falsity which can be used to sustain it. In this way, there is a ‘virtual truth’ that functions friction-free within language and communications and exchange, as if ‘reasoning’ yet is separated from actual truth, its empirical grounding, the correction and removal of errors – and it may not even be possible in the existing form of language to account for this, thus it defines the trap of language or basis for ‘babble’.What the logical situation requires is that A = A, or that [truth] = [truth].
Instead what is allowed is A = %truth + %falsity, which becomes a presumption of ‘virtual truth’ as if it is 100% true. In this way you could have 1% truth and 99% falsity which is ideologically believed to be 100% true by binary reasoning. i.e. [truth] = [1% truth] + [99% falsity] It is a false-perspective, unreal, only virtual, not connected to the world accurately. And it is also ‘not true’, it can be falsified very easily such that 100% does not equal 1%, if acknowledging the 99% errors involved in the claim of pure reasoning. The way logical accounting works is if removing the falsity, then the truth can be recovered: if: [virtual truth] = [1% truth] + [99% falsity] Then in removing falsity from the equation, ‘truth’ could be recovered... [virtual truth] = [1% truth] minus [falsity] then: actual truth = 1% truth or: truth = 100% true This process of refinement of ideas is not occurring and largely cannot occur given the existing approach. These truths may be suspended within language, yet they remain in a context of falsity by default, so while they may be ‘known’, they can neither effectively be sustained nor can they be the entire basis for communicating, only in ‘truth’, versus using false constructs as carriers. A future language could instead model and reference only truth and then hypotheses, getting rid of all the excess and extraneous data for a more pure and by default grounded communication. *** In other words, a version of ‘truth’ is normalized that contains ‘some truth+some falsity’ yet it is maintained as if ‘true’ by default of its being mediated as truth or believed true. If errors are allowed and actually sustain observations, themselves being the basis for ‘objectivity’ and the belief in operating and processing information in such a realm, over time there can be contagion or some impurity that is never separated and is retained within the observation that exists outside of its logical accounting of its truth in ones and zeroes in a shared empirical modeling of ideas. Lacking that purity, the impure calculations are consequence of impure input and assumptions of how signs exist in relation to truth. They are not truth themselves, only a container that can be improved upon or deteriorated via how the information is mediated. To assume truth exists in the alphabet is potentially to confuse truth with language itself, its signage as if what is true, versus standing-in for it. If it is grounded the sign may actually be true, yet if only partially grounded it is not wholly true yet if believed so can begin to foster and build and rely upon false-perspectives as a basis for exchange, malfunctioning. In this way, someone could wrongly believe that simply stating something is true, makes it true. This is particularly relevant to starkly ideological binary viewpoints and also relativism which is ungrounded and gains its truth by ignoring other truth. Why this is important is because language proceeding in this way as communication tends towards falsity by default of its inaccuracies, the noise introduced and sustained within exchange, that then tends towards the devolution of truth within language because of uncorrected errors, versus a purification of truth by communicated language. So for some the sign (A) is an answer, whereas for others it remains contingent, a question, depending upon the veracity of the claim, its truth. [each] [sign] [becomes] [a] [contingency] [given] [its] [logical] [accounting] For instance, every letter potentially in superposition for meaning, the autocorrect fixing what may become flaws in the communication and yet if something goes a rye or its missng, meaning begins to shift, and perhaps an unseen error or mistake or slip could take leave from a condition of knowing, into a more ambiguous realm, a lost forest, hearing something else. Nothing new hear. Just for sake of clarification: For instance, every letter potentially in superposition for meaning, the autocorrect fixing what may become flaws in the communication and yet if something goes [awry|a rye] or [its|it’s] [missng|missing], meaning begins to shift, and perhaps an unseen error or mistake or slip could take leave from a condition of knowing, into a more ambiguous realm, a lost forest, hearing something else. Nothing new [hear|here]. So this is linguistics of the last many decades, what is possible with post-structuralism, it would seem. It can get into a calculus where a typo shifts the register and the phase of a paragraph could transmute into paragraph 2, as a result of this. If it leads towards insight and is based within truth, it is can be an advanced way of communicating, beyond or through the broken structures, rewiring them to regain the potential beyond the existing limits and boundaries. Yet if instead of insight it was simply error, like an error in thinking then the condition could be evaluated beyond intent alone. In this way, letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters can exist in a condition of suspended judgment, whereupon their evaluation each could shift one way or another, falling into one kind of circuitry or another based on how it is grounded by the observer, perceiver, interacter with the communication. Any given structure could exist in a type of superposition, for instance with typos, errors in reasoning, life errors, as this can influence communication, how something is written and read, and how it is related to and through by others, in shared or unshared frameworks, etc. So the exchange is N-dimensionally complex. A more realistic evaluation would be a string of such contingencies, or states of superposition, that when taken together, like with XYZ, then could fall into some configuration given how they exist and within what perspective the interaction occurs. This is seemingly the question of perspective. For example, if something were communicated, it could be considered ‘true’ by default of its language, such that: [truth] = [some observation communicated through language] Whereas, the actual state of language exists as a realm of variables in superposition, perhaps true, perhaps not. unknown = [true|false][true|false][true|false][true|false] [true|false] If everything that was communicated was true then ‘A’ could actually be true: true = [true] [true] [true] [true] [true] Yet if for some reason something is false, it would not add up the same: false = [true] [true] [true] [true] [false] This is because it is not 100% true, yet if approximating it could still be considered true… true = [true] [true] [true] [true] [false] So here is a condition where truth = 80% truth, i.e. 4 out of 5 variables are true. What happens in ungrounded evaluations is that 80% truth substitutes for ‘truth itself’, including the falsity or errors. And the more this occurs, the more falsity becomes institutionalized in the conveyance of ideas deemed to represent ‘truth’. The ungrounded binary ideologue could equate ‘any truth’ as if wholly true, such that: true = [false] [false] [false] [false] [true] This goes on all the time in terms of ungrounded reasoning of ideas. It is the default. In this same way, the binary ideologue can exploit ‘logic’ to deny truth if there is any falsity within anothers viewpoint, such that: false = [true] [true] [true] [true] [false] So it is a very powerful analytic and ‘debate’ technique to discredit and devalue inconvenient facts and observations as they exist outside a given ideological viewpoint. This is what allows for onesidedness in exchange in binary terms. This condition can be exploited to only allow for certain facts to be accounted for by a given observer, and in turn reduces questions of ‘truth’ into an accounting of “facts” instead of ideas. As if everything is in such a pure state of grounded calculation, the conceit of higher reasoning without the problem of accounting for actual truth, and instead only a corrupted self-serving version of it. It would take a lot of description to get into a 3-value and N-value explanation yet the essential difference is that the condition of partiality can be effectively addressed and is not forced into an either-or framework by default, forcing inaccurate if biased approximation. Thus bias, distortion, and warping can be neutralized and accounted for versus structurally relied upon. For 3-value evaluation, a condition such as follows could be worked through: [unknown] = [false] [unknown] [truth] [unknown] Such that ‘partial truth’ could be identified and recovered from a context. Perhaps more evident, an N-value approach could allow for further gradation, for instance identifying major or minor truth, or probabilistic weighting: [minor truth] = [majority falsity] [false] [minor truth] [unknown] Where in identifying and recovering ‘minor truth’ and removing it ofits context of errors, it can represent ‘all truth’ if the impurities are
removed, contingent upon accounting for further or existing errors. To further given a sense of evaluation, the original condition of superposition may involve: ? = [truth-falsity] [truth-falsity] [truth-falsity ] [truth-falsity] And in any empirical model the resulting answer or ‘truth’ is claimed would always include the remaining unknown as the potential for error… minor truth = [minor truth] + [unknown] minus ’falsity’ truth = truth + unknown And so here’s the paradox, the problem with absolute truth in a worldly realm, it that it cannot be modeled as ‘entirely true’ or ‘all true’ because it is contingent upon new information or uncovering existing errors – so its state of being true or truth-status can seemingly shift, here illustrated by percentages meant to convey something less than 100% true. So an approximation is needed anyways and can never be removed, such that ‘known truth’ is contingent, tentative, yet can be majority truth and overwhelmingly true, 99.99999999 percent true, even, if allowing for such a conceptualization of proportion versus .00000001 percent impurity that may exist given unknowns. Yet in situations of paradigmatic change, if the model is wrongly grounded, that nearly 100% truth that is believed with certainty could become minor-truth overnight, such that it is 5% true when operating in another model that is more accurate. So the basis for a given framework of truth can be dismantled if it is not actually or wholly true or contains structural errors. This is why censorship is necessary to prop up bad ideas, to prevent influence from greater accuracy from undermining the functioning of an inferior approach. It cannot ground the momentum and instead is shaken apart by the stresses involved on its structures, which cause failures, shearing, collapse, creating dysfunction if not destruction because the virtual condition is not actual, yet its contingencies need to become structural for it to be sustained. *** So, a binary ideologue could easily see their answer A as the clear result of what is ~X~Y~Z, though believing this as the result of the more pure equation XYZ. Their view would be ungrounded, only virtual, allowed for lack of its logical accounting. If truth recedes via its dilution via a sustained error-rate within signs that seek to represent it, then it could be assumed that the partial-truth is likely much less than 99% by experience with ideas and categorizations in their ambiguity and reliance upon unresolved distinctions. A highly optimistic approach could assume it is towards 50%, though for example and what I believe could be shown evident, is that in most cases the truth is very small in its precise accuracy given the immense framework needed to transmit it. In this way, the framework could be error-ridden yet support and sustain a truth temporarily. And thus, in some category or idea, the truth that exists may be small compared to the way it is evaluated and the rough-edges may be necessary to support the view. And yet this truth could rely on inaccuracies or vagueness as the container or the scaffolding or structure by which be identified, communicated or shared. For instance, the truth in this present writing is sustained by the ambiguity of all the surrounding words that allow its message to be conveyed, yet it is minor compared to all the language that is necessary to convey the framework of the idea, which still has not effectively been fully communicated in its essence. Perhaps it is not a word or sentence and instead a concept that spans across various other ideas as a configuration. The point that was going to be made about binary logic is that if you have a minor truth that is sustained and represented by an approximation, that within an equation or processing, that this interaction of these minor truths that are instead believed maximal, then tends towards zero or falsity as a result of the errors not being accounted for yet being included in the final answer, as if pure truth. If in the extreme the kernel of truth were 1%, then: ~X~Y~Z, each having this minimized truth interacting within an equation, could become ever smaller in the truth that can be shared in the same framework. if ~X and ~Y and ~Z each = minor truth + majority falsity and: minor truth = .01 majority falsity = .99 then: ~X~Y~Z => .1 cubed, .99 cubed => 0.000001 truth, 0.970299 falsity The original ratio of minor truth to falsity: 9.9, the new ratio: 970299.0 An exponential difference. Consider the inversion, where truth is moving from: 0.01 => 0.000001 (1.030610152128365e-6) As falsity is the basis for further and further interaction within error-reliant language, it is proposed the truth within its context further and further recedes towards zero, majority falsity, nothingness. This is more a poetic and symbolic conveyance, yet the essential condition is the proposed the same. That in allowing for impurities and structural errors to persist in thinking, that in their interaction as a basis for exchange, that they further accumulate as the context in which truth subsists and also relies upon. A contingent truth could become inseparable from its context of falsity because it is required to sustain the belief that it is actually ‘all true’ in the sustained false-perspective. Now imagine N-variables, where trillions upon trillions of such ungrounded interactions could take place within a context of onesided binary reasoning, where minor truth could function as truth itself, how the falsity would build up in this way. Where flawed models used in data mining and automated analytics, biased processing, then include errors and falsity in calculations that results in standardized views that reinforce the given worldview, however ungrounded it may actually be. If binary it could be assumed each variable is interacting with each other at 100% truth, thus A would arrive at 100% truth via calculation. Whereas if truth is only minor and only 1% by comparison within the container that represents it, then in the calculation if each are towards 1% and say it is an issue of multiplication, that the ‘answer’ tends towards absolute nothingness via such calculation even while in its partial-truth it can be believed or identified as ‘wholly true’ due to binary ideology. In this way an infinitesimally partial-truth that is used for calculation can be viewed as 100% true by ignoring the ambiguities (grey-area, paradox) and making it a simple decision,if there is truth it is totally true, in a given relativistic framework. In
this way 1% truth can equate with 100% truth, or a partial-truth can be equated with absolute truth. Someone could use a binary mindset and go through the world believing only in their partial view of things and equate partial-truth with truth, and the worldview could correspond to the external signs surrounding them, that their beliefs accurately map onto external reality and its dynamics – and yet this could be an entirely ungrounded relation, observation, where minor truth stands in and functions as if absolute truth, because it is sustained in language and mathematics accordingly. Yet it could be false, an unreal condition, contingent upon the issue of logic and accounting for truth beyond a given relativism. It is why the ungrounded observer by default must be made infallible, with power to determine what will be acknowledged true by their limited and warped perspective and onesided evaluation. Someone who functions in a grey-area consideration, of 3-value or N-value logic, must also mediate a realm of partial truth, due to the condition of language and the way things exist today. They likewise may encounter the enigma of minor truth within a situation, yet instead of ignoring it or exploiting it as all true, it can be accounted for if removed of extraneous errors. Perhaps this is the purpose of deconstruction, allowing the dismantling of information, concepts, ideas, to better separate truth from its scaffolding. What this approach allows is a more accurate evaluation of A by accounting for its partiality. ‘A’ removed of its partially then is more-A than not. If minor truth exists in an equation, by comparison, then if it is acknowledged to exist and the complexity of the evaluation is acknowledged, then the error-rate involved in the too-simple equation can be accounted for, accommodated, adjusted or corrected presumably, to some extent, although it is seemingly not possible to remove majority falsity from existing language in its given form. ~A => ~.000001 for example, can thus by accounting for the minor truth (“quasi-millionth of a truth”) as its truth, evaluate ~X~Y~Z as XYZ if these known errors are removed (.999999 falsity). In this way, by acknowledging the partiality of the answer, ~A can become more-A or tend towards A again, even though dealing in a realm of minor truth, its kernel. That is because the .000001 percent truth, in this fictional calculation, being the only truth, becomes truth removed of its partiality and thus made whole , or 100% truth contingent upon the hypothesis. Note: the symbolic calculation here of 1% or (0.01)(0.01)(0.01) as ~X~Y~Z is meant to convey how whatever partial or limited truth, in its interaction with other truth, tends towards zero in further interaction. To clarify, this is meant to convey a situation of error-ridden information as the context for whatever small truth may exist, and in the interaction of these truths, shared or unshared via intersecting structures, it may be reinforced or limited, yet what does exponentially grow is the noise, that is to say that ‘truth’ is not necessarily becoming less true, though it is likely becoming smaller within the context of what surrounds it as falsity or error, and thus the error increases via the further and further reliance upon error for mediating truth. This is why something that is partially grounded or ungrounded can have a deteriorating effect upon the exchange of truth in such an interaction because it is being devalued by the errors which seek to sustain it, which then become representative of the said truth, which thus can be believed to _include the errors as truth, which is what makes ideologies so powerful if uncritical. So a condition of ~A=> ~X~Y~Z can be corrected for by paradoxical logic and reestablish or ground the initial equation once again, though in a context of actual truth in whatever degree it actually exists, versus a binary view that what is calculated is what is true, without correcting for the errors. In this way, for the binarist who arrives at A, it tends towards total falsity or zero, and only will ever be in a realm of ~A if ungrounded and unacknowledged because the sign itself is the form of mathematical validation. Pattern matching in some framework, with a distorted assumption about how truth and logic operate. In contrast, the 3-value thinker who identifies minor truth as part of their empirical evaluation and self-corrective modeling, then can acknowledge what kernel of truth exists, however minor it may be amidst a wasteland of extraneous or temporary information or signs needed to sustain it, though through doing so, capture the minor truth that exists within a condition of falsity or partial-truth and in this way recover it, claim it, account for its truth. Removed of falsity and error, it tends towards 100% not 0% accuracy, not more truth, more pure truth, removed of its known impurities as is the empirical requirement. The 3-value observer then takes .000001% as the answer, and contingently it can function as ‘A’, contingently 100% true (this process of refinement seemingly allowing for a pragmatic binary judgment) though remaining in a grey-area of consideration and thus likely retaining unknown errors. That is if what is recovered is removed of all known impurities, not-truth, then it would tend towards total truth versus total falsity, if logically it were accounted for, its every aspect. The binarist believes they function at A => XYZ when the truth they observe is minor, tending to zero, and only ever remain in a framework of ~A and ~X~Y~Z yet cannot allow for this or acknowledge it. Thus it is possible to believe what they perceive is 100% accurate and true by default of their processing of it, yet this view is sustained by structural bias, onesidedness of evaluation, and distorted frameworks. The 3-value thinker believes they function in a realm of ~A => ~X~Y~Z which is the context for discovering truth within the surrounding ambiguity. And in this way the specks of truth recovered from ~X and ~Y and ~Z then become removed of the extraneous of their partiality, and if this can be accounted for prior to further calculation, and become the structural basis of evaluation, calculation via logic, that the minor truth is maximized in each variable as ~X becomes X via this refining. The minor truth of ~X as .01 becomes the contingent truth of X as 100% if removed of its impurities. If this occurs for XYZ together, then the truth within them is no longer minor, it could be major, such that truth is interacting with truth in the equations, as signs representing truth as variables, ‘this’ equals ‘that’ as an accurate observation. Which seems to be the presumption of grounded mathematics, that such worldy calculation is indeed possible where mental modeling and external existence are closely aligned. Perhaps in some scenarios this is the default, though at some point language creeps in and predominates yet presumes itself under the guise of mathematics, devaluing its truth. The standardized test as example, especially multiple choice where ambiguity may exist and allow ‘valid’ alternative answers yet these are ignored and punished for a binary assessment, which leaves a paradoxical thinker to try to unthink the higher-level analyses which then devalues their own reasoning for more rote memorization of ‘correct facts’ versus actual analytical thought about questions. Then, to add number correlating with these tests, as if quantifying aptitude when instead it is more trained obedience in ideological frameworks that are themselves ungrounded from the reality they sustain themselves within. It is the backwardness of logic, the dumbed-down version dictating its reality, over and above more accurate and insightful and honest interpretations. Only one view is right in the binarist’s calculating mindset, theirs. Either you conform or you are wrong. And this is the view that functions within computers and technology today, and also is driving public policy. It can be completely obliterated in terms of logic, completely destroyed every argument and ideological position. There is nothing to it, simply accounting for truth. There is no there there in the binarist mindset, it is a bluff, centered on nothingness, ungrounded in actual evaluatable observations. It is an infallibility complex allowed for lack of error-checking and correcting, the requirement of a responsibility of thought. It is unnecessary in that viewpoint because it is presupposed superior yet without the substance – only the image or sign, and its true belief – not in truth, but in itself, as ultimate arbiter. It is essentially a type of anti-reasoning. In contrast, the result of this grounded processing is that the interaction of truth within XYZ, a purified version of ~X~Y~Z, then tends towards truth itself, with minor impurities remaining, though tending to 100%. In this way the grey-area thinker can account for minor truth that becomes maximal, where A => 100% ‘true’ via analytic reasoning that is grounded, if accommodating and accounting for truth. It is not a presumption of ‘knowing everything’ or having access to ‘all truth’ and always being right and correct; instead it is a logical evaluation of a given model, or concept, and ‘truth’ in that context is accounted for, within a given boundary or circuitry or hypothesis. And from what is known and unknown, truth ascertained in that scenario, given the variables, which perhaps are only temporary or highly specific. It is not that the truth is always the same, if the context shifts or changes, as its structure may no longer exist or may collapse again via other dynamics. It is more as if truth is being referenced, acknowledged, and within particular conditions can be observed in more pure states, which is the realm of logic and considered thoughts. Just because someone acknowledges truth exists or seeks to serve it, does not mean they know ‘all truth’ or have access to ‘all truth’ in all situations at all times, yet in a binarist viewpoint that is exactly what the default condition is because the observer is infallible. It is a dangerous realm. To put it more plainly, a binarist could equate (minor-truth)(minor-truth)(minor-truth) = 100% by default of their equating some truth as absolute truth, when instead it could tend towards falsity, zero, while believing they have arrived at the answer and know things because they can count and speak. Whereas a grey-area thinker could evaluate the minor truth in ~X~Y~Z and remove the condition of partiality it relies upon in whatever its existing context, say short-circuiting language, and then allow for the evaluation of (truth)(truth)(truth) => truth. Which instead more likely does tend towards 100%, while still acknowledging unknowns and other unobserved impurities. This is why paradox and contradiction is so important, because in identifying ambiguities within otherwise functioning models of truth, it allows for error-correction and requestioning of hypotheses, their improvement or reconsideration – and in this way if rigorously practiced, leads from lesser-truth towards greater-truth via working through and resolving such inconsistencies. This acknowledgement of error and paradox is essential for grounding ideas and observations, without it, ungrounded beliefs take over and become separated from reality, where the observer does not account for their influence over their observations and in this way can skew or determine what they see to fit their given models by ignoring truth or contradictory information, censoring or denying it if not outlawing and making it illegal so to sustain a given worldview they remain in control of. The more complex things get, the more these different mindsets go to polarized extremes, one evermore grounded and the other ever more faith-based in its own self-righteous interpretation that only allows for its truth on its own terms, even if it is actually in error or reliant upon it for its validity. Versus a faith based within truth itself, not the observers own egotism. If someone says ‘people’ x ‘society’ x ‘work’ = ‘productivity’, a binarist could evaluate this and arrive at a model that may be effective in communication, yet unreal from another point of view that is grounded. It depends on how the signs are evaluated, their integrity as models, perhaps they are each biased so it is only ‘some people’ x ‘some society’ x ‘some work’ = ‘some productivity’. It may not include everyone. This is subjectivity, the language uncorrected for as ideas, yet presumed right by default of categorization, that the sign is itself truth, such as people = all people. Most things are like this, whether purposefully or not. For instance, if not everybody is the same yet assuming they are, then making calculations, how this at some stage could plateau for whatever truth could be sustained inside its view, yet the inaccuracy becoming a boundary or limitation that in interacting with other distorted information or ideas, tends towards falsity in their interaction. The only way to deal with this is through empirical analysis and grounding of observation within a single common framework that can be referenced as a shared model and also removed of every identifiable error. Without this, language has no stable meaning, it remains in a realm of the ambiguous, reliant upon it for communication, which seems to be directly tied to its linearity and long-form scripted transmission, versus more conceptual frameworks and diagrammatic models of ideas that are outside certain or given approaches. Perhaps that is why the computer exists, to provide language its next platform for further development beyond the page or through it. Moving into and through its logical structures versus trapped outside on its shiny yet deceptive and shallow surface. Such modeling could tend towards 100% truth in its interaction, such that exchange of ideas could reference and test a common empirical model that is dealt with by all people who mediate it as language. By contrast, linear language tends towards overall falsity in conveyance except for the transport of minor truth – and this is its tremendous inefficiency and ineffectiveness, short-circuiting. The issue this involves is recognizing the existing state of language and observation and interaction as it tends towards a state of falsity by default, and the enormous effort it takes to achieve, recover, and share minor-truth, so that it can become the groundwork for shared relations. Yet even then it remains unstable, until a new model of language can become the foundation for new relations, communication, exchange based on error-corrected ideas and access to the purified versions that become the basis for education, learning, growth, economy, everything. This is where circuitry relates to concepts, as the role of logic moves into structures and forms, so that patterns or dynamics can be identified via their context or configuration – if not perspective, given scenarios – and this would be the grounded truth of relativistic frameworks, to see things from a particular facet or vantage that uncovers or reveals truths otherwise not yet accounted for. And so these dynamics in a shared modeling, where hypotheses exist as models and can be tested, challenged, and errors can be found that are not wrong in being there, only in being uncorrected for, addressed, such that they can function also as discoveries as with the great moments in scientific experiment. It is with a broken brain and little working memory these fragments of thought are conveyed, the attempt at math humorous here, obviously incoherent in realistic terms yet as a sketch of what can be proven in terms of the claims made (even beyond ‘you cannot prove, only disprove’ being repeated as a truism to prove its claim). That is, while having not attained accuracy or effective examples for probabilities, the mush of the presentation, that this has been worked out previously and should be sufficient to convey the basic idea that most mathematical minds could further as need be to clarify, or perhaps linguist as the case may be. This is not meant as bravado, only common sense, that if ideas are removed of truth, their interaction in biased reasoning and exchange tends towards falsity. And that this is a common condition that needs to be mediated. By correcting for it, temporary truth can be evaluated at higher fidelity, a more pure and accurate state, yet still collapsing due to language. Paradoxical or 3-value logic allows for this. And thus such logical reasoning can tend towards truth. Whereas for the binary thinker, their assumption of truth leads them towards greater falsity and error. And perhaps the thing is, paradox incorporates 2-value logic by what is retained as truth, so it may be issue of how to manage binarism, rather than existing outside of it or beyond its dynamics. What this may indicate is that binarism could be grounded within a context of paradoxical logic or 3-value logic, and thus a contingent binary view could exist which does mediate events in true-false evaluations, though they are of a different kind of error-correcting rigor that is not present outside the 3-value context, because oftentimes there are unknowns or only partial-truths to mediate, to distill truth from falsity instead of accepting or rejecting observations without this process of refinement. People in this way who are grounded in logical reasoning could function with truth as their directionality, perhaps even “biased” towards it, as a type of compass for navigation, as with acknowledging falsity and in this way operate within a binary framework, yet not have the issues of binary ideology and inaccurate binary processing that absent paradox cannot sustain this balance within a larger ambiguity. Or perhaps the ambiguity, by being addressed in 3-value logic, then allows for 2-value logic to finds its grounding. In whatever way, both the black and white views can co-exist with a context of grey-area and its range across these, though it would seem a progression from 3-value to 2-value, and then ultimately 1-value only, truth itself. This is another question about how such structures could be correlated, yet the idea seems to be that ‘truth’ is functional across these related evaluating mechanisms, and hierarchically interconnected even, where ‘truth’ provides structuring, even for conditions of identifying falsity. This language and my mind are not prepared to explore this in any depth at this time. Now consider if computers and technology can only process things in binary terms, and that programming is occurring in binary terms, and relations between things and information and ideas are being mediated in binary terms, including major themes like economy, poverty, health, governance, law, art, environmentalism. Perhaps the Two Cultures of C.P. Snow involves mathematics and language as they could be mediated by those who are predominantly binarist, and the worldview that results, versus those who are paradoxical grey-area entities who are aware and observe truth and seek to acknowledge and remove errors in their observations and interactions with others. In such a way, binary ideology may transform mathematics into subjective language and turn it into an issue of ungrounded faithand belief – ultimately in themselves – if not in science as the answer,
its priesthood to preside over populations. Whereas a 3-value thinker may see the common relation between mathematics and language within logic, the shared structure and origin, if not in circuitry then patterns or other conceptualization, though of a calculus of each, where transformative processing occurs and perhaps is not even separable. The potential to correct for errors then leading to essential structures or conditions, like with sculpture removing what is not meant to be there and then seeing the thing in itself that remains, as a model of the idea. Perhaps mathematics and language have a functional relation, one with the other, an ecology between them that would be revealed in a unified modeling where logical operations between them may be integral to establishing an empirical model where number and letter exist in coherent symbiotic relation. It would seem this is the core of what a computer would need to become, if to process ideas and information accurately as patterns, the numeric of calculation tied to its logical processing, as information is grounded into the shared model, run and tested against its configuration, ones and zeros and partial truths and partial falsities. That kind of fidelity is what is needed and yet does not yet exist. Simply to communicate and share ideas ‘in truth’ versus within a scaffold of noise tending to falsity. In this way, this imperfect text, its errors, attempting to share its minor truth. Note 1: Questions social relations could involve how a condition of ‘minor truth’ interacts with other ‘minor truth’ in a condition of falsity; or a ‘minor truth’ relating to a condition of ‘truth’ in terms of exchange. Perhaps those in ‘truth’ would be devalued in the exchange if having to mediate ‘majority falsity’ in a given framework to mediate the minor truth. Else, could accommodate or neutralize these errors via boundaries or limits to interact only with the minor truth and not its impurities of context. Note 2: the grey-area or paradoxical logic is functional in the realm of partial truth, it is optimal for mediating it, such that ~A and ~X~Y~Z as a context are considered natural conditions to work-through via 3-value and n-value considerations, whereas a binary mindset cannot allow for the ambiguous reality and forces an interpretation of ~X~Y~Z into a framework of XYZ and especially of A as a preordained already-answered question, needing to know the view is ‘right’ and not ‘wrong’, thus incapable of allowing for either self-error in observation or self-correction in deficient action, perhaps not even being able to question, due to the bias of needing to know and maintain existing truth which external information must conform to by default. This is how ignoring truth can function as evil, even without intent. It is basically an inability to think beyond existing operating limits and the need to deny reality which contradicts or stands outside the given worldview which is ‘all true’. Interactions between these peoples difficult because resolution is unlikely and often views are polarized. The binarist only accepting truth as it is interpreted in their framework, not allowing value to truth beyond it, and if reasoned with by 3-value logic, its truth is invalidated, via the onesided interaction therefore only verifying the binarist viewpoint in the exchange. Its not about truth in this way, it is about controlling it, and some may be self-aware of this and lying to hold such positions though others may be true believers and place themselves as finite entities as if omniscient overseers without the accompanying knowledge or wisdom for that vaunted position. These are everyday psychological interactions in the landscape of people that are mediated within ‘logical reasoning’ though oftentimes binary logic is ungrounded and paradoxical logic is the basis for a more grounded, error-correcting POV. Note 3: Perhaps the closest corollary to any of this is Plato and speaking of the alphabet reflected in the water, which brings up the issues of reflection and language though also of mirroring. The mirror as a concept is a philosophical question- how do you approach conceptualizing its paradox. B = B is one view that assumes an absolute likeness. Yet without a mirror, what is seen is also bounded, and so perhaps B = ~B is close to its actual functioning, if not: B = [virtual-B] to some extent. The mind-body relation, information and its materialization at this boundary. And how do you deal with it, if not align or also transcend it. The thing is, if the relation is grounded, B => B could seemingly correspond within certain parameters, potentially. And if it were ungrounded, a person may look in the mirror in a state of ~B and see back B as their self-image, via inaccurate reflection. This is more involved than this approach, to clarify, yet this mirroring functions very much like the issue of language which reflects a state of identity through authorship and communication and reasoned exchange. A person may ‘believe’ their view is public, though it is carried in an error-reliant state of distortion, warping, and skew that is not accounted for, and is thus a subset that seeks to represent the public in its entirety by this view, without having to deal with the actual accounting for its actual truth. In this sense the funhouse mirror or 2-way mirror, if a false-view is presented, which then is mediated by language in this way. So too, newspapers, television shows, websites, computer software mediate the exchange, providing a mirror for the self. So what if what is reflected in mass media is inaccurate and errors are not accounted for in what is claimed to represent shared truth. XYZ as an equation could actually be ~X~Y~Z full of skew, reliant on massive errors and only contain a partial truth, yet be presented if not believed as the pure answer ‘A’ by onesided biased viewpoints reliant upon binary processing/thinking. The mirror condition as corollary then has XYZ on one side and ~X~Y~Z on the other, one pure as an idea and the other impure yet this impurity not accounted for, simply “believed” to function this way, if not simply in terms of its physics, its power as language to engineering dynamics and force frameworks via beliefs that have effects, regardless of greater truth involved. The question perhaps it involves is what if an observer does not see themselves in the mirror accurately, then how can they go out and observe other events outside themselves or even make determinations for others if not operating in a truthful framework or grounded observations. What if society allows for this, promotes it even, rewards such behavior, for instance, making lots of money via such approximations and funny ways of accounting for existence. The question of the mirror state is more interesting than this and is not adequately approached or engaged in this, yet what if the state itself cannot look itself in the mirror and see itself accurately, and that language is this distorted barrier condition that allows for the illusions to persist. The virtualization of reason versus its grounding, allowing many negative dynamics to be solidified for lack of accounting for truth and demanding its adherence versus making it expedient and only symbolic, a placeholder for power which replaces it. Note 4: Listening to music, very seldom hearing something related to anymore in the current era, though occasionally hearing a sound and enjoying it, synchronizing with it, only to hear a lyric or phrase or thought in its ‘thinking’ that is not of the shared condition, that then causes the shared condition to fall out of orbit, only a temporary unsustainable correspondence. How much of everything is like this. Where A = A tends toward A => B, or various other sequenced relations. This is also superposition, a contingency in relations, what aligns and what falls out of alignment, given the scenarios. Somehow shared truth went astray or could not be sustained. What happens if that conditioninvolves society itself, the planet, its operations. It cannot accurately
see itself, oftentimes hiding behind signs and representations, unable to see itself accurately or disallowing honest appraisals. Instead requiring ‘belief’ function as the highest truth, obedience, conformity. Logical reasoning can deal with this through direct engagement, grounding situations in a context of truth (1) and falsity (0) for empirical accounting, a more accurate approach to quantification than simply using numbers and calculating. [ the future > transformation > language > modeling ] http://amsconcept.wordpress.com/future/note/
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org