This class blew my mind https://www.coursera.org/course/crypto
Helped understand how much logic is subverted. -lee On Saturday, September 14, 2013, brian carroll wrote: > > // apologies- yet another attempt at error correction of a previous > statement and clarification. > > quote: Subvert logical reasoning, disallow it, including freedom of speech > and thinking and censoring and controlling what facts are allowed - > controlling POV - then the opposite occurs: A|B ---> B, such that T => pT > > This is the code exploit of the Binary Crypto Regime, where B(0)=A and > pT(0)>T(1) > > > --- clarification on computational approach --- > > I made an error in description of processing in the context of infinities, > stating one infinity to the next is evaluated as if a serial approach when > instead this would be nonlinear and require massively parallel processing, > along with serial evaluations in a looping evaluative heuristic - testing > against a hypothesis or model, 'running code' or living code' as it were, > versus a static one-time interaction of data and algorithms, instead more > like a situation of intelligent life in a bounded context as if data > aquarium or code planetarium. > > the reason for this parallelization relates to considering all the > combined permutations in terms of probabilities, and thus [x][y][z] as > variables are not necessarily, seemingly, about an algorithm that reveals a > structure that helps move from x->y->z by some mathematical structure, or > so that is my naive guess, such that if you use conventional crypto > approach #1 something may be revealed between these that matches an > equation pattern, provides order within the chaos of variability, until > legible, intelligible.* > > In other words, instead of XYZ being a serial number that could extend > linearly onward toward infinity, that is: [xyz] ...[∞], and that "string" > is a horizontal number or code, that can in particular be related perhaps > to binary on-off processing in a highly efficient manner, processing and > computational speed and largest prime numbers as context-- instead, the > assumption for this same situation in another crypto framework is that it > could be happening 'vertically' like a slot machine that runs to bounded > infinities (largest primes or not), within each variable, and thus [xyz] > may not have a discernible linear structure or overall equation that makes > sense of the resulting 'horizontal' string. such that: > > [x][y][z] => [n¹][n²][n³]...[nⁿ] > > whereby [n] is variable and could be anything- a number, a function, a > calculation, null, its own computation. And in this way, each variable > could tend towards infinity or its own structuring, within the string, > whose length is not so much the issue as the difficulty in resolving its > total structure, especially linearly, such that [n¹²³] would not be > decipherable running algorithms across its horizontal string and instead > solving for each variable or say grouped variables in the string, eg. > [n¹][n²⁻³][n⁴⁻⁹] > > Thus, while i have no actual idea of how crypto and binary code relate in > terms of encryption methods and decryption, it is assumed this approach > remains serial and directly interrogates the serial string to reveal its > structure, across various formats of the code (various programming, > encoding and other data formatting schemes). Thus, a binary string would be > an example, 10100011001010001010101010010101, whereby to solve for > [xyz...n] would involve finding the overall linear structure that provides > for such linear organization, say assuming it is encrypted code > *)S)*S*))SA&*S&**S()S*S)aAUIHNL*0, and therefore the assumption would > remain that each variable is related to the next in some 'coherence' and > solving one part or layer may reveal another, such as > HSKSLLILHSILALSWLWLSDUI and thus the string [xyz] is made intelligible by > this coherence within the linear string, across that massive horizontality > (very large streams of data that contain data and programs and messaging). > > Whereas for a paradoxical logic approach, each variable could itself be > 'many' in place of a single bit- or the boundary of the single bit could be > [N] and move towards a bounded infinity, a mathematical function, or other > calculation in that same location. > > disclaimer, stating the obvious, i have no idea what this is in terms of > applied cryptography, there is tremendous gap between these statements and > actual code, though to me the approach is much more accurate as "thinking > code" that involves human processing via logical reasoning, parallel and > serial processing, and thus the very idea of a string of code in that view > could also function as signal in noise or even absolute truth, in terms of > messaging. and so it is obvious 'binary thinking' is not like everyday > evaluation in the sense that there is grey-area to mediating events, a > pause to decision- yet within this pause, bounded infinities of hypotheses > can be queried (referencing previous instances in stored or external > memories) that then influence the tallying of the response, which most > likely will be weighted between 1 and 0, unless purely ideological. > > Thus- *conceptually*- to consider "code" in this human context, of a > living breathing idea that is grounded in empirical truth in a shared human > viewpoint, that is to be shared as information, via exchange, it is more > grayscale than 10110101010100001, in terms of language and how thinking > functions, more about looping and weighting of variables than having a > *single correct result* when there can be several overlapping or > contrasting interpretations *at the same time*. So imagine if the binary > string had each bit that was variable instead in a 0-9 scale of weighting > the evaluation, such that 10927238292340246. > > This moves the [binary] string into a fragmented string of variables, more > like analog computation [1][0][9]...[6]. In this way it is to consider the > 'bit' as N-variable, and thus what if it were the alphabet instead of > numbers: 26 letters possible for each bit: USOWHLSELNSQAHBVY > > the issue being that like a slot machine, those [N] variable bits could > tally up any potential letter of 26, or +10 numbers with alphanumerics, or > add lower case and punctuation or symbols and suddenly a small 'string' of > data could involve huge interrelational structures that may or may not be > related across the horizontal span, depending on how it is constructed via > algorithms and conceptual formatting. Maybe this already is the way > transformed code is achieved with taking a certain sized content- variable > [x], and then transmuting its entirety into a string or stream of > obfuscated data that must be 'worked at' to decrypt or be translated to > make use of. > > The seeming difference would be computationally, how this relation exists > in processing, in terms of hardware and software, though also thinking, > programming. Because what if there is a limit to these transmutations that > is forced into a binary 1/0 and thus bounds these infinities to only > certain algorithmic space, or even computationally, that such numbers > cannot be adequately computed and thus *do not exist* as calculations > within machines and software approaches, crypto perhaps especially, when > the security they would provide would be unfathomable in terms of existing > brute force calculations of 'linear' patterns. > > my speculation is of an unknowing of applied cryptography and computer > programming yet knowing of logical reasoning and empirical thinking, > awareness, and how the two are ideologically at odds in approach in terms > of basic assumptions. thus within my condition of 'illiteracy' there is an > attempt to share an idea (pT) about a shared situation from an outsider > vantage, with those of highest literacy of applied code, yet within what to > my observation is a flawed idea and based on false and inaccurate > assumptions, in particular the primacy of binarism for security when this > nonlinear/multilinear computation (parallel & serial) would easily defeat > it. > > such that it is not about strings and instead parallel sets: > [x|x|x|x]...[n] > > as the [variable] yet this may not be coherent in a horizontal algorithm > to solve, it may not have 'rationality' across, from one digit to the next, > revealing its hidden structure. instead, randomness would be inherent > instead of woven into the code, it would be more revealing information out > of noise structures than putting information into noise that is bounded and > can be shaped into structure. in this way also, noise could have structure > yet not lead to decryption, it may be a false corridor within the ever > expanding maze. > > it is that [N] variables each are in superposition, not static by default, > finite and absolute, and instead 'truly variable', unbounded to a certain > extent (infinities within infinities across infinities via nested sets). > > the conceit or test of the heresy would be 256 'bit' quantum computer that > solves 256 AES, though if it were a binary string this could even be > trivial, versus say [N]-bit, which seemingly could take *forever* to > evaluate, via running, looping code evaluation and a shared empirical model > that develops alongside, out of and through the technology as a 'thinking > machine'-- which, the more it is like the human brain, the more likely the > messaging could be made sensible via existing concepts and structures to > test against, evaluating patterns and looking for correlations. in that > context, a three bit [N]-variable string of code could probably defeat all > computing power today, especially if large expanses were allowed, numbers, > letters, symbols-- it would be unsolvable potentially, extremely probable. > Largest primes would be a minor detail, another variable seemingly in such > a context, due to its potential for incoherence and complexity. > > likewise, this [N]-bit approach for random number generators, yet why not > random outside of 1/0 as a noise field, generating strings via a two > [N]-variable string, just let it run and tap that, without or without > structure, would it even matter. in other words: take any two ideas, any > two signs or symbols or colors or whatever, and relate them and tally and > extend this as a process. that is proto-language in a nutshell, this the > crazy nut cracked open yet beyond the insanity of my own incapacity to > communicate and flaws in understanding-- there is something about this > approach and basically observation that has *coherence* that is absent in a > binary approach and serial algorithms-- because that is not how people > think or communicate, it is N-dimensional, geometrical, looping. and > processors and code and software at present cannot model this, allow for > it. and that formats reasoning, perception, what options are available to > share ideas and evaluate them, and we are stuck in binary because it is > enshrined both in technology though also in institutions-- it is the dead > static code of shared ideological non-thinking that is pushing > decision-making and actions towards its deterministic end game, which is a > onesided machine-based value system, devoid of life, nature, and humanity, > except insofar as it profits its own continuing automated development and > further extension. > > so the gap between my illiterate views and the actuality of implemented > security code by those literate is one aspect, though another is my > literacy in thinking code and the illiteracy of thinking within > foundational technology, its infrastructure, and the result of this, which > requires a world like it is, and relies on bad code and ideas to allow for > it. thus an audit or accounting of the situation, an attempt to get across > the idea that there is a model of dumb, unintelligent code at the base of > this situation, the approach is so flawed as to be the basis for tyranny, > and it ties into 'ideology' across platforms, individuals and groups of > people to software/hardware and bureaucratic systems, and in that 'combined > state' of a false-perspective empire, the kernel is corrupt and the whole > thing invalid, including at the constitutional level which itself is > ignored, by binary default, the epic loophole of relativistic frameworks > allowing the fiction and its virtuality to replace shared logical > reasoning, because truth and logic can simply be ignored, 'privatized'. and > enclaves can rule over others as if a caste-system via technology and > ideological assumptions that function as religion, technologists as > priests, gods of this technocratic utopia, the peasants not having the > understanding to operate in such a realm, as guaranteed by the originating > lie and tradeoff that allows for all of this to continue. that absolute > truth is an everyday condition and you get to choose what to believe as if > a right or protected mode of operation, no matter how many others must > suffer for it, to sustain the illusion and shared delusion. > > the cloud here in the corrupted model a state filing cabinet, digital > bureau for the bureaucracy, citizens organizing info into others invisible > folder structures, volunteering the data via handover, designed into the > technology itself as a marketing and communications strategy. the sieve of > private data is equivalent to entire populations seeking out pickpockets to > hand over their contents, incentivized as it is. and so 'security' is as if > a kind of institutional transparency in relation to a corrupted, failed, > rogue state that can read and see everything you are doing, whether or not > encrypted, dumb terminals every computer to the state mainframe, rebranded > and rebadged, hidden, 'anonymous'. > > --- more of this insane ungrounded viewpoint -- > > it was mentioned a three variable 'string' [x|y|z] would be differently > approached if parallel versus serial, in that each bit of a binary string > could be N-variable in a parallel approach, or so it is assumed possible, > as with probabilities and slot machines, or basic everyday observation of > events and what enters and exits consciousness given context. and while not > knowing the depth of this in terms of cryptography, completely out of my > depth, it would seem the concept of keyspace could relate to how such a > 'paradoxical string' could exist, given the boundary for determining what N > could be for [x], [y], [z]. For instance if it were binary ones and > zeroes, the probabilities could be run and 8 different permutations or > combinations: 111, 100, 110, 101, 010, 011, 001, 000. > > And within that, perhaps there is meaning. Yet if 'the probabilities' are > changed via [N]-bit variables, it could go all the way to infinity for a > single variable, and thus BIG BANG inflate via probabilities into a huge > keyspace, perhaps unpacking structures this way that reference others > already developed, as if infrastructure being revealed that connects with > others elsewhere, via wormhole-like connectivity and then closing down upon > successful messaging, thus encrypting and decrypting via few variables, via > inherent yet hidden structural relations within these combinations, which > could be infinities related to infinities and then the issue of how to find > them or what to look for. Black box yet even moreso, RNG as model for > signal, not noise, thus tending toward psychic Random Event Generator as if > innate sense of animals before catastrophe, cosmic faults and folds. > > the idea or difference is paradox- essentially *superposition* of the bit > as [N]-variable, no longer finite and static, potentially active and > transformative, diagnostic even in a sensor sense of the analogue as queued > circuit. What if alignment occurs in the string under certain conditions > and not others, what if it tunes in and structures revealed, decrypt, yet > out of tune it vanishes, code collapse or changes as with temperature > sensing colors, and the variables change, mask into background, returning > to mystery. It does not seem that computers today can even adequately allow > for infinity, a single bit of this, versus a larger parallel string- and > what might that mean about thinking, too. nothing more than finite discreet > thoughts, one decision to the next unconnected, unless largest prime, say > rogue US terror-state pwns earth as if master discourse, shared POV, even > though ungrounded- this the dumbed down unintelligent lowliest shared > viewpoint of situations in their depth, instead made shallow, sold as daily > headline? the CODE makes it so, in brains and machinery and bureaucracy. > binary is the enforced and corrupted 'shared state', conceptually and > ideologically, yet it is a false belief. > > the issue then of shared and unshared identity, belonging or not belonging > to this 'master/slave' thinking... > > shared ID <-----> unshared ID > > And how this relates to default interpretations, the quickest route for > 'feedback' and determining events based on perspective... are you binary or > paradoxical? > > Can you make sense of your own consciousness or must you take on false > consciousness to function in society and go about decision-making in its > frameworks, taking on its value systems yet which fragment a person from > their own 'true' self, taking over and reformatting and reprogramming a > life to serve the machine agenda over and against 'shared humanity' -- now > an unshared identity, via private relativistic ideology. sell out your > ancestors and neighbors for a place in the machine... > > Quickest route to thinking- *binary* of course, processor speed as if > SUPERSMART! --- "look- i can decide things and determine things > irrespective of their actual truth, and it works for me and others, > everyone else is just lazy!" Like water flowing downhill, 'logical > reasoning' turned into Price is Right PLINKO game, quick and easy > 'automated reasoning' via path of least resistance aided and abetted by > binary ideology, creating friction-free virtual universe, mind detached > from body by also flawed historical beliefs, enabling this madness its > onesided platform. the trope of largest prime 'uncorrected ideological > perspective' the trophy award for the most stupid, greedy, and ignorant. an > entire society and civilization built around rewarding those whose > activities align with this, against human conscience and its needs, that > then is viewed as the enemy. > > > --- major social dynamic --- > > ideologically there is a differentiation in terms of the process of > reasoning, how information is parsed... > > intelligent <-----> smart > > also, how shared identity may differ between empirical and relativistic > models of truth... > > truth <-----> partial truth > > and the difference in conceptualization, reliance on how frameworks are > constructed, tested... > > ideas <-----> facts > > and this directly relates to issues of observation and cybernetics > (looping circuitry)... > > fallible observer <-----> infallible observer > > error-correction <-----> no error correction > > In this way 'inflated' or 'bubble' views can rely on warping, skew, > distortion for their truth which is verified by conforming to a false or > inaccurate model reliant on a limited *protected* or SECURED version of > pseudo-truth (pT), as if shared empirical reality (T) removed of error, > because it is believed to be, via ideology. > > grounded empiricism <-----> ungrounded relativism > > In this way a 'private worldview' can replace 'the public' view as if a > shared domain, and become the basis for one-sided 'reasoning' depending on > authoritative beliefs, where facts can be chosen to fit the model, others > discarded, to uphold the perimeter, basically privatizing perspective to a > finite inaccurate view as the ex >
