tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85199492024-03-07T03:46:51.546-05:00Info TheoryThe Application of Information Theory to the Political and Social Problems of our Day.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-68152421635276002382024-02-26T10:42:00.011-05:002024-02-27T09:37:29.732-05:00On Entropy and System Identification<p>Recently, I have been reading Stephen Wolfram's, <i>The Second Law</i>, and might now better comment on entropy and how it is related to system identification. Note that the statistical form of entropy is as the expectation of the logarithm of probabilities of parts of some partition. In thermodynamics, the change in entropy is the change in heat of a system normalized by absolute temperature. This heat is distributed over a partition of molecules. Heat in a vacuum cannot be held--simply transmitted by radiation. </p><p>Molecules hold heat by the excitation of their kinematics which is perceivable as temperature. Energy can additionally be held by elevation of states of electron shells which collapse and emit photons that carry heat by radiation; convection is the mass movement of energetic molecules and conduction is the transfer of energy between molecules caused by collision. Below the level of the molecule, there is no sense in the thermodynamic understanding of entropy. Subatomic particles do not all have mass and do not all act as a molecule does. Not everything in the universe consists of molecules in contact with each other and therefore, the idea of heat death of the universe is nonsense. Please do not worry about it. It makes a person dour and prone to nihilism (<i>q.v.</i> Boltzmann).</p><p>The point here is that whether it is used in information theory or thermodynamics, the concept of entropy is simply a mathematical relation for a system characterized by multiplicative interactions that can be decomposed by additive parts via the logarithm--it is a model. Where the model is appropriate, as in the case of heat among molecules, it is a useful quantification of the state. Where it is not, it is not used. Thus, the "Second Law" has limited applicability. It is not even applicable as we generally believe it to be. Energy lost by radiation makes a process irreversible, not by some miracle of the creation of greater "entropy" but rather by the simple loss of energy under the First Law. Heat is a catch-all term for perceptible energy in matter that tracks to temperature. Heat is simply a form of energy--it is not every form. Thermodynamic entropy only applies to heat.</p><p>Interestingly, many also confuse the phenomenon of mixing as also being entropic--but this is not properly understood either. Mixing of molecules in three dimensions occurs because the mean free travel between molecules tends to a maximum simply by the physics of motion and the fact that the energy transmitted by collisions is not unidirectional. Entropic models may fit these systems only because the mathematics fits. There is nothing special about the physics that links one entropically-described process to another. Entropy is a model, not a law of nature applicable to everything.</p><p>So, while I do not share Stephen's excitement, I may share in some of his insights. Entropy is a useful mathematical concept for the decomposition of a multiplicative system into constituent parts. That is all.</p><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-69788616413204046422023-08-05T23:03:00.010-04:002023-08-05T23:40:24.210-04:00To End the Russian-Ukrainian WarSystems rise and fall by their characteristic modes of operation because those modes simply express some underlying truth of nature. The Ukrainian invasion was made possible by such a characteristic within the Russian state--a characteristic that has not changed much over the last several hundred years. Such a strong characteristic cannot be hidden. Indeed, it stands in plain view for all to see. <div><br /></div><div>The Russian people are still serfs in their own minds. They do not think or feel as though they are responsible for the actions and decisions of their government. The Russian people, in general, are not the stuff of successful and functional democracies.
It would be a huge mistake to try to beat Russia by fighting it on its strengths. </div><div><br /></div><div>Why fight a war of attrition with a country and people that will not give proper attribution to its losses? Instead, achieve the goal of a long and prosperous peace by pulling out the sticks that support the facade. </div><div><br /></div><div>Russia is morally and politically corrupt. Hang these modern-day fascists with their own rope.
We have seen that hundreds of thousands of young Russians will flee the country rather than fight Putin's war. What if that number was multiplied by ten? The country would collapse economically, and those that remain would be left to ponder their predicament--perhaps even to learn. </div><div><br /></div><div>What if the western democracies offered citizenship and guaranteed jobs/income to any Russian that could flee across the border?
We could see perhaps 10 million Russians emigrate--enough to hollow out Putin's war machine. Better yet, it would perhaps finally achieve the objectives of NATO and put an end to the threat of Russian aggression.
It would cost perhaps $100 billion dollars and effectively win a war without the tragic destruction of the alternative.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-337471099264436112021-08-17T16:57:00.020-04:002021-09-06T22:00:23.941-04:00Afghanistan: Who are we really fooling?<p>Well, oh well. Look at all the shocked faces, and all with a finger to point. The rapid fall of Afghanistan should have surprised no one. We had seen the very same phenomenon when ISIS overran northern Iraq and sent that ersatz army fleeing. And the atrocities that followed should have surprised no one just as the slaughterhouse that Afghanistan is about to become should leave no one claiming that they had no idea that the Taliban was not the reincarnation of Nelson Mandela's ANC.</p><p>How do we know? Besides direct deduction? Just ask yourself several counterfactuals:</p><p><b>Question 1</b>. If you were the lead intelligence officer for US armed forces and you could make a fantastic case for what was about to happen, would your boss, the Commander, care?</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><b>Ans</b>. Not a chance. He wants to be the new Gen Milley someday. Why upset the applecart? He knows that the POTUS doesn't want to hear it.</p></blockquote><p><b>Question 2</b>. What if you were the SecDef or SecState?</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><b>Ans</b>. Well, you don't care. What do you care about? Not much of real consequence. Deals mostly.</p></blockquote><p><b>Question 3</b>. What if you were Biden?</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><b>Ans</b>. One word: Ice Cream! </p></blockquote><p>You see, the problem is not just that our political leaders are not very bright, it is primarily that they don't care. And BTW, before we get partisan, none of them really cared. Bush didn't even care about Iraq until a light went off in his head connecting the impending doom of Iraq, the model, with his own prospects for reelection in that case (and this needed to be almost spelled out for him).</p><p>Yes, our political leaders have no clue about much except their own political prospects and they have cultivated a Pretorian guard of imbeciles that will tell them just about whatever they want to hear. Remember the aluminum tubes? How many geniuses did it take to figure out that they were not meant for centrifuges? Turns out just one professor on leave to the DOE--we should probably hire that guy and fire the rest of the National Intelligence Apparatus.</p><p>Now, these people are not actually stupid, but their total lack of moral fiber makes them so. After all, they were smart enough to take loads of your tax money and they all have a much better retirement account. But we weren't really fooled either. Truth be told, we "normal" people mostly just don't care about our own government and that is why we tolerate such mediocrities. Even a dunce can be useful if he annoys the other guy more than he embarrasses our team. </p><p>It's all just a game with one side scoring points on the other. Meanwhile, the few that are not in the game do their best to pretend that the direction of government is unimportant--sort of a self-driving car made by German engineers--it will get you there eventually. Enjoy the ride.</p><p>So as the slaughter of the innocent is about to unfold in Afghanistan, we can be happy that we were smart enough not to be there ourselves. We will never find ourselves in such a situation, right? After all, we are protected by our government of the People. Surely, they will not let us down.</p><p>Just one small problem there.....</p><p>You guessed it. We are the problem and our insipid political leadership is just a reflection of our own debased values. It couldn't be any clearer. The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves. That should be no surprise to anyone. The character of a nation is simply the aggregate of the character of its People.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-45332313039466671602020-05-17T19:05:00.006-04:002021-01-21T14:28:35.479-05:00The Unescapable Logic<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Let's take a look at why <a href="http://info-theory.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-shape-of-things-to-come.html" target="_blank">The Shape of Things to Come</a> was correct as a prediction (and please remember this analysis was done at a time when there was fierce speculation even among experts that were in no way as accurate as the post).<br />
<br />
The first principle is that the economy is a system that is always quasi-stable near some equilibrium point. Economic expansion means that excess goods are produced along with the chits to redeem them by people who somehow are considered to have merited the chits. An economic contraction means that the causal relations for incentivizing the goods production and chit distribution squirrel cage has broken down. If this goes on long enough, the consumption necessary to sustain relative prosperity overtakes the production and a cycle of poverty can set in.<br />
<br />
In the first round of lockdowns, we as a group decided to forego prosperity for the imaginary chits of safety. Consumption went along, but not at much of a pace that it would jeopardize the imaginary value of the chits (money given out by a government with a large printing press). What did happen, however, was that the squirrel cage of work and value was put askew. Disproportionately, the service sector was nullified and the chits standing in for the value of an education were devalued. This might go on for a bit and perhaps nothing would be the worse since much of US education is a worthless waste of time, anyhow. But, there is a but ...<br />
<br />
What if that adjustment to the running of the squirrel cage caused enough people to decide that the education was not worth the effort? There will always be some. But what if this small trickle became a gusher? Would there be a corrective mechanism within the system to put it back in line? For STEM degrees from first tier universities, of course. But not necessarily for the rest, most of whom incidentally seek to redeem those chits in the recently nullified service sector. That amplifying confluence of forces may have an effect outside its initial expectations.<br />
<br />
Those chits rely on the belief that they can be redeemed later in life. When that belief is broken, an alternate valuation must be adopted. The problem with university educations are that they are largely inherently worthless and already many of the students, if not the majority, understand this. Why pay for it if it is not necessary?<br />
<br />
If enough excess value is drained by the system through consumption, we will reach a point where subsidies must be prioritized. The student loan system stands out as one where $1.4T of debt is probably too much to write off. We cannot pay students not to pay their loans even if those loans are ultimately back to the government. So some proportion of that debt will be reexamined by the students and if found worthless, a wave of defaults will occur so much so that our economic system will be forced to reconfigure the education system.<br />
<br />
I doubt that the "new normal" can survive when children and college students are sent back to class. And when that happens, the pandemic will appear to be something of a fraud regardless the spike in elderly deaths. A reevaluation of assumptions will be the zeitgeist.<br />
<br />
The second principle is that unexpected changes to the equilibrium have unexpected consequences, and the most difficult to predict are inflections in human value systems. For example, we once valued books not only for their information but as symbols of learning. Take a look next time you are visiting with an "educated" friend or even a professor. Where are the books? Not so much as once were common.<br />
<br />
It is not just that so-called educated people don't own books, they do not read books or consider them important. This is especially common among today's students. Consider this as a precursor. The question is, "What does knowledge have to do with my success?" It's fine to say that this is nonsense, but is it?<br />
<br />
These are the absurdities that appear just before major societal corrections. We once thought that family was critical to success. No so much anymore. Pedigree is not destiny.<br />
<br />
There has been a slow but steady trend to devalue actual education. This may be the jolt to upset the institutional apple cart. If so, I doubt it was expected that 50% of $1.4T could head towards default in a catastrophe. But I do not see what there is to stop it either. Eventually, all such absurdities are eradicated from a functioning system as it changes modes.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">The alternative view is that the value of the "education" is simply as a credential to gain employment in the government or corporate sector--that the value is in being socialized for the purposes of the government/corporate interests and not so much for knowledge. If we consider that corporations and government aligns with a feeling-type personality, then college is simply a feedback loop of resources for the indoctrination of the future corporate fodder. Is this a cynical approach? Yes, but maybe just so. College education in the US is a paradox of absurdities with one constant--socialization.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">If so, then systematic default in student loans would gladly be borne by the government without any reconfiguration of the "educational" enterprise. Failure will be subsidized if political conformity is achieved. In that sense, it it not failure per se.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Let's see.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-39747166519291151952020-04-05T14:11:00.003-04:002020-04-06T12:13:10.159-04:00The Shape of Things to Come<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Some things are fairly well known. Let's start from those.<br />
<br />
1. In the US, for the week of April 15, the average daily death toll will be a couple thousand coming mainly from the Northeast corridor.<br />
<br />
2. Beginning in the week of April 21, if lockdowns persist, the unemployment rate will raise to over 15% and moderate size non-service oriented businesses will begin layoffs.<br />
<br />
3. In the week of April 28, if the lockdown persists, the central government will no longer have enough credit to float the system, and businesses will follow their own pattern of adaptation.<br />
<br />
Which means that within the next week, (the week of April 15), the central governments around the EU and North America have a decision to make:<br />
<br />
A. Admit that the pandemic is out of control and instead prioritize the economy.<br />
<br />
B. Double down into economic catastrophe.<br />
<br />
<br />
My guess is that the governments will choose A. In that case, we have a very interesting social condition that will develop in that the free peoples will be divided amongst themselves on the basis of age. Going into the 2020 election, we will see that develop in political terms as well. I would expect that the Democrats will demagogue the issues and attempt to have it both ways before strongly siding with socialist-type interventions that are not economically feasible. The Republican, lacking strong leadership, will dance in the wind as they hope for the situation to resolve itself.<br />
<br />
So by mid-May, we will have a new normal. The economy will be reopened but the virus will not be defeated. The daily death toll will remain in the thousands, but most people will begin to adapt to the threat, having learned effectively nothing. With a depressed economy and no excess capital to spend, certain changes will need to be made:<br />
<br />
1. Higher education will cease to be a four-year vacation for the indolent on loans. The student loan system collapses under the weight of unpayable loans built on fraudulent education, bloated administrations, and a squirrel cage system of raising costs without value.<br />
<br />
2. The financial system will be sacked of a great proportion of its liquidity.<br />
<br />
3. The service sector will remain contracted, not for the virus, but because there is no money to spend.<br />
<br />
4. Capital investments will contract and political solutions will be proposed that are in fact confiscations of wealth.<br />
<br />
5. The legal system will lose legitimacy to the degree that court orders are not enforced by fiat, but rather only through negotiation.<br />
<br />
<br />
Well, let's see.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-65171952215495282662020-03-11T15:40:00.002-04:002020-03-11T15:40:27.151-04:00Modeling the Coronavirus Contagion<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
Without a vaccine, the protection to at-risk populations is
a matter of not getting the disease in the first place. So, the question of the
pervasiveness of the spread of the disease is of greatest importance. The
answer to this question depends almost entirely on the immunity of those infected
and recovered since the US is not able to institute draconian isolation
measures over any large geographical area.<br />
<br />
<br />
While there was an initial indication that recovered individuals
may be contagious, this is likely a test failure. Let us therefore assume that
recovered individuals have immunity from reinfection and are not contagious for
at least six months. If so, then the protection of at-risk individuals is feasible
if they can be locally isolated when the wave of infections sweeps through an
area. The recent success of the Chinese to stem the rate of spread of the
disease should give us hope even though we do not weld doors shut on apartment
complexes.<br />
<br />
<br />
Remember, there is an approximately two-week lag time. So,
when you see a bump up in the local rate of infection, act quickly and decisively
to isolate your at-risk populations. Be prepared for 6-8 weeks of isolation per
wave of infection. Meanwhile, on the national level, the best policy is to
isolate the nation and quickly saturate with testing and isolate any affected occurrences.
This disease is not super-human, but it is no slacker either.<br />
<br />
<br />
A more detailed nonlinear control model will be forthcoming
from the Prof. Ellina Grigorieva when data is available to estimate the
parameters.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Good Luck.<br />
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-37930351294123373272019-09-28T07:33:00.001-04:002019-10-05T15:26:03.511-04:00Societal Evolution<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Given the increasing division between the thinking/feeling poles in the modern integrated society, we can answer the question of how the system will evolve. Recall that in the <a href="https://info-theory.blogspot.com/2004/09/transnational-liberalism.html" target="_blank">Transnational Liberalism</a> post, the system described had the thinking player at the exterior of an expanding universe. The feeling player is in the interior with the stability point being non-Pareto, i.e. it is somewhere within the interior between the two players. As the system grows fueled by technological advances, the periphery expands at a geometric rate and therefore the overall influence of the thinking player will outpace the that of the feeling player and the equilibrium point will tend to move towards the periphery. But this is the long term limit. The stable growth of the system can be upset as it is today by the rapid condensation of the interior as they tear from their connection to the exterior player. <br />
<br />
Let's use the analogy of the system universe in a slightly different way. A system grows by its ability to direct useful information. The well-defined mores of a socio-political system are like the supporting structures of a tree that direct information (position) to the leaves. The feeling player gravitates to the points in the system which nurtures future generations, actively participates in the interpersonal relations of the culture, and forms the crony networks that dominate large organizations. While the exterior player creates wealth from work done with the environment, the function of the interior player is to create human value. But untethered power tends to corrupt and when the interior player does not see itself as dependent on the wealth creation process of the exterior player, the impression of dominance and self-sufficience may arise. At this context, the structures that were developed to support the productive activities of the exterior player may appear counterproductive to the interior player therefore leading to their corruption. This dynamic can lead to instability and collapse of the system.<br />
<br />
As partisanship increases, the feeling player coalesces with the benefit of central position in being able to organize their efforts. Additionally, the feeling player has a simple common set of expressions, i.e. it is primitive in its motivations. Meanwhile, the exterior player is focused on the external environment. The exterior player typically goes about its business of working as a normal mode of operation while the interior player manipulates those with which its comes into contact as its method of extracting wealth. The exterior player experiences a lag in adapting to the initiatives of the interior player. This relationship will persist while the internal structures of the system supply information to the exterior player. If the information structures of the system are corrupted by the concentrated efforts of the interior player (it benefits from the ability to position itself against the exterior player using unrestricted interior lines), the efforts of the exterior player may collapse and it is forced to redirect its efforts into reestablishing the interior structures. This is now the present situation.<br />
<br />
What follows is a chaotic interior struggle. The eventual winner is the exterior player due to their ability to communicate the creation of wealth and eventually, the interior structures will be rebuilt and the system reformed. Of course, the system will be the worse for this disruption and there is the chance of total system destruction should an exterior intervention such as nuclear war occur while the system is in its vulnerable state.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-67911711202980240732019-08-11T17:48:00.001-04:002019-08-11T21:49:33.465-04:00Societal Learning<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5rSodtgVHJ8s8NfH_WCqvrh_zxT1YVTDVUUeCNEwlyJDkVAazA8HKv7lmZplrAYWuCW0DoiS19m_xiEAV0IcUlbmmP99-nV-X85WRwSrMNdI7DsK8sRMrLLF70b478Tgp8stOXQ/s1600/Queen+Joanna+the+Mad.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1090" data-original-width="1600" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5rSodtgVHJ8s8NfH_WCqvrh_zxT1YVTDVUUeCNEwlyJDkVAazA8HKv7lmZplrAYWuCW0DoiS19m_xiEAV0IcUlbmmP99-nV-X85WRwSrMNdI7DsK8sRMrLLF70b478Tgp8stOXQ/s320/Queen+Joanna+the+Mad.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
It would be hard to miss the fact that these times seem a little strange. Nearly one-half of the population of the US appears to have politically lost their tether and are now openly indulging themselves in hysterical, fever-dreamed fits of rage.<br />
<br />
This is societal learning. Learning is like the five stages of grief. It is a reaction and reconciliation with an external reality that throws one off of their balance. When society is composed of essentially two poles with <a href="https://info-theory.blogspot.com/2004/12/connections-and-consistency.html">fundamental learning differences</a>, reality will hit both poles differently. The exterior player will adapt to the external influence while the interior player will fight the change before more slowly adapting. This is the model presented in the <a href="https://info-theory.blogspot.com/2004/09/transnational-liberalism.html">Transnational Liberalism</a> post. The interior player are the DNC/Socialist party and the exterior player is the RNC/Conservative party. They are differentiated by the fundamental modes of feeling/thinking of their members.<br />
<br />
The change is due to technology which has produced an integrated economy fused with politics as never before possible. The red-blue shift over the years has been accelerated by technology and has produced an economic and political dipole. Now, politics and economics are correspondent, ubiquitous, and omnipotent factors in determining nearly every other aspect of US life. As predicted in the TNL post, in such a situation, the interior player must eventually find themselves dependent and inferior to the exterior player since the exterior is where the ever expanding percentage of economic activity is sustained in a growing system. The recent adjustment of American conservative politics to populism and the concordant alignment of DNC/Socialist politics in opposition to populism is one aspect of the <a href="https://info-theory.blogspot.com/2016/01/fear-and-loathing-in-dc.html">Trump phenomenon</a>. This alignment is a mega-trend and not due to one individual.<br />
<br />
Confronted with its decline as seen by a recent irrelevance in wish-fulfilling fantasies, the American left has gone from denial (the Russian hoax) to anger, and will soon enter the bargaining stage. Every election is a bargain or sorts, but this is a bargain to sustain an unrealistic internal state--the fantasy that the policies of the left are praiseworthy and not simply primitive selfish rationalizations.<br />
<br />
What is clear at this point is that the next election will be one between pragmatism and open delusion. Learning will only take place if pragmatism wins out.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-61326788254923054982019-02-28T03:18:00.001-05:002019-02-28T03:28:16.399-05:00Evil by any other Name<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"></span>When one decides to destroy what is innocent, to pervert what was righteous, or to subvert the truth, it is evil. This is not a matter of a misunderstanding, mistake, miscalculation, or misdemeanor---it is the fundamental crime of nature.<br />
<br />
We see today the traces of certain evil. In the United States, the Democrat party as an institution openly supports infanticide and lies about it. In North Korea, a maniac supervises the murders of hundreds of thousands while he steadfastly builds the capability of murdering millions, but tries just as lamely to hide this fact. For us, to be naïve about this evil is not presently forgivable. The only acceptable moral choice is to act against the evil.<br />
<br />
In the United States, that moral action is to destroy the Democrat party by all legitimate political means possible. In South-East Asia, the imperative is to destroy the Kim regime root and branch. They are both of the same evil nature and they both leave no other option.<br />
<br />
Enough foolishness. This should have been clear before. Now it is clearly inescapable.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-47823715738166585472018-08-17T22:56:00.003-04:002018-08-17T23:21:46.434-04:00Afghanistan: What and Why<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The problem of Afghanistan, from an American perspective, is the fact that it is a sinkhole for many of the evils of Islam in the Asian subcontinent in direct proximity to the dysfunctions of the bastardized nation-state of Pakistan. And Pakistan has the bomb---more than just a few now. Should that precarious government fall into the Islamic abyss, then those bombs would need to be recovered if at all possible. Otherwise, they would be used.<br />
<br />
But a problem for which there is no solution is not a problem. As they say, it is merely a condition to be endured. That struggle which is present day Afghanistan does serve a purpose in stabilizing a greater system. As long as the central urban skeleton of Afghanistan continues independent of Taliban control, then Afghanistan acts as a killing field for the castaways of the slums of Quetta. The government of Pakistan avoids its most direct threat and no one is much the worse. To maintain this balance becomes just another cost of global prosperity. Since it is displaced upon America, you might say if you wish, that it is part and parcel of the "white man's burden".<br />
<br />
But we believe that it needn't be so. We hope that we all might be better to our fellow man and that such suffering is not absolutely necessary. Is there a way from this quagmire to a place less odious?<br />
<br />
In short, no. As long as there is Islam, there will be places such as Afghanistan. But by itself, Afghanistan would die a slow heat death as one generation of fighters grows old without greater conquest. To contain the Taliban's expansion is to bleed it to death. The Taliban is ultimately maintained by the throwaway wealth of the global jihad--by petrodollars of Riyadh.<br />
<br />
Islam is a system that gives moral license to those who would take from others rather than to create. As a revelation-based theology, it is not possible to disprove its central tenets and to reform its masses. To cause a following for Islam, one must simply have a want to take rather than to create. There are many of such people in the slums of Quetta and the oil palaces of Riyadh. These are not people that grew to value an honest day's work and it is not within their culture to change that predisposition. The cause of that dysfunction is the excess of free wealth in Riyadh and the dearth of the apparatus of wealth in Quetta. This pipeline of misery flows both ways.<br />
<br />
The positive evolution of Afghanistan is not unlike the ultimate evolution of Cuba. Once external funding is cut and the opium exports are eradicated, a slow process of reform will eventually overtake the country and drive out the death cult. It will take decades, not months.<br />
<br />
Until then, the best we can do is to learn to value patience and discipline ourselves against acts of rash stupidity. We must continue to allow the derelicts of Quetta to learn the hard way as we demand that the princes of Riyadh learn the easy way. So far, we are now on the right track, but it would serve us to do away with the opium as we mind the palaces.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-50715665656055865232017-10-05T04:42:00.000-04:002017-10-05T04:42:11.883-04:00History and Destiny <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
If you can keep your head when all about you </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
But make allowance for their doubting too; </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master; </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim; </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
And treat those two impostors just the same; </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
If you can make one heap of all your winnings</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
And lose, and start again at your beginnings</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
And never breathe a word about your loss;</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
To serve your turn long after they are gone, </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
And so hold on when there is nothing in you</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
If all men count with you, but none too much;</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
If you can fill the unforgiving minute</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run, </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; border: 0px; font-family: adobe-garamond-pro; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-35117963368050968432017-05-29T06:18:00.002-04:002017-05-30T22:32:28.780-04:00The DPRK Problem: Kabuki Theater<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
If countries acted like rational players, the US would have eliminated the DPRK nuclear program as soon as it became known and the ROK would have invaded and conquered the DPRK just as soon as it became evident the PRC would not be drawn into the conflict. All of this would have occurred approximately circa 1990.<br />
<br />
But countries are not rational actors. Their leaders have domestic political considerations and the nation-state system itself has a short memory. Any initiative by the US and ROK to head off the emerging threat of North Korea would have come with immediate costs to the decision-makers that outweighed the expected benefits of rational action. And so they kicked the can down the street giving just enough cover to their actions so not to appear as craven as they were. The DPRK intelligently indulged the US/ROK in this kabuki theater.<br />
<br />
From the DPRK position, it would be suicidal to over-respond to a proportionate action by the US/ROK. Any artillery attack against Seoul would be met with annihilation of the barraging force and of the regime, if not with total conventional conquest by the South. The North knows this, yet it maintains the threat because it serves its purpose in holding the US/ROK at bay. The real fear of the US/ROK is not retaliation by the North for a preemptive strike, it is the appearance that the political leader who initiated the action is accountable for the DPRK's response rather than Kim. Kim postures himself so as to escape rational consequence, but meanwhile, his actions are very deliberately designed to achieve his intermediate goal of separating the US from the ROK. His propaganda makes this clear.<br />
<br />
Is there a way for the US/ROK leaders to deal with this complication while achieving the purpose of denuclearization? Yes, they could assassinate Kim.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-1713846295071463412017-05-25T23:44:00.001-04:002017-05-26T01:05:14.724-04:00The DPRK Problem: Intentions and Predictions<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The DPRK problem is a system of interests, events, and consequences that is rationally being driven by Kim Jong-un, the dictator of the DPRK. His conception of purpose is the one that will drive the situation forward, barring unpredictable actions of other players. The ultimate goal of the DPRK is to establish hegemony over the entire Korean peninsula. In order to do this, the US must be separated from its ROK ally and then the ROK must be subjugated in a pseudo-cooperative process. Kim's pursuit of nuclear ICBMs/SLBMs is necessary and instrumental in the achievement of this purpose. However, at the same time he must deter the ROK from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons itself.<br />
<br />
Kim cannot achieve these goals by war. However, the threat of war is his strongest card. He can only achieve his intermediate aims by direct negotiations with the US/ROK whereby they would agree to eject US forces from South Korea. Then he must develop a deterrent to US intervention so that the US will not come to the ROK's aid once he enters into the process of subjugation. For this, nuclear ICBMs/SLBMs are sufficient. As a rational actor, the US would not intervene to protect a non-treaty ally at the cost of millions of US lives.<br />
<br />
Therefore, expect the DPRK to pursue a policy of bluff and deceit. Should it find itself in troubles, it will go to phony negotiations. The DPRK may even enlist other nations, such as Iran, to play a shell game during the process so that it maintains its capabilities while achieving its intermediate aims. Expect China to be permissive in this pursuit as it serves China's expansionist goals.<br />
<br />
The best measure to take to foil this strategy is to assassinate Kim. North Korea has no motivation to attack or pursue nuclear weapons without Kim. The simple and humanitarian solution to the crisis is the well-deserved elimination of one tyrant.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-82022852986240084242017-05-20T04:52:00.000-04:002018-03-29T20:32:59.832-04:00The DPRK Problem: Capabilities and Costs<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Without understanding the realm of possibilities, it is impossible to understand how the best options for the various players might be achieved. What are the individual capabilities of the DPRK, US, PRC, and ROK? In assessing these capabilities, very rough estimated are used.<br />
<br />
1. The DPRK can have a SLBM capable of delivering nuclear weapons to the US within a year. They can have 10 ICBMs within the same time frame capable of killing 2 million US persons and 4 million Japanese. The DPRK can presently kill 2 million ROK civilians with nuclear means and 500,000 in an extended general war by non-nuclear means. <br />
<br />
Within a year, the DPRK can cause 2 trillion USD loss to the world economy evenly distributed between the PRC, US, Japan, and ROK.<br />
<br />
As long as Kim is alive, the full extent of these losses is realizable. If Kim was killed, the maximum losses are cut to a fraction since the DPRK would not likely face total annihilation in order to inflict these loses.<br />
<br />
2. The US has the capability of full spectrum operations against the DPRK but can only attrite the DPRK military forces to 50% over the period of a year using conventional weapons and over a week using nuclear weapons. Kim can be assassinated given one week's notice.<br />
<br />
3. The ROK can defeat the DPRK using military operations over the period of a year and can assassinate Kim with one month's notice.<br />
<br />
4. The PRC can assassinate Kim with one month's notice.<br />
<br />
We often qualify capabilities by thinking about intents and costs at the same time. However, since nuclear capabilities are the result of the coherent efforts of a nation-state and since the decision for their application is consequentialist and contextual, it is best to strictly separate these ideas in the analysis.<br />
<br />
Now let's look at the costs for the players' actualization of their capabilities.<br />
<br />
1. Should the DPRK initiate a general war, it will be destroyed as an entity and Kim along with it. The Kim project of creating a "socialist paradise" which has proved itself a lie over the years would be forever put out of its misery. Kim would have the same egotistical accomplishment as Hitler in his bunker as he spent the capitol of Germany into the flames of Russian fires. He will have the accomplishment of adding another million deaths to his funeral pyre. <br />
<br />
This cost should be seen on balance as simply the punctuation at the end of a sentence. Overall, it is a wash except for the opportunity cost of what might have been achieved with more time.<br />
<br />
Should the DPRK instigate anything less than general war, the expectation from its perspective is that it would have nothing but profit while undertaking a temporary heroic risk. The cost of each provocative action is weighed against the possibility of something greater if another course is taken. The DPRK does not see costs in these actions other than the economic cost of retribution by the PRC.<br />
<br />
2. The cost of a general war to the PRC would be the temporary influx of perhaps a million refugees weighed against the renumeration by what remains of Korea for the PRC's costs. The PRC would lose a prod to use against the US, but would over time gain a subservient trading partner just as Eastern Europe is a trading partner of Russia. <br />
<br />
Should the war go nuclear, there is the increasing cost of fallout on Chinese soil. China would take affirmative actions to suppress this threat. For this reason alone it is highly unlikely that the DPRK would respond to pinprick attacks with nuclear weapons.<br />
<br />
3. Given a general war using nuclear weapons, the ROK would suffer horrendous loss, but would survive to rebuild. In a year, with more nuclear weapons in the hands of the DPRK, it is not clear that this is possible.<br />
<br />
4. The US would suffer minor direct loss from a general war in Korea but potentially huge international losses if that war was not universally seen as the responsibility of the DPRK. This cost would be proportionate to the ability of the US to safeguard the ROK population.<br />
<br />
Considering the ratio of costs to capabilities, it is clearly necessary for the US to engage the PRC to bring about the end of Kim personally and of his regime in general. Should the PRC show that it can or will not achieve this aim, then it is incumbent on the ROK to pursue assassination. Should the ROK balk at this, then it is necessary for the US to assassinate Kim and his weapons program together with the artillery emplacements in the Pyongsan vicinity and to occupy that area. This will cost the US about 5000 casualties since the operation must be accomplished quickly using conventional arms alone. It is expected that the brunt of the fighting would be done by ROK troops.<br />
<br />
After the imminent threat by the DPRK to use nuclear weapons, the US would use tactical nuclear weapons, if advisable, to overcome the DPRK offensive capabilities. A stalemate along this protective border could be achieved within two weeks at the cost of the same losses that the US experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan during the most intense two years of fighting.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-68121013495635224352017-05-18T04:14:00.002-04:002017-05-18T05:54:05.396-04:00The DPRK Problem: Decision-making<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
While we are distracted by the events of the day: a missile launch, a political statement, or a foreign visit, there are a couple of more important decisions that have been made that will define the course of events yet to come. The first is the decision by the ROK to retain the THAAD system. The second is the decision by the DPRK not to initiate the sixth nuclear test.<br />
<br />
Each of these decisions are perceived by their makers to be critical to the evolution of events in the future by the other players, notably the US and PRC. The fact that they have not been made by this point indicates that a positive decision has been made not to make them. And from that we can infer the position of two of the major players of this drama: the ROK and DPRK.<br />
<br />
Ahead of the Presidential elections in the ROK, President Trump issued a statement that South Korea should pay approximately $1B USD for the THAAD system. This statement was quickly withdrawn. Nonetheless, the THAAD system remains in the ROK, operational. Should the ROK have the system removed, it would of course be folly. However, by not removing THAAD the ROK links itself to the decisions of the US which do threaten to create hostilities with the DPRK in order to set back the DPRK nuclear and missile programs and/or destabilize the North Korean regime.<br />
<br />
So the ROK is under a primary threat of nuclear attack by not subjugating itself politically to North Korea. Of course, this is North Korea's primary purpose in developing nuclear ICBMs that can possibly drive a wedge between the US and the ROK. During the Cold War, France faced a similar decision and decided to develop its own nuclear deterrent and only then drop out of NATO. The thought the French had was that the Russians would be content to invade just West Germany. Soviet warplans discovered in their archive showed this cowardly betrayal to be mistaken. France would be invaded regardless. Both the ROK and the US face a similar decision today. Either can attempt to cut and run. For the time being, both are allowing themselves to be backed into a common fight. The immediate cost may be enormous and the long term cost of appeasement, even higher.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the DPRK has forestalled its previously scheduled sixth nuclear test. This test would have likely have been a bridge too far for Sino-North Korean relations under pressure from the US. And it may have triggered an immediate US preemptive strike against the DPRK nuclear and missile facilities. By putting this test on hold, the Kim regime shows weakness which may lead those within the regime to doubt its wherewithal. To shore this confidence up, the DPRK has conducted two additional missile tests which also have the benefit of moving its ICBM program ahead. There is simultaneous work to advance the SLBM program. Both programs are aimed at Japan and the US.<br />
<br />
The DPRK's decision to delay the sixth test validates the fact that the PRC has sufficient control over the DPRK's future that the DPRK believes it must acquiesce to Chinese demands. Ninety percent of North Korea trade is with the PRC. The DPRK is not nearly as self-sufficient as it would have its people believe especially in terms of fuel, food, and the luxury items that are paid as bribes to Kim's various cronies that help him control the country. Should North Korea conduct the sixth test, it would likely signal to the US that the PRC cannot or will not control North Korea. This would greatly diminish China's role in any resolution of the DPRK problem and increase the likelihood of US preemptive action.<br />
<br />
Both decisions show that it is the United States' game to lose. The US loses by backing down or by excessive delay in forcing the elimination of the DPRK's ability to deliver nuclear weapons.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-2099623289133139462017-05-15T02:41:00.002-04:002017-05-16T08:04:45.953-04:00The DPRK Problem: What is it? How to solve it?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Due to the fact that technology advances in a closed system just as entropy increases, we are confronted with the problem that the DPRK will soon be able to launch nuclear SLBMs/ICBMs capable of destroying cities on the US mainland. This is a problem since <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction">MAD</a> does not work with an asymmetric partner such as North Korea. One must have something significant to lose and the player must be restricted to rational outcomes for MAD to be possible as a deterrent. Although Kim himself is rational, his regime is not. What does Kim care if North Korea is reduced to ashes as long as his ego is satisfied? Thus, there is effectively no control mechanism to fall back on once the DPRK achieves this milestone. <br />
<br />
The DPRK is not unique in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Nearly every totalitarian state with either a sufficient technological base or cash flow has attempted to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them widely: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nazi Germany, Cuba as a proxy of the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, etc. The attainment of nuclear weapons is the magical brass ring that totalitarian states are drawn to by their very nature. It is the logical culmination of the unbridled pursuit of power and control. And then war. Inevitably the pursuit of power is turned outwards once internal domination is complete. <br />
<br />
Fortunately, these states are generally slow to develop the advanced technology that enables the nuclear and missile programs since the centralization of control makes for bad economics. Also the lack of freedom inhibits technological risk-taking. But over time, if left to their own devices, the technology will develop. So any long-term solution to the DPRK nuclear problem cannot be achieved without the destruction of the DPRK totalitarian state apparatus. <br />
<br />
As a matter of necessity, the DPRK must be catastrophically destabilized. This can be achieved by assassination, war, or sanctions that would make the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine">Arduous March</a>" look like a three year feast. In other words, sanctions by themselves are a delaying effort that will not work. That leaves assassination or war. Of these two, assassination of the dictator is by far the most humane and reasonable action. The regime is held together by a cult of personality based in Confucian traditions, not so much the failed ideology of socialism. Even North Koreans are aware that their economic conditions are not nearly as good as that of the South. Assassination is not only preferable, it is necessary.<br />
<br />
But don't expect that killing Kim Jong-un will achieve the best outcome by itself. Political influence applied towards the devolution of the totalitarian state is still necessary. The heir apparent to the hereditary regime might be instrumental towards this aim, but cold hard deterrence and subversion of the state itself is required to avoid a general war. In the event of the demise of the dictator, there should be a widespread belief that avoidance of war is in the best interest of the people.<br />
<br />
Ideally, the assassination would appear natural and without the fingerprints of any particular actor. Fortunately, these totalitarian regimes often point directly to what they fear the most. Kim fears "<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-us-cia-bio-chemical-assassination-plot-kim-jong-un/">nano poisonous</a>" delayed-action agents. <br />
<br />
Indeed he should. It is the rational thing to fear.<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-29448125850060538392017-01-28T15:20:00.002-05:002017-06-08T18:23:05.576-04:00Human Value<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
“<em>Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom</em>.” <br />
― Aristotle <br />
<br />
<br />
What is our value as individuals?<br />
<br />
Apart from our inherent will to survive, we continuously make a value assessment of ourselves and from that assessment we choose to be happy in degrees. We experience pleasure and pain objectively without lasting effect unless we choose to process that information into our self-image. Some choose to grow stronger by a particular pain and take pride in that experience while others determine that it is a form of semi-deserved oppression—the loathing of our peers for ourselves due to some fault not in our stars. This was Frankl's central point when he wrote <em>Man's Search for Meaning</em>—we choose the perspective in which we live and may find meaning in any circumstance. Learning is a choice, hence our value is what we choose it to be.<br />
<br />
This is all very well and good, but we also have a choice in how we direct our lives. We form governments and undertake monumental efforts based on a shared expectation of the value that we might derive from the undertaking. How should we direct our group efforts? Since individuals perceive the effect of human events differently, there will always be valid disagreement on this point. However, it is true that there is a will to "good" and also a will towards enhancing one's self-esteem that seems common to all. We want to think that we are good often by achieving good and we want to feel good. Furthermore, we tend to agree on what is good for ourselves and for others. The only disagreement here appears to come from lack of common perspective. Even a murderer does not want to destroy what he holds precious.<br />
<br />
So our efforts toward good are beset by arguments over perspective. Often that discord emanimates from confusion within ourselves in the dichotomy of feeling and thinking towards the good. We should be able to lay this argument to rest if we so choose. All external disagreements will likely be situationally dependent so let's leave those for others to consider. The reigning principle there is that those most closely affected by the choice should be the ones to have the greatest concern placed in their perspective. The question we can settle here is how we ourselves can form a perspective of our own value in the face of external realities. Since each mind is different, we do not expect a common answer, but we should expect that rational individuals will take up the question in essentially the same way.<br />
<br />
An observation is appropriate here. The capacity for human accomplishment is dependent on both external and internal factors. As such, all human accomplishment is ephemeral. However, since human accomplishment changes the circumstances for ourselves and others, it has an aggregative effect that can facilitate the good. And this also will be a matter of general disagreement due to the problem of individual perspective. However, in the whole there is an objective measure of goodness that can be used on all accomplishments since it is again possible for individuals to resolve their own internal confusions albeit with different answers. And the resolution of internal discord is nothing but good. Thus it is not the objective good of human accomplishment that is paramount, but the process of striving for the objective good.<br />
<br />
We all, in our own places and given our own talents share the imperative to strive for what is objectively good. And from this we obtain our value.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-48846269938758783342016-03-27T04:40:00.001-04:002019-03-23T15:05:41.760-04:00The Man Behind the Curtain<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The corruption of the US political system has been <a href="http://info-theory.blogspot.com/2016/01/fear-and-loathing-in-dc.html">previously described</a> as the evolution of a small worlds network in the gap of responsibility between the government and the electorate that evolved due to the natural aggregation of individuals by feeling-thinking personality types in a technologically developing country.<br />
<br />
The choice to adopt a small worlds network for system control rather than information flow is the primary causal reason for the corruption and ultimate self-reinforcing dysfunctions of the system. Quite simply, this choice is to either distribute responsibility to those with the knowledge to add value to the problem solution or to hold responsibility (and power) closer to select operatives. However, this responsibility is unknown outside the small worlds network—it is only known to adjacent connections which have an inherent interest in keeping the network alive. Thus, the small worlds network is not directly correctible in case of errors or inefficiencies by the system.<br />
<br />
Opacity is a necessary condition for the continued existence of a dysfunctional small worlds network. Also, as <a href="http://info-theory.blogspot.com/2016/03/there-is-something-wrong.html">previously noted</a>, small worlds networks are inefficient for command and control. They adapt to the problem rather than solve it. Why then do the networks tend to displace functional networks? Cowardice—the choice for tangible short term gain over the commitment to a greater good not entirely under our own control.<br />
<br />
There is nothing more complex than that. Small worlds networks allow "leaders" to shield themselves from the consequences of their decisions at the cost of huge reductions in the efficiency of the system. Where leaders cannot make mistakes, they cannot learn. Where they cannot learn, they adopt crony networks to shield themselves.<br />
<br />
As a whole, the overall leaders responsible for the total system choose cowardice by refusing to devolve authority and grant the subordinate networks the ability to make knowable mistakes. The result is an effective choice for greater unattributable mistakes. These supreme leaders chose to allow the development of ignorance. They chose to increase the "unknown knowns" due to a deficiency in their individual character and infidelity to the system that they lead.<br />
<br />
Learning is a moral choice. It always has been. It always will be.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-80078189647838792622016-03-13T05:46:00.000-04:002019-03-23T15:15:46.034-04:00There is Something Wrong<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There is something wrong in the United States. The political system is tearing itself apart and for no discernible purpose and to no appreciable benefit. The system is broken and we don't know why or how, but it is definitely broken. In times such as these, the villains and heroes become indistinguishable by vantage point, but we are sure that they must exist. How else can this situation be explained?<br />
<br />
The problem is the system that we have been using to seek its solution. The problem is crony capitalism, or more specifically, cronyism. Cronyism has become the means that we control large organizations; it is the means for control of the US Government as well as large corporations. We have allowed cronyism to supplant our traditional systems because of the overall complexity of the system and our desire to centralize control.<br />
<br />
When we know someone that knows someone that is in the business of doing something that ultimately might be turned back around to us for our advantage, we are using a network of cronies. In systems theory it is called a small worlds network and it is very efficient at transferring information over distances. Using a small worlds network, it is sufficient to know that a certain individual is the one to go to if you want something done. That individual knows others that know others and sure enough, ultimately they know someone that can do the job.<br />
<br />
The referencing in a small worlds network is done not by competence, but by connectivity.<br />
<br />
When crony networks displace functional networks, the problem itself as a problem, is never what is solved. Crony networks are information transmission networks, they are not direct command and control networks. They do not take responsibility for the problem such as it is and they avoid the exploration necessary to add definition to the original problem. Each stage in the routing is a loss of useful information. The network simply routes the information to another location that will deal with the increasingly abstracted problem in return for a price which is again multiplied as the "solution" is routed back to its source in a circuitous quid pro quo fashion. Crony networks respond to problems the way the brain responds to injuries—it routes around it.<br />
<br />
Thus, we don't fight wars any longer as a country. We adapt to them. The situation was made very clear to me when I had occasion to ask Senator Corker, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, if he was planning on rewriting the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan seeing that the military objectives all flowed down from this document and at the present time (several years ago), the US military was rudderless. His response was that he thought that President Obama had enough power through the current authorization. In other words, Senator Corker could not even comprehend the problem. Rather he saw the situation as one of negotiating relationships.<br />
<br />
We would be right to imagine that the problem of the Iraq war was conceived in similar terms by President Bush. Not until the time when he understood that if we were not winning the war, that we were losing and then making the speedy connection to his reelection prospects, Bush finally decided that a different strategy by different generals was appropriate.<br />
<br />
The deficiency of small worlds networks is that they do not simultaneously sense that which they control. Crony networks are ignorant of the larger problem surrounding them. They were never meant to solve problems, they were meant to transmit information across distances.<br />
<br />
So today, the crony networks that make up the US Government have been ignorant to the burdens that they have put on the American people over the past many years. Like the absurd Rules of Engagement impressed on our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US Government understands the actual problems of the American people as abstractions that are then routed around. Each layer of complexity justified by the problem is meant to insulate the government from its affects rather than to solve the actual problem.<br />
<br />
Thus, in a failing educational system, we are offered common core as a "solution". In response to an economic collapse, we are given more taxation and more government spending. In response to the destruction of the American family, we are given more restrictions on family life. Is it no wonder that labor is imported so readily and lawlessly from Central America when our government restricts the ability of the US worker to profit from his own labors? The system is simply routing around the problem as it sees it.<br />
<br />
In a normal functional relationship rewards are distributed to those that contribute productively to the solution of a problem. In situations where crony networks flourish, these rewards are chocked off. Furthermore, the information flows that sense problems are suppressed. Thus a gap has opened between the people and its dysfunctional government just as a gap has opened between the US Government and the reality of problems in the outside world. Our government has no idea of our problems and we are increasingly powerless to represent ourselves to this government in order to have these problems solved.<br />
<br />
The crony network has grown to the point that the cumulative costs that are siphoned off at each stage of the quid pro quo network are so much that they are consuming the host. It must be beaten back if we are to survive. Immediately, it requires that the individual voter become responsible and aware for his own vote. The solution to the problem is to regrow our civic structures and save what remains. This work is hard and with little psychic reward. But, it is the reality of the situation. The alternative is worse.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-72679386299053307922016-01-24T16:45:00.000-05:002019-03-23T13:09:32.835-04:00Fear and Loathing in D.C.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The U.S. political system can be thought of as a distributed system with relationships between voter and candidate stand-ins for government (and its prospective alternative forms). When distributed systems fail, they fail in a catastrophe. Relationships fail successively in a wave of destruction because the mechanism of failure in one relationship is very similar to that in another within its basin of influence. All that is necessary is to bring the system to saturation and then give it a tiny shove. After this destruction, there is a space minimizing contest to fill the void.<br />
<br />
Both political parties in the U.S. are in a state of collapse. After years of steadily increasing pressures, the average voter has reached a level of stress and frustration that is near some saturation point. The polarized system fails at the weakest point and the destruction spreads outward leaving the functional ideological extremes and the remaining locally functional rump of the corrupt structure as cores. In this region of destruction, nearly anything can evolve untethered from the ideologies of the core factions and the quid pro quo relationships of the establishment rumps. Thus we have the Trump phenomenon.<br />
<br />
The failure mechanism here is a vote of no confidence in the <a href="http://www.info-theory.blogspot.com/2004/12/human-transactions.html">fiduciary relationship</a> between voter and representative. The bipartisan corruption of crony capitalism, awash in trillions of dollars of taxpayer leveraged debt has simultaneously destroyed the faith and trust of both factions in their government. Primitive sources of failure produce inchoate symptoms. When individual trust is lost, the disruption is manifested in ways that are difficult to identify and impossible to control—until the system learns.<br />
<br />
Given that there is no readily known fix, the voter is drawn towards the visceral satisfactions of delusion—democracy without responsibility, ends without means, and rhyme without reason. What other possibility does he have in the near term?<br />
<br />
In other systems, we would have civil war. In the U.S., civil war is no longer a possibility. The political forces are too intertwined. So instead we will have turmoil. What comes out of it cannot be predicted in excruciating detail. There are some significant chaotic effects. However, it is true in general that the faction that makes the necessary corrections the fastest without destroying itself in the process will dominate the U.S. political landscape until its competitor does likewise. Until then, both will be thrashed by the groundswell that their failures have unleashed.<br />
<br />
Trump rose out of the gap between the two parties that allowed crony capitalism to flourish. After the ideological battles of the 60s were roughly settled (circa 1985 by my estimation), the system reached a stable bipolar arrangement such that thereafter the two poles became more divided to the point that personality rather than ideology was the defining characteristic of the separatrix.<br />
<br />
In the 2016 election, Bush and Clinton are the rumps of the old crony capitalistic parties. (Bush is presently losing the establishment rump to Rubio). Cruz and Sanders represent the ideological political extremes. Trump could not come from nowhere and he judged that the right was more fertile territory to launch a populist campaign. It could be said that he sprang from the GOP like Athena from Zeus's head ready to fight (Zeus's head was temporarily split apart in the process).<br />
<br />
What can be predicted by this? Assuming that the system learns ahead of its decisions:<br />
<br />
First, in the GOP primary race, Trump's popularity as a candidate is strictly bounded and he will not be able to attract many more to his nebulous cause than those already immediately enthused. Reason is persuasive. Stupidity, while exhilarating, has a finite shelf life.<br />
<br />
Secondly, of the two sentient cores of support in the GOP race, the conservative core led by Cruz will ultimately dominate the establishment rump led by Rubio. In a three way race where Trump is bounded to below 45%, the two other cores will ultimately coalesce. Between the ideological and pragmatic cores, where the two are not mutually exclusive, the ideological core wins what is seen as an insurgent battle.<br />
<br />
If Trump was to fail early, the establishment core could reassert itself since the factional threat would once again loom large. This was the traditional game of the establishment core that lead to the crony capitalistic situation originally. Alternatively, if the establishment core was to fail early, then the Trump core would lose part of its reason for existence and the ideological core should prevail. If the ideological core was to fail, it is anyone's guess since then the relative percentages could push the Trump core over 50%. None of these scenarios are likely.<br />
<br />
Third, when the race is contested and the weak muddled core is a minority, the fight ultimately goes to the principled core. In other words, the Trump phenomenon will fail unless there is a significant influx of liberal partisans into the mix to sustain his bandwagon. At this point, that possibility seems unlikely.<br />
<br />
To summarize: The Trump core exists by its own momentum due to the failure of government. The Cruz core wins by drawing off support of the Rubio core against Trump and simultaneously from Trump against Rubio. The Rubio core wins by some annihilation of the Trump core. In no case does the Trump core win in a three way race although it could potentially be the strongest of a collection of minor players in a fragmented field. But even then, this is a temporary situation.<br />
<br />
It's a race to learn now or fall to a demagogue.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-71392314530515960892015-10-11T14:02:00.000-04:002015-10-15T16:01:26.777-04:00Thoughts on the Riemann Hypothesis<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Riemann Hypothesis is a mathematical conjecture that the (nontrivial) zeros of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function">Riemann zeta function</a> all have real parts of 1/2 on the complex plane. Its proof (or disproof) is a millennial prize problem worth a fair amount of money and everlasting fame. Thus it has become over the 150+ years since its inception by Bernhard Riemann, a landmark for mathematic pursuit, but despite the efforts of the greatest minds in mathematics, the hypothesis remains a conjecture.<br />
<br />
So I offer a naïve suggestion.<br />
<br />
In the work, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica"><em>Principia Mathematica</em></a><em>, Whitehead and Russell </em>spend several pages developing the notion of cardinal and ordinal couples to the conclusion that 1 + 1 = 2. That is, there is a dimension of numbers with order arising out of the process of addition together with the concept of unity. Multiplication is another dimension related inextricably to that of addition as the replication of the now existent numbers by each other along the dimension of order. The primes are simply byproducts of this relation.<br />
<br />
The Riemann Hypothesis seems complex, but it is a result of the structure of multiplication over addition and nothing more. Two dimensions are required to solve polynomials--the expression of addition and multiplication together--and so the complex plane is two-dimensional (the imaginary number, <em>i</em>, is just a symbol that marks the relation). No more and no less. The fact that multiplication is an operation quasi-independent of addition necessitates two dimensions for the expression of the solution of a polynomial expression once we have allowed that numbers have a structure that is ordinal.<br />
<br />
My guess is that we will eventually find that the density of the primes is nothing more than a representation of the structure of addition and multiplication expressed in spatial dimensions similarly to how we view fractals--apparently complex, but exactly only the generating formula and nothing more in its essence. <br />
<br />
The Riemann Hypothesis could not exist without the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_the_Euler_product_formula_for_the_Riemann_zeta_function">Euler product formula</a> which is itself an expression of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes">Sieve of Eratosthenes</a> which is nothing more than an expression of the artifacts of multiplication over the generated dimension of addition. <br />
<br />
In short, the Riemann Hypothesis, is nothing more and nothing less than a statement that there is a midpoint created by the new ordinal relation of 1 + 1 and it occurs at 1/2 the distance between the unity of multiplication and the unity of addition. It cannot be anything different and it cannot be anything more or less.<br />
<br />
Of course, this is just a thought.<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-67868636285472075592015-06-10T01:53:00.000-04:002015-06-10T13:02:30.473-04:00Against the Export-Import Bank<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank is a taxpayer sourced fund with the ostensible purpose to give the federal executive power to improve the trading prospects of selected US companies in respect to their foreign competition. The benefit to the taxpayer is then supposed to be a return on investment through localizing the creation of the exported wealth (keeping that economic activity local) while focusing the receipt of the trade for that export into a discrete stream of foreign currency which can be attributed directly to that trade.<br />
<br />
The benefit of subsidizing free trade for local economic benefit is nonsense on its face. We can consider the fallacy of the benefit of the transaction using the ideas of conservation of mass (price) and the efficiency of the information streams.<br />
<br />
1. Subsidizing a trade is a reduction of price of the traded good below the actual market price. By itself, the subsidy transmits economic inefficiencies to the supposed beneficiaries of the trade and sets up structures within the local creation of the traded wealth which result in an apparent price below the market price. This difference in wealth is dissipated through inefficient consumption (e.g. an extra yacht for the CEO of Boeing that he lets rot in the bay through lack of use together with the idea that the extra unused yacht is a good thing). In short, it makes the US in actuality less competitive. This is the free trade principle in conservation of mass (price) terms.<br />
<br />
2. However, there is an argument that if a central authority can direct a game against a foreign competitor, he may be able to direct the transactions so as to win market share and increase the leverage of the local (although necessarily inefficient) company by an effective monopoly. Therefore the immediate inefficiency would be worthwhile in order to create a subsequent greater net positive increase in wealth once the foreign competition is weakened through lack of capital investment. The best example of this is a technical efficiency in the production of a high tech asset such as an aircraft that the foreign competition cannot match through economies of scale, (e.g. the US can build planes with fiber composites at less per airframe in actuality than the foreign competitor because of the US investment in the process).<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, in this game there can be no long term winner. If either side gains a monetized technological advantage, then the monetary value of that edge will induce that player to maximize profits at the expense of technological advancement. Eventually, that player will become technologically stagnant as focus on the measurable good (money) attributed directly to the trade dominates the allocation of its resources. Meanwhile, because technology is interconnected and nonlinear in its advacement, other players may discover the means by which to nullify the measured technological edge of the leading player by happenstance if not by design. With this undisclosed technological revolution, a trailing player may take the lead.<br />
<br />
For the leading player to reliably maintain the position advantage, it must continue to innovate in necessarily unprofitable ways at a rate that entirely swamps the innovation rate of its competitors. Thus, technological gains are ephemeral since this cost is usually exorbitant and cannot me rationalized for the discrete benefits of the trade. The transitory cost of these gains together with the indirect benefits of the transaction that is subsidized minus the inefficiencies of the subsidy is the equilibrium price difference of the transaction which ultimately goes against the subsidy.<br />
<br />
In short, even in the best case, the subsidy reinforces measurable failure at the expense of immeasurable innovations and gains in other areas of the economy. The best strategy is one that is naive in the directed allocation of profits as it is that strategy that maximizes innovation across all areas of the economy. The paradox is that in the face of technological innovation, long term investment in the future should be divorced from the optimization of short term gains.<br />
<br />
Thus I am against the use of taxpayer funds in the Ex-Im bank except for the case of preserving a strategic defense capability.<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-18589610271163958692015-05-05T21:34:00.001-04:002019-08-12T05:54:54.288-04:00On "isms"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
An "ism", such as racism, sexism, ageism, nationalism, etc. is a shorthand term we use to describe the thinking of people as if that thinking put them in a group themselves. The people in these groups which we ourselves created by the use of the shorthand are then typically labeled as "ists" as if they functioned as automatons according to our categorization. When we do this, we are very often attempting to justify ourselves by describing what we reject. Unfortunately, when we extend concepts that we created for our own convenience to the categorization of other thinking people, we are enforcing a relation that is counterproductive to the elimination of the "ism" that we criticize. <br />
<br />
In short, calling others racists or sexists or communists etc. tends to sharpen the boundaries against free thinking that we are against. Why?<br />
<br />
Useful information is like a virus. It spreads and affects us to the degree that we value it's utility. If the information is contradicted by experience, it loses its veracity and hence some degree of its utility. Curiously, humans do seek out and value thoughts which are often in contradiction with empirical reality when those ideas are useful to our emotional well being. This last statement is simply saying that denial is a natural stage in learning just as it is in the stages of grief. <br />
<br />
However, unlike religious convictions that are neither provable or refutable, the utility of beliefs in contradiction to experience is transitory for any learning being that evolves towards it's own tangible benefit. Denial yields to anger to bargaining and ultimately to acceptance of the new experienced truth. That is, of course, while we allow ourselves to evolve. The ideology of the "isms" act as a learning impairment. When we label others with a derogatory group membership as "racists" etc. we are actually defining in our mind a justification against learning. What we are not doing is teaching the object of our derision. Whatever the good that we might offer it is effectively nullified by the symmetrical onus that we confer since all people want to feel good about themselves while they think about the things around them.<br />
<br />
Learning is its own joy. To the degree that our information is useful, the new found utility of the information is a source of empowerment and so naturally appeals to all. The solution of all the pathologies of the isms is found through mutual learning--not by name calling. <br />
<br />
So when you next hear of someone being called an "ist" ask whether one is solving a problem or contributing to it.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-75979379026794053162014-01-05T16:04:00.000-05:002017-08-10T11:34:08.199-04:00Protection and Privacy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
As we discuss here, privacy is the property of the individual to exist in a state of personal knowledge without that knowledge being controlled or influenced by forces outside that individual. Privacy is not a state of knowledge that is necessarily unknown to others, it is simply that they have no means of utilizing that private knowledge in directing a force that affects the individual. This knowledge can be shared outside of the individual, but it cannot be acted upon. <br />
<br />
If it were not for privacy, the system of the whole would utilize the useful knowledge of the individuals to reach a more optimal overall state. This state would be cemented in equilibrium and impervious to adaptation except for the influences of knowledge and forces entirely external to that system. In other words, the system could not self-regulate, it could only respond.<br />
<br />
However, in systems that allow for individual privacy, adaptation can occur within the system as information is released by will of the individual at states and times of that individual's choosing. Thus a small dose of information at the proper moment might swing the system into an entirely different trajectory from which it might have ever evolved if all information was shared. The momentum of the initial change in state could see the evolution through.<br />
<br />
In order for this form of privacy to exist within the system, the individual must be protected from influences within the system that tend towards system-wide equilibrium. In the least, freedom of conscious must be allowed to exist. The individual must be in a way sovereign to himself, but not necessarily independent of others. He must be allowed to self-organize, i.e. to think, learn, feel, and forget autonomously. So that the system of the whole might be more sensitive to learning and evolving itself, the individual must have freedom of action in addition to freedom of conscious—all while remaining interdependent on others.<br />
<br />
It follows that such sovereignty cannot exist without a shared respect for original life, liberty, and the pursuit of "fill in the blank", whether it be happiness, industry, love, or whatever are the shared values of the system. But always, there must be respect for life. Without that, there is nothing. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8519949.post-34168630862343511332013-12-01T20:20:00.002-05:002014-01-05T15:40:13.468-05:00Privacy and Protection<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There are two models for scalable information-theoretic systems that are generally applicable to human systems: the small-worlds model and the hierarchal command and control model.<br />
<br />
In the case of the hierarchal model, there are no limits on an individual's ability to absorb and process information. However, in the small-worlds model, a connectionist node is saturated with specialized, local information and a small number of connections outside of that immediate proximity. The flattening of a small-worlds network scales negative exponentially with the removal of intermediate layers while the hierarchal model scales linearly. In short, the small-worlds model is realistic for human systems whereas the hierarchal model fails catastrophically with small changes in scaling of human systems. Hierarchal human systems only exist in the real world as abstractions.<br />
<br />
In our personal lives, we may want to have a degree of privacy that is disproportional to the good that we would like to gain from our interdependence with others. Thus there is a natural tension for the individual. For the system, there is no such tension. The system finds equilibrium at all points and does not hold itself against imbalances. A large positive imbalance in the individual is immediately offset by smaller negative imbalances in many others within the local neighborhood. The wants and needs of the individual are washed away by the wants and needs of the many. <br />
<br />
Fortunately, the information from the individual does not scale in the same ratio as the individual's ability to absorb and process information. The flow of information from the individual is asymmetric to the same scaling factor as the connections of the small-worlds model. The specialized local nodes of the small-worlds model report up the net discrepancies of relatively similar subordinate nodes amplified by their own processing filters. Thus the individual acting through the local connectionist node can transmit information throughout the system to the degree in which it is a useful innovation throughout several layers rather than to the degree to which it is "voted" by the aggregate of the nodes in the local and subordinate connected layers.<br />
<br />
In equilibrium, the usefulness of an individual's information dies out as quickly as under the hierarchal model. The virtue of the small-worlds model is in its ability to adapt to changing information on short time scales.<br />
<br />
The destruction of privacy of the individual is akin to the substitution of a hierarchal model rather than a small-worlds model. In short, it is an unnatural and statist substitution that leads to systems that are incapable of adaptation on the same time scale as natural exogenous inputs. Hierarchal systems fail to adapt readily and are most often made obsolescent by competitors and outside disturbances. Thus, to safeguard the system at large, the privacy of the individual must be safeguarded.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0