{"id":2406,"date":"2024-06-14T16:23:21","date_gmt":"2024-06-14T16:23:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www-users.tebibyte.io\/~yihanwu1024\/?p=2406"},"modified":"2024-10-27T22:53:49","modified_gmt":"2024-10-27T22:53:49","slug":"research-on-information","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tebibyte.io\/~yihanwu1024\/2024\/research-on-information\/","title":{"rendered":"Research on Information"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This is Project 262c86ec<\/abbr><\/strong>. There is no well-formed statement of the research. At one point in the past I called this kind of thing a \u201csymbolic engine\u201d. Others appear to search for the best knowledge base design or personal computing operating system design, out of a dissatisfaction with the app and program ecosystem. To me, they are different facets of the same problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please talk to me if you are interested; I need to connect to the discourse. Specifically, so I can answer your<\/em> questions in my writing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Snippets of Reasoning<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Challenge of Integration<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Written 2024-06-20<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The term \u201citemization\u201d is brought from Alexander Obenauer, since his first manifesto of itemization<\/a>. In my previous literature this had always been considered under the notion of \u201cintegration\u201d. This is extremely difficult. Simply put, integration-capable things need to consider a million possibilities, so they are tremendously difficult to design. In fact, anyone knowledgeable would realize that such integration expects huge problems about language. When one actually tries<\/em> to design it, they will surely confront the hardcore problems in philosophy of language, math, and formal systems<\/strong>\u2014the same problems programming languages have explored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What am I inventing then? A different line of thinking, where any formalization is post-hoc in light of a history; an information system to truly support cognition with a history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keep a History, A LOT OF HISTORY!<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Written 2024-06-18, 2024-06-20, 2024-06-22<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps it has been clear to many researchers by now: in creating this futuristic vision of information processing, we at the very least need to seize every chance in the system to record user interactions and their effects, or in other words, history. Everything input immediately becomes a part of history, and things from the history will eventually become useful as current data, because from our research we have learned to blur the line between the history and the current (or in my opinion, fundamentally, the reality and the cognized). Every uninspected step in automation is lost opportunity. Every abstraction will become an obstruction.<\/strong> Abstractions are not any more real than its raw data. This total openness to change is a unique characteristic of the information system of the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Presently, I hold the claim that if a system processes any information ever encountered, ever derived and could ever been cognized as they are preemptively \u201calready in the system\u201d, then such a system refers to precisely the notion of history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Putting Everything to Scrutiny<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Written 2024-06-13, 2024-06-16<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thesis 284a40ad<\/abbr>. The curse of natural language.<\/strong> Natural language is a curse because it is habitual. You almost cannot control your response to a certain piece of language you care about, although you can partially fix this by evaluating the sources and working 10 minutes on human psyche. And now thanks to generative \u201cAI\u201d, it is easier than ever for anyone to exploit your habit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proposal 51879e1b<\/abbr>.<\/strong> Assigning UIDs to everything<\/a> is an attempt to evade the curse of habitual language. It will work in both directions\u2014influx and efflux\u2014with respect to a person. It not only protects users from concepts flooding onto them, but also never presents anything they say to other people as universally qualifying. Obviously, this will have to work as a culture, although induced by an instrument.<\/p>\n\n\n

What right do I have to show you information in any typeface but Univers, in any form factor but a constrained one, bounded by a frame with meta-operations, linked to my references? I want my information to be helpful to you, not coercive, so I by default assume this completely powerless stance.<\/p>\n

In the same way as we shouldn\u2019t irreverently appropriate others\u2019 fine works for own, as we must carefully take over the values in those works. There are writings that do not deserve to be typeset in Garamond, designs that do not deserve an edge-to-edge layout. In fact, all presentations must be supplied with meta-operations, thus the reader always has the space to declare content as incomplete. Thus, these meta-operations enable the user to treat the content as history. Enabling any idea to enter history is a categorical feature of this system.<\/p>\n\n\n

Agency-attached Language<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Written 2024-06-13<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An article expressing basic views is here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because language is too public and erroneous (previous curse 284a40ad<\/abbr><\/strong>), one might be motivated to explicitly declare a language private, as in UID Everything!<\/a> (51879e1b<\/abbr><\/strong>) This feature produces what I call agency-attached language (fbfecb8d<\/abbr><\/strong>), where \u201cagency\u201d means the faculty of deliberation. However, this is only effective if unauthorized speakers are unable to use the language. Therefore such UIDs must be backed by an authentication feature such as asymmetric cryptography. I am not sure how this will work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does this sound like Web 3? The problem with the current status of Web 3 is that although data is stored decentralized, language is not maintained decentralized<\/em>. Language as practiced by any user should be subjective and time-dependent, and the knowledge system must be designed to conform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Knowledge System Architecture<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Written 2024-06-14<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Department of Defense Adopts a Philosopher\u2019s Applied Ontology<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am not defending the advance of war technology here, but can you analytic philosophers all be a bit more practical? I present you the challenge of creating an implementable knowledge base framework meeting the following requirements, but you are welcome to debate these requirements as well:<\/p>\n\n\n\n