i need to clarify a point that opens up the interpretation of entropy into a realm of information involving people and technology and nature, because in the modeling i am referencing all information must ground to truth in order to be verified or validated as true, and that nature and technology and people who exist 'in truth' are in this way grounded within it, whereas those who are short-circuiting are partly or partially grounded, as this relates to patterns, exchange, and exploits. the realm of concepts, communication, and ideas also are involved as if a mental-dimension for the physicality of information, and to not include this in a security model seems falsely limiting if not allowing or relying upon a state of distortion, to begin with. thus the overall goal here is to account for truth as a basis for entropy in a security context or empirical evaluation... [machine N] patterns <===> patterns [machine 2] previously the above relation was established between two machines that interact and 'exchange' information, in some dimension, knowingly or unknowingly (as if consciously and subconsciously even). (machine N) ===> (machine 2 (machine N)) and if one of these machines *investigates or interrogates* the other, and somehow gains access, it could be thought that in the successful matching of patterns that what it has achieved _validates its model of relation, by default, even if only in a partially grounded framework. thus to distinguish the _belief of how this structural relation is occurring, with its actuality, the actual condition of this relation in terms of its truth. in other words the relation between 'machine 2' and 'machine N' that is achieved as a relation, via the matching of patterns, could be believed to validate the truth of the worldview of machine N, though the pattern match could instead be pT=pT, due to inaccurate modeling or framework. and thus a false perspective could be the relation, yet validate a perception of things, as if accurate, while not grounded in the larger reality. likewise, what can occur is a two-way relation whereby this inaccuracy is accounted for by the entity interacted with, perceived 'known' via such faulty pattern matching, and thus provide or leak information from itself that is in a context of truth, though the tells as if subconscious or unconscious, resulting from a TSCM-like scanning of relational frameworks, that is if 'machine 2' is functioning within grounded truth. (machine N (machine 2)) <=== ((machine N) machine 2') in this way the real exploit is not occurring through granting or gaining access to validate further _inaccurate pattern matching by 'machine N', it is that this entity is leaking unknown information as part of this balancing process, about its hidden state that is insecure due to its not being based in truth, and thus distortion, bias, warping, and skew reveal frameworks and structuring, allowing perspectives to be traced back to originating beliefs and equations within the pseudo-, where a running cosmological constant occurs to make everything onesidedly correct. and in this way, the relation on the left side is in a context of truth, via the errors betraying 'machine N' via its reliance on pseudo-truth and falsity, and the condition on the right side is a false perspective of a relation that establishes and verifies inaccurate pattern matches, false positives, due to a protected limited onesided evaluation *confirming* true belief which is itself not grounded beyond its partialty. (machine N (machine 2)) <===> ((machine N) machine 2') [truth <-----> truth] [pT <-----> pT] in this way, the advantage is with 'machine 2' (that may actually have more patterns or n-dimensionality) yet this imbalance may not be revealed or accounted for, and thus the balancing could appear onesided, as if from oneside data is being extracted while the other remains protected and static behind a given boundary, versus betraying its secrets unintentionally, via this structural, informatic relation (matter/energy) in other words (more complexity..) there could be more going on than believed, in this basic relation, and /appearances/ may not accurately match the reality, and yet this can also be accounted for, in truth, or become a threshold condition enabling camouflage... in this way the roles may be reversed yet not accounted for by the naive, ungrounded, mistaken, or inaccurate 'true believer' observers... such that machine 2 could actually in its truth be 'N' and likewise, 'machine N' in its unchecked falsity could be binary... (machine 2 (machine N)) <===> ((machine 2) machine N') [truth <-----> truth] [pT <-----> pT] in this way, the 'real machine N' could be granted access to unrestricted pattern matching in a subconscious or unaccounted for realm of the ' 'real machine 2', though this condition could begin by the 'real machine 2' trying to continuously exploit 'the realm Machine N' and in this way, the false perspective of the latter (N->2'), allowing the *belief* that the binary view is actually N-potential in its accuracy and scope even while this is ungrounded beyond its own skewed, relativist accounting. thus patterns are verified in pseudo-truth, and in allowing this relation, also enables the inaccuracies to leak about its actual state to align with the greater patterning of the 'real machine N', via automatic grounding or snap-to-fit correlations that occur in their accuracy, vetted and error-corrected, though in parameters unshared by the differing worldviews keeping it abstract, this is the same scenario for 'smartness' versus intelligence... (smartness N (intel 2)) <===> ((smartness N) intel 2') [truth <-----> truth] [pT <-----> pT] when instead the situation in terms of equilibrium, entropy, and exploit tends toward... (smartness 2 (intel N)) <===> ((smartness 2) intel N') [truth <-----> truth] [pT <-----> pT] and as mentioned many times before, any given concept has its validity established within truth, whether the concept of [entropy] or [information] or smartness, intelligence, or whatever. and so just taking it at face (sign) value, does not make that interpretation true simply because it is *believed* to be true. and yet that rigor can be missing in the evaluation process, often a kind of self-corruption accompanying the ungrounded observation and especially true believers who operate within a protected boundary, 'managing' outside influences, and yet in this very interaction, per entropy, they reveal their own state beyond their own accounting for it and control over it, via energy and other relations. [pseudo-truth 2] patterns <===> patterns [truth N] getting to the essence of the structural situation, of relativism versus the empirical accounting for truth, shared and unshared, grounded and ungrounded, and involving both accurate and inaccurate pattern matching and if it is corrected or relied upon in its error, the above model in an context of entropic two-way exchange... (a balancing of the forces if you will...) though through a false perspective, this basic relation could be reversed via tromp-l'oiel effects, such that a masked condition exists and the structural relation is asymmetrical and of masquerade... [pseudo-truth N] patterns <===> patterns [truth 2'] whereby: (pseudo-truth N) ===> ((pseudo-truth N) truth 2') though in this structural imbalance, via the ungrounded condition, it is an unintentional two-way interaction that through this opening allows unintended access to the protected perimeter via this basic exchange... (pseudo-truth N (truth 2)) <=== ((pT N) truth 2') ...in other words, the *appearance* may exist one of a one-way hierarchical exchange where information is being extracted from oneside via an attack or interrogation or biased relation... where pseudo-truth "knows" the state of 'machine 2' from its island viewpoint of relativistic truth... (pseudo-truth N) ===> ((pT N) truth 2') [truth <-----> truth] ...and yet this viewpoint or belief can be _ungrounded, the perception of truth illusory, inaccurate, even while achieving a pattern match verifying and validating its inaccurate, corrupted model of truth. in addition, via transference, the reverse occurs, whereby the observer is theirself effected by the observation and thus 'observed' in the entropic exchange, via structural information that aligns with or is at odds with the given modeling and its parameters of existence, that leak data that compares or contrasts with unknowns and vetted truth and thus can establish and correlate with this truth even while restricted or protected externally, believed inaccessible (even invisible people in other dimensionality betray themselves this way, via allegiance with or hostility to higher truth) (pseudo-truth N) ===> ((pT N) truth 2') "true!" [pT <-----> pT] so what is proposed to occur is that in this biased situation, ungrounded belief can be confirmed and match a pattern (A=A -> B=B) whereby it can verify or validate limitless notions (pseudo-N equivalent) yet that is not accurate or actually true, yet uncorrected and due to protected boundary, allowed to be 'real' within given constraints- for lack of feedback that would challenge the belief system, else to censor or have deception going on that promotes this relation as a false perspective, the setup necessary for the subsequent takedown. (pseudo-truth N (truth 2)) <===> ((pT N) truth 2') [truth <-----> truth] the idea then was that this goes both ways, and the appearance of 'machine 2' within the domain of 'machine 1' may go unrecognized in its hidden and unaccounted for dimensionality that is active within a realm of entropy and information exchange as it ties into energy and matter in terms of patterning and perhaps provides a basis for imagining its intuitive or felt quality, as knowing is accurately grounded and becomes compass and navigational aid, versus ungrounded knowing that leads to being lost and having inaccurate maps and wrong directions and sensibility, at odds with actual nature... (pseudo-truth N (truth 2)) <===> ((pT N) truth 2') the point of seeking to account for this condition of masquerade in terms of its shared and unshared patterning and in terms of its groundedness in relation to empirical truth, is that the situation could *appear* from a given perspective, and within restricted parameters, to validate a given viewpoint while actually existing or operating beyond it, in other parameters and boundaries that remain a protected threshold, that cannot be observed or that goes unrecognized more finite observers, thereby the limit of sensibility, or computability, of patterning, as it relates to what is and what cannot be matched, via its identification, recognition in real terms versus terms of belief that can be in error, inaccurate, unreal, or self-serving to a given bias, predetermined viewpoint, or values that restrict, seek to control, and-or rationalize existence in a too-small framework (in this way, the belief in 'N-awareness' can actually be that of a restricted binary finiteness, where expansion of view and its limitlessness could result from warping, skew, distortion serving falsity than in truth that is expansive... in this way, the boundary folds upon itself, encompasses itself as ideology, creating a false dome and constellations, given enough time) (pseudo-truth N (truth 2)) <===> ((pT N) truth 2') [truth <---> truth] [pT <---> pT] the unintended consequence would be that 'machine 1' betrays and grants access to its inner state via this exchange and interaction, yet unknowingly. and thereby its unaccounted for truth is accessible to another who exists and observes truth, while it may be denied within operational beliefs, (left) thus the leaking of information that balances the interaction, the seeming benefit of onesidedness (right) actually has a hidden cost, a revealing involves via equilibrium and entropy, balancing the exchange. yet the evaluation of data, its parsing and verification, may also not be accurate across this span, and thus 'pseudo-intelligence' could glean factoids that validate ideological beliefs, via relations in masquerade between pT and T, as pT assumes the role of TRUTH and truth related to and perceived as if the 'known' mimic, when in actuality the situation is reversed. (pseudo-truth 2 (truth N)) <===> ((pT 2) truth N) [truth <---> truth] [pT <---> pT] this modeling remains abstract, a story about these dynamics, like a cave diagram seeking to convey the communicative or other aspects of information exchange as symmetry and asymmetry are involved, and how this relates to pattern matching, and resources based in comprehensive pattern evaluations and how this differs between grounded and ungrounded observations and relations by default. (pseudo-truth 2 (truth N)) <===> ((pT 2) truth N) [pT <---> T] [pT <---> T] ...these are the more accurate dynamics, though even moreso: (pseudo-truth 2 (truth N)) <===> ((pT 2) truth N) [pT.2 <---> t.N) [pT.2 <---> t.N) though the appearance may indicate otherwise, from a biased perspective.
truth would be moving throughout this system, and the emulation of it (its mask) would likewise be transferred, yet only one version is accurate at the level of verification as truth, while the other validates and relies upon its [signage] instead. this is the fundamental issue of patterns and their connection with truth, in a security context, as related to "information" and quasi-entropy, entropy-as-sign and entropy-as-truth.
E1335, 42, 812