Information has become commoditized.  To create information is fine, but to control access to that information is key.  Google has staked its fortune to providing sifters for controlling access to the memory of the world.


The internet expands the world, but information is forever compressing:

Information gets smaller as it gets faster and it lasts longer — you wouldn’t think that would be physically possible but that’s the greatness of science and innovation at work.

There are only so many things that are knowable in the world and as we uncover the secrets of the limited universe, each fact becomes it own secret, and the truth folds in on itself once, twice and then three times.

To uncover the core of human truth surrounding all information, we must expand the understanding protecting the truth — and that can be dangerous — because there are some in the world that will never allow an unraveling truth telling. 

The duty of science is to take us willingly into the future as everything around us compresses into misunderstanding — and it is only through the individual wondering of an expanding mind that we are able to comprehend the past, our now, and the future pressure that will mangle all of us into unrecognizable nanobits and terabytes for commoditization.  

22 Comments

  1. More information means more hiding of the truth? That just might be so, David, and I wonder how the truth can be preserved if we’re preoccupied with what sits on it.

  2. Nice article, David! I’m reminded of that line from the X-Files “The truth is out there”. It just needs a willing and open mind to find it. the access to information is controlled by our own mind.

  3. Yes, David! Even if it does originate from individual memories (often coloured by emotions), we wait till we find it validated by the experiences of others before we accept it. Just like the truths that we receive from others often find validity in our own minds.

  4. I’m not sure if they’re the same, Dananjay. Let’s say there is a person in the Deep South of the USA who believes, due to experience and, perhaps, lack of exposure, that no Black is ever smart enough to be head of a nation. To that person, that is a fact and is the truth — while the larger community of the state, nation, and world, have precisely the opposite truth bound by knowledge and the rigor of experience.
    So who is right in their truth? The denier or the knower? Even if the denier tests their private truth against the public fact it will not change the truth of the privately held belief.
    Sure, there are individual truths like “blue is the most pretty color” that can be externalized and quantified with outside references, popularity polls, and social awareness and even a generally shared love of the sky and oceans — but those truths are scientifically provable while other truths hide more in the multiple layering of culture and awareness.

  5. Right, David!
    I agree that very often things we believe to be true are products of our own culture and awareness. Which is probably why some cultures become insular and are against anything new.
    That is also why we as individuals need to test the things we believe to be true out in the open. Where they can be debated, negated or confirmed.

  6. Perfect, Dananjay! Living is testing everything we know and believe. To hide away in a certain belief or a niche of society is dangerous because you are cutting yourself off from new information that might reveal even more universal truths.

  7. Hi David,
    Information can have many directions, if we are open we are able to interpret and connect it in some constructive way and learn something from it – even if we don’t agree with it.

  8. I think that’s the trick of living, Katha: Creating new directions and dimensions based on pre-existing patterns. Many people are unwilling to vision what might be instead of what is known and that’s a terrible problem for the foreseers to fight.

  9. I understand David. I am not good at “foreseeing things”, in fact – “not good at” is an understatement – I am pathetic at it. But somehow my gut feeling works, though it doesn’t have the clarity it should – probably because I am slightly skeptical accepting it.

  10. I know it David, I read it in one of your INTJ related articles.
    Moreover, I experienced it as I saw few of your predictions coming true…
    I realize it is extremely uncomfortable carrying the future in your haed and then watching it being performed.

  11. I was about to ask you what you have already answered – do you share this information with others?
    I understand how it can become tricky. Trusting someone’s gut over logic is hard – I guess.

  12. That’s an excellent question, Katha. It depends on the situation and who has the power. If I’m in control of deciding the future, then there’s no trouble sharing what I know. If, however, I am in a lesser position and those above me are unable to see what I see, I usually ask them a question before I share anything:
    “What do you think will happen?”
    If they’re generally right, then we’re in good shape. If they’re wrong, then I usually say something like….
    “What if…”
    If they are responsive to me, then I can tell more. If they dismiss me, then I say no more.
    Usually after being proven right a time or two I get listened to more in the future — so that’s always a good thing.

  13. Katha —
    There are many people that believe life unfolds before them in real time and to suggest you know what is going to happen before it happens is an incomprehensible and dangerous thing to them.
    I’ve learned you can’t warn people with something they don’t want to hear or know.
    I am usually quiet in meetings and I only offer my opinion when directly asked — that way I’m protected a bit because I am fulfilling their want instead of expressing mine.

  14. I can see that David, it’s tough to handle someone predicting the unknown future unless one has an extremely open mind and ability to juggle all the intangibles…