A Practical Dialogue Concerning
Unified Granular Theory
By Roy D. Follendore III
Copyright (c) 1999 RDFollendoreIII
All Rights Reserved
is a simple concept that gets very complex, very quickly. If you were to
pick up a book on Object Oriented Analysis you would see a similar level of
complexity occurring. There is a reason for this. Content
granularity has it's roots there. This is a story and like all stories it
has a beginning, middle and end. I will not attempt to express every issue,
but rather the fundamental ideas. As you shall see as you reread
this discussion this in itself is a recursive ideal in that for the sake of
clarity there is content being withheld. So rather than responding
to all of your questions about the relationship of granularity and
technological implementation I suggest that we start out at the beginning.
invented the idea of Objects thousands of years ago.
essentially said that the Universe is made up of "things" we call
"objects" and that objects can contain objects. In talking about
the Universe in this way, we are generalizing it, in exactly the same manner
that we generalize the concept of things called content. Things can be
anything. Content can be anything. The difference is that if we were
to say that we were to take a thing called an elephant and put that thing
within an eye of a needle, we would know we would be talking metaphorically
about things because the physical universe prevents us from doing that. The
concept of content also has two ways of being considered. There exists
the concept of a statement of fact and there is the symbolic metaphor.
The physical universe dictates what can and can not occur as a fact of
reality. Our rationality dictates what can and can not occur symbolically.
I bring all of this up because if you want to understand the concept
of content granularity as I am speaking it and I need to be
certain you and I are talking about the right things. There is that thing
that enables content granularity and then there is the content granularity
words that we are using fail us when we get into the levels of abstractions
that are necessary and this is the reason why I have been doing my best to
define a new language. The word "granular" is of
such a concern because it actually implies something being courser or having
larger aggregations. In day to day life, some people use it in terms
of making things larger and others use it in terms of making things
smaller. "Fine Grain" appears to be a more consistent
and more accurate way of talking about the concept of granularity if we are
to be referring to smaller grain. Granularity is therefore about the
comparison of sizes, and does not refer to a class of sizes.
that you understand this because if you don't you will be confused.
take a symbolic concept and put it within another concept as we do in writing
for instance, some interesting things happen. They become an aggregation.
The two things become one larger concept than either would be alone.
There are too few letters and too few degrees of freedom for letters to be of
much use to us as metaphorical symbols. We use them to
"code" symbols in the same way that sounds in Morris code
can be used to code letters and in turn the same way that ASCII standards code
letters. Alphanumeric symbols and characters are two different things. Going
back to what I previously discussed, a symbol is a
metaphorical idea and a character is a physical idea. I am sitting here
looking at characters that will not be transferred around our planet to you.
Instead will be sent are symbols that hopefully will be converted back into
characters at your end. The letters within this message are symbols
that are in and of themselves useless, and for the most part meaningless,
however they are aggregated to make words which are more useful.
Words stand for things and because of that they are the first level at
which metaphorical ideas can truly be expressed..
second thing that must be kept straight is that an idea remains alive in the
mind, not within symbols or characters. There are therefore these objects which
we manipulate and there is the process which is ultimately the actual object
which we are attempting to manipulate. Here in Northern Virginia, by
typing this communication, I am therefore not attempting to manipulate
these characters, I am attempting to manipulate your brain. If we lose
track of this concept then we lose completion.
first person principle in which your mind is operating at the moment you will
read this involves sensing that which is within your range of senses and
connecting what is perceived with the state of what you feel and know at the
next moment so that at a second order you anticipate and have
empathy. When we choose to write with sophistication we do so with the
understanding that what we say will be translated through this first order
and to this second order of empathy. It is a transaction that we
anticipate as authors but have forgotten we have learned.
give you a simple symbolic visualization of the technical concept as to how
this concept of granularity with perspective in physical space works. Consider
the idea that a particular character, let us say the letter "p"
is a part of the content of the alphabet. It represents a fine grain,
what I have termed a, "particle", of the alphabet. If you were
to present this alphabet from one perspective it would look like
"abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". Yes, the letter "p"
is right there were we assume it would be between the letters "o" and "q"
in accordance with standards of alphabetic character cardinality.
If you were to turn this alphabetical symbolic character set on it's axis
you would see "a" or you would see "z". Therefore
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" or "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
are conceptual arrays of alphabets just as is "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz".
Consider that the computer screen you are probably looking at is drawing
and redrawing every character millions of times (but the symbol
only once) and any character on this screen has some potential of being replaced
by any other character if the symbol were to change.
point to this exercise is that we could either choose to present the symbol
"p" and ignore every letter to the left or right of our
horizontal alphabet, or choose to present the symbol
"p" by ignoring everything before it. In either case,
the symbol "p" is presented as the correct character, but
when you consider it, the result is not actually the same because the
perspective is altered. In the first case, all of the possible
combinations of character-symbols are available or inspection, and in the second
case they are not. We do not actually know if there is a cardinality of
symbolic alphabetical order beyond our chosen letter in the second case.
Moreover, if we did not inspect the cardinality of order prior to our
character, and simply asked for the 16th character because we expect
"p" to be there, we would not know if cardinality except for
"p" existed at all. In that case we might assume some higher
degree of probability that some degree of cardinal order exists within our
alphabet but we certainly could not know it to be true.
that at this point you understand that this is an original and fundamental
concept founded squarely upon the theoretical philosophies of
cryptography. Within the concept of cryptography every character
symbol is potentially interchangeable. There are many possible
arrangements of the alphabet. In fact because context is involved
there are n dimensions and therefore infinite possible arrangements. As a
cryptographer, when I think of an alphanumeric symbol represented as a character
I see an infinite array with infinite potentials of existence, not a single
the philosophy of a Cryptocommunicator I see the same opportunities but
with words, images and image fragments, data, information, knowledge and
ultimately wisdom. Taken to the ultimate conclusion, in a very real
physical sense, all of the possible knowledge of the Universe is therefore
locked between a single character and entropy. Man has chosen a
linear horizontal array of characters to convey and present knowledge as
our means of communicating, because of no technical means to do
otherwise. Because of advances in technology, this situation has changed. I invented
Virtual Private Networks by asking the question, "If I were to have
invented cryptography, knowing what I know today, what would I have done
differently?" My research over the years has taught me a few things,
so now I am asking the question, "If I were to have invented communicated
symbology differently knowing what I know now, what would I have done
granularity is ultimately about taking human communication past what exists as
characters or words and manipulating ideas, in the form of data,
information and knowledge in context with first person principles rather than
being satisfied with second order principles. It means assuming control
and responsibility of authorship within the total communication process.
It also means taking control and managing of the potential of the unknown rather
than representing the unknown as single absolute, which it is not.
Isolated absolute truth can not exist. If communication exists to present
truth then we must accept the physical fact that individual truth is
contextual and is based on the ultimate relative perspective of the human mind
and perception. Human beings are complex and do not share the same mind
and perception. This means that if we were to want to convey the same
truth to an individual person and then accurately convey truth to
another, there is a need change the context of content. We must be
able to communicate appropriately, introducing that which is necessary and leaving
out that which in other contexts would be unnecessary. The general
concept of content granularity implies content control and that in turn
implies the management of what is there and what is not there. It also
implies some means of controlling what is and is not to be presented.
one thing to think in terms of stuffing symbols and characters together and
another thing to intelligently manage and distribute those constructions.
In the 1980's the concept of AI was thought to revolutionize humanity and it has
but not in the ways that we have anticipated. HTML and languages are like
the AI languages of Prolog or Lisp. To make them useful you need to architect a
useful system from them and then you have to embed that system into a
concept that is larger. It is one thing to use language toys to
hand craft useful knowledge to an individual but another thing to craft
tailored consistent knowledge to a mass of individuals across cultures.
have noticed, not once in this rather lengthy dialogue have I mentioned the
word Premonition. Premonition is important in that for the
first time it combines cryptography and artificial intelligence at its core as the
means by which to achieve the level of control that is ultimately
necessary to manage large amounts of granularity and entropy in a rational way. This
is the only way known to assure that such complex content granularity is
engineering of intimately fusing AI and Cryptography into a single
general purpose system turns out to be an orchestral design activity that is not
is essentially an efficient and secure label filtered content control and search
process for communication and creation of knowledge and that has
applications far beyond the concept of granularity. Since communication is
what Computer and Information Science is ultimately about, Premonition
is not only important for the Internet but for our relationship with the nature
of computers as a whole. The processes that are inherent within
Premonition change the way that computers and the Internet can be operate and
that in turn will change what they can do and how we respond to them and they to
It is my profound hope that this essay has done more to clear up conceptual roadblocks to understanding than create new ones. I believe that there is much to communicate and to further explore. Problems are pebbles on bare feet that do not need clear definition unless you must make contact with them. I feel that one can choose to step on them or step over them along the path. I have learned that it is far easier to understand why a pebble was, once it is no longer an obstacle. The way that I choose to work is to redefine what is possible through discovery of coherent philosophy and invent the means through coherent engineering.
thank John Magnik in Australia again for his excellent questions as it gives me
the opportunity to reflect on the pebbles that were in my path, and in
doing so to make my work better understood. Roy D. Follendore III
Copyright (c) 2001-2007 RDFollendoreIII All Rights Reserved