precession, theory did not match experimental measurement; the
established causality did not hold. It was not until Albert Einstein developed
his theory of relativity that a new causal mechanism was established which did
match empirical observations. This new basis for explaining planetary motion
also brought with it a wealth of non-intuitive causality. Perhaps most profound
was the malleable nature of time and space itself; time was found to be related
to the motion of bodies and the form of space was found to be altered by their
mass. Were we not in an era now tempered with scientific acceptance of even
more seemingly mystical effects such as quantum mechanics giving rise to
quantum computing, we would certainly have fodder for new myths to explain the
mysteries. Indeed, in the consideration of the singularity that apparently gave
birth to the Big Bang, we still find the threads of supernatural causality.
Within the human mind, profound acceptance of seminal points of causality forms
the basis of trust on which the stimuli for subsequent interactions are based.
Ecstasy is that
place where the mind goes to establish trust. Where causality stops, ecstasy
begins. The ultimate form of trust, it imbues the brain with certainty, the
“All things here do work out very well on their own” of James Austin in Zen and the Brain. Unimpeded by the
constant reference to lower forms of trust that would otherwise block such
transformations, the brain can adjust its wiring to bring necessary changes to
neural circuitry. In a ritualistic environment, those changes can be consistent
across a social group. When we have a shared perception of the causality of
things or processes we can make collective predictions or extrapolations
regarding these things and the effect or results of these processes. Within the
context of establishing social ecosystems, religions can weave causality in
supernatural sources. We humans look through a lens of altered states of
consciousness that we have identified as ecstasy and we establish trust in
forms and mechanisms that are beyond our purely cognitive assessment of the
physical ecosystem. As our understanding of the physical ecosystem has grown
over the ages, the realms in which we seek causality from supernatural sources
have tended to become more focused. Some would say our need for such causality
is diminished, if not removed entirely. Others would say that our focus simply
falls on the higher order needs which are wound throughout the more coarsely
understood operations of the human mind. For computer systems, our concerns are
a bit more mundane, but nonetheless critical to the operation of social
ecosystems as they are extended to encompass computers and computer networks.
Historically, in
an effort to establish security within computer systems, we have also sought a
basis for trust through causality. However, in this case we have grounded our
trust in the causality that the physical creation of our tools, that is our
computer systems, provides us. Also, we seek trust in the causality that
derives from our understanding of the processes that our computer tools effect.
Once established, we then seek to maintain trust through an ability to
determine whether any subversive modifications have been made to the systems
since the time of their creation. We would like for such modifications to be
difficult, if not impossible. Moreover, we would like for any such
modifications, once made, to be obvious in their detection. The ultimate goal
of security within computer systems is for them to be tamper-proof; for
it to be impossible for an unwanted modification to be made to the system’s
operating characteristics. At the very least, we seek to avoid or prevent
changes without proper credentials. Moreover, for a system to be truly
tamper-proof, we would expect that even in the face of destructive disassembly,
confidential information contained within the system would not be compromised.
While these are goals worth seeking, to establish in a provable fashion that
any system meets these goals is a daunting if not impossible task.
Consequently, what we typically accept, following from an understanding of the
causality of a system, is tamper-resistant and tamper-evident
behavior on the part of the system.
|