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.

Book available at Midori Press (regular)
Book available at Midori Press (signed)
Book available at Amazon (regular)