Cosmology and Complexity, edited by John Barrow, Paul Davies and Charles Harper Jr. A telling illustration is our discussion of cosmic rays and their influence on physical implements.

Trust in a given physical implement can be modulated without the physical implement changing. Trust can be reinforced by both multiplying its sources, and by solidifying its foundation via cross-references. For example, when elements of trust are built on mathematics, the same mathematics used for a physical implement can be reused for another, and convergent results consolidate the overall trust mechanism involved. Trust can also be diminished if the channel of trust conveyance is either damaged, or if the message it conveys is garbled. Time can lower trust as it gives more opportunities for elements of trust to erode. Sometimes that very mechanism can be reversed, with time bringing new elements of trust. As we see, in all these cases the original physical implement is constant and therefore not itself the source of change. Its illumination varies, and its trust level changes accordingly.

Conversely, the conveyance of trust might be impeccable, while the physical implement does not itself warrant trust. If the information is bad to start with, a good conduit won’t make it better or worse. Trust in the physical implement is typically limited to its boundary and possibly that of its extensions. It also extends to its fabrication, its distribution and its usage. Together with the physical implement itself, this forms a gestalt that diverges from the rest of the environment. However, the environment also affects trust in the implement, temperature being a case in point. While trust can be decomposed into pieces, in a very deep sense it always involves all parts of the universe at its limit, for the very reason that it is, as we mentioned, recursive.

We find the technical foundation of trust in processes, such as Common Criteria; in logic and mathematics, for information management; in craft, by guarding against certain intrusion; in principles, such as that of establishing that only communication between secure cores can create higher levels of trust; and in conservation: if a situation doesn’t change, its evaluation may be facilitated. Moreover, we have seen that layers of technical evaluation can create additional trust, as they essentially bring to bear higher concepts to the sensori-motor experience. To the extent that these higher concepts are themselves trusted, they can convey trust in otherwise suspect sensori-motor representations.

Trust can apply to physical goods and it can apply to processes. As far as human artifacts are concerned, processes take an additional weight because trust in the physical goods derives from the trust in the process of their assembly. Because these processes have their origin in humans, it is all about humans, the origin of the implements. Trust in physical implements ends up being based largely on trust in humans. For natural goods, trust would seem to be based on human-independent foundations. However, this would be ignoring that our interface with natural goods is entirely constructed on our sensori-motor experience, itself subject to various levels of trust. So we still end up basing our trust on human considerations. Today, computers have very little of a trust mechanism built in, so it’s not possible to do an immediate comparison between their establishing trust and humans establishing trust. Certainly, the difference in the sensori-motor experiences is bound to make a difference, and we’ll investigate that more later.

Now that we have the means of a more structured approach to the understanding of the secure core place in the trust infrastructure, or at least in constitutive components of the trust infrastructure, we are ready to look at the trusted core from an evolutionary perspective.

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