New user + what is up with all the mentions of fractals?

[ExabyteMiner256]

Hello!
I'm a relatively new user of OA, and I have read quite a few EG articles. I was pointed here by a YouTube video by Isaac Arthur, host of Science and Futurism with Isaac Arthur. I was hooked from the start, though I didn't realize that there was an intro/illustrated primer for a while. I have some questions about multiple areas of the EG.

1. Why fractals? -- In certain places, most notably the article about "neurofractal patterning", my question is: Does it have to be a fractal? Please answer below.
   
2. What do wormholes look like on the inside? -- The EG article "Wormholes: A Layman's Guide" describes wormholes in a way that makes it seem like wormholes look like long tunnels from the perspective of spacecraft moving through them. Is this really how they look in the setting? Again, please answer below.
   
3. That's not how hacking works! -- A certain EG article on the risks of using DNIs seems to imply that it is possible to bodyjack someone by sending some combination of bits at their DNI. Of course, one should expect the particular data sequence to differ between DNIs, but it sure seems like the article is implying that someone (probably of at least SI: 1) could bodyjack a modosophont by simply sending (ridiculously complex) data at their DNI. As the title of this paragraph says, that's not how hacking works! It would be fine if the hacker had some hardware in the DNI working with them, but with only software and/or data (both just sequences of bits), there are ways to make bodyjacking impossible even to an SI: 6 or something as long as they can only work with data: the target can (to quote Isaac Arthur) "slap the big red disconnect button in their head" at any time. This goes for many other things too: for example, if someone doesn't want to experience the death of the person they're linked to via DNI technotelepathy as they're vented from a hab, they simply hang up. To quote Isaac Arthur again, "Hollywood makes it look like it's possible to hack anything."
   

[Drashner1]

Hi There - Welcome to OA!

Please feel free to join in on any discussions that grab your interest or to start new ones if there's something you'd like to talk about.

And of course, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

Speaking of questions...

Why fractals? -- In certain places, most notably the article about "neurofractal patterning", my question is: Does it have to be a fractal? Please answer below.

I'm not entirely sure how broadly you're asking the question, so going to try to answer pretty broadly on the theory I'll be more likely to touch on the specific question you're asking that way:

a) If you're asking about all the fractal artwork in the EG - that's because one or more members got into creating fractal art and contributing it to the project and we decided it made a nice addition to the EG, particularly since we didn't have the skills to create really representational artwork and many of the subjects the EG covers are more cultural or conceptual than strictly representational anyway.

b) Some fractal solids and similar look cool and rather like a fusion of the organic and the cybernetic - which is in line with how technology in the setting is often described.

c) For neurofractal patterns specifically - speaking editorially, why not fractals? They're fun. Speaking 'in setting' - Given the name, it presumably does require a fractal structure for that particular technology. Whether or not there are other - non-fractal - patterns/structures/shapes that can produce the same/similar effects isn't currently written up in the EG, but is something we could discuss and potentially add if the consensus is to do so.

Would you be interested in writing up such an article in that case? OA is built on volunteer labor after all and we're always looking for new volunteers.

What do wormholes look like on the inside? -- The EG article "Wormholes: A Layman's Guide" describes wormholes in a way that makes it seem like wormholes look like long tunnels from the perspective of spacecraft moving through them. Is this really how they look in the setting? Again, please answer below.

Wormholes are spherical objects (to our 3d senses anyway) and passing through one isn't really like passing through a tunnel per se. As you enter the wormhole (which begins some 327 AU out from the Throat), space-time around you seems to both close in from all directions and distort to an ever increasing degree. So the stars and whatever else you would see around you as you approached the wormhole would start to warp and smear and whatnot while appearing to get closer and closer from all directions at once.

This effect would continue until you reached the Throat of the wormhole, at which point everything would appear both maximally distorted and to be at a distance equal to the radius of the Throat (so somewhere between hundreds of meters and 50km away from your ship). If any part of the ship extends further than that minimum size in any direction, it will be subject to massive tidal forces and ripped apart (which tend to void the warranty). After the point of maximum warping/compression, the process reverses and space-time seems to expand away and un-distort - except that the space you're now in is at the other end of the wormhole, some number of light-years away from where you started.

That's not how hacking works! -- A certain EG article on the risks of using DNIs seems to imply that it is possible to bodyjack someone by sending some combination of bits at their DNI. Of course, one should expect the particular data sequence to differ between DNIs, but it sure seems like the article is implying that someone (probably of at least SI: 1) could bodyjack a modosophont by simply sending (ridiculously complex) data at their DNI. As the title of this paragraph says, that's not how hacking works! It would be fine if the hacker had some hardware in the DNI working with them, but with only software and/or data (both just sequences of bits), there are ways to make bodyjacking impossible even to an SI: 6 or something as long as they can only work with data: the target can (to quote Isaac Arthur) "slap the big red disconnect button in their head" at any time. This goes for many other things too: for example, if someone doesn't want to experience the death of the person they're linked to via DNI technotelepathy as they're vented from a hab, they simply hang up. To quote Isaac Arthur again, "Hollywood makes it look like it's possible to hack anything."

Hm. Please provide the page title and/or a link to the page in question. We'll want to take a look at it to determine if it needs updating or if you're perhaps misinterpreting what it's saying.

Hope this helps and once again - Welcome to OA!

Todd

[ExabyteMiner256]

From the EG Article DNIs: Basic Components, Features and Risks:

Risks of DNI use

Malware infection: The most common and frightening of all DNI risks across the galaxy. History is littered with tragedies great and small involving the malicious infection of DNIs with software and a-life. The least harmful examples may just result in data theft, software corruption or ad-monitors. The worst cases include insanity neuromods, bodyjacking, brain death with backup corruption, bindings, malicious persona scripts (commercial or ideological) and whole scale assimilation by a hive mind. Consequently cyberimmunity programs are some of the most invested in software throughout history. Uncounted trillions of vot-hours have gone into rational design and directed evolution of adaptive programs that can identify, block and delete malware. In much of the civilized galaxy cyberimmunity is backed by transapient-run angelnets and thus infection is a vanishingly small risk outside of ultratech attack. However both beyond the bounds of these civilizations, within "free" zones and states with questionable practices (such as mandatory personality mods for social compliance) many sophonts can find themselves at risk, even with the latest updates. Caution is advised when travelling to a known hazardous location.

---

P.S. What is the meaning of the stars under people's usernames?

[Drashner1]

On my way to bed (getting late in my part of the world).

Will take a look at this in the AM, if someone doesn't beat me to it.

I'll get back to you.

G'nite,

Todd

[Rynn]

Welcome to the group

So what is it about this passage you specifically have a problem with and what changes to the text are you proposing? I'm aware that hacking doesn't work like it does in the films, but this section was deliberately written to be non-specific about the methods involved. The examples given encompass social engineering, malicious software updates, forced installation, or even physical infection via spore hardware. Also as a quick note the "press-button disconnect" doesn't quite work when your perceptions or beliefs are being edited to not think you need to do that.

From the EG Article DNIs: Basic Components, Features and Risks:

Risks of DNI use
Malware infection: The most common and frightening of all DNI risks across the galaxy. History is littered with tragedies great and small involving the malicious infection of DNIs with software and a-life. The least harmful examples may just result in data theft, software corruption or ad-monitors. The worst cases include insanity neuromods, bodyjacking, brain death with backup corruption, bindings, malicious persona scripts (commercial or ideological) and whole scale assimilation by a hive mind. Consequently cyberimmunity programs are some of the most invested in software throughout history. Uncounted trillions of vot-hours have gone into rational design and directed evolution of adaptive programs that can identify, block and delete malware. In much of the civilized galaxy cyberimmunity is backed by transapient-run angelnets and thus infection is a vanishingly small risk outside of ultratech attack. However both beyond the bounds of these civilizations, within "free" zones and states with questionable practices (such as mandatory personality mods for social compliance) many sophonts can find themselves at risk, even with the latest updates. Caution is advised when travelling to a known hazardous location.

---

P.S. What is the meaning of the stars under people's usernames?

[Drashner1]

Based on the OP, I believe they're primarily referring to the linked article on bodyjacking. Looking at that article, it is older (which can be a warning flag that it might need updating) and just taken as a standalone it does seem to be saying that merely having a DNI connection could lead to ones body getting hacked/teleoperated against your will. Taken by itself (and if we were having this conversation before the DNIs: Basic Components, Features and Risks, I would likely recommend updating the article a bit to make it clearer that this sort of thing does require physical hardware in place to bypass the nervous system and take over remotely. More on that in a minute.

Getting back to the immediate issue - The current DNI article includes this section in the list of DNI functions:

Exokinesia: Alongside sensory information a DNI is capable of intercepting and stimulating motor signals in the body. This ability has two broad functions; the first is to allow the user to hand over partial or full control of their body to another sophont or program. This "autopilot" feature can be used to run skill modules, transport the body whilst lynking or ensure healthy resting positions are adopted whilst the user is accessing a virch. etc.

If a given DNI implementation has this feature in place (OA's focus on Diversity! Diversity!! Diversity!!! means it's a virtual certainty that not all instances of DNI tech include this capability, or design it the same way, whether due to local cultural custom/law or individual choice), then the issue of a lack of physical hardware to engage in bodyjacking control goes away because the hardware is actually there since it would have been grown in place when the user had their DNI installed (or when their DNI organs developed, assuming they come from a culture that has both engineered its citizens to grow such things naturally and to include Exokinesia in their particular implementation of it). So the 'hacking via software alone' part becomes possible because the software/hardware to do it already exists 'on site' and the act of hacking is one of accessing and subverting an existing system, not directly taking over the mind/body just by transmitting information alone in a vacuum (so to speak).

Looking toward the beginning of the DNI article, it currently talks in terms of DNI neural link hardware spreading throughout the Central Nervous System - which technically includes the parts needed to send control signals to the limbs, senses, etc. It does not explicitly state that motor control elements are included, but the 'implication factor' in the current wording is pretty strong.

If I had to make a judgement here, I'd say that maybe we could slightly modify/add to the article to explicitly include that neural linking includes motor control elements of the CNS. But really the current article already covers that if one takes 'central nervous system' literally and doesn't interpret it to just mean the sensory/informational aspects of DNI which most SF limits itself to. So it's a matter of whether or not we want to make something clearer, not of an actual lack or mis-statement in the current article. I'm not really leaning one way or the other on this.

Rynn, as the original author of the DNI article, what are your thoughts on this?

Ok - having said all that (and this is the 'more in a minute' stuff I mentioned earlier):

I do have somewhat stronger feelings about the current Bodyjacking article possibly needing some updates or even more. Specifically:

a) The article article contains two links to the same page on DNI, which is a different page from the one mentioned above. So it's currently out of our editorial standard and linking to a page that does not include the information on Exokinesia and more extensive explanation of CNS installation, etc. This definitely needs fixing - I can take care of that.

b) The DNI article it currently links to is on the shorter side and older, although has also been updated more recently. It deals almost entirely with details of DNI installation rather than functions. I would like to suggest that we merge these articles (and possibly other related if they exist) into a 'single source of truth' article in line with our ongoing activities in this area.

c) The article on Binding covers an area very close to or overlapping with the article on Bodyjacking. When I wrote the former, I apparently spaced that the latter existed. The article also mentions 'Mindhacking' which is a bit different but in the same ballpark. Speaking editorially, do we want to look at more clearly defining what each of these terms are and how they differ from each other and/or look at combining these all together into a 'single source of truth' article?

d) Somewhere in here there is also the role of memetics (as OA uses the term). The idea that a mind can't be 'hacked' rather depends IMO on how one is defining that concept. Because brainwashing, religious conversion, and use of propaganda and related methods are all a RL thing when it comes to 'hacking' someone's mind without an actual physical connection (and without them necessarily wanting it to stop) even if they are not as effective as most fiction portrays. Given that OA presumes that 'memetics' has refined and extended these techniques to such a high level (and developed new ones) that it's basically a whole new thing in itself, it might also deserve a mention in relation to mindhacking/bodyjacking, even if only to separate it from these.

Back to the Bodyjacking article - Even if we leave it as a standalone - given its more provocative nature and the way the links are positioned, I am more inclined to think this article needs some wording tweaks to make it clearer what it is in the context of the other articles and how (or if) both the physical and non-physical elements of it operate in the context of the other articles mentioned above so as to avoid the issues raised by the OP.

Ok, I think that covers my view on this at this point.

Thoughts?

Todd

[stevebowers]

Concerning a trip through a wormhole; the best visualisation I have found is here.
https://www.spacetimetravel.org/wurmlochflug

It doesn't exactly look like a tunnel; the closest I can come to visualising it is as a string of three connected spheres - each of which is inside the other when seen from outside. In this animation, the three spheres are delineated by different coloured cubes. As you pass through the middle sphere - the throat - it transforms briefly into an infinite plane, then turns inside-out. After this transformation, the outermost sphere becomes the innermost, and the innermost becomes the outermost.


Of course in an OA wormhole, there are no cubic frameworks visible; but there may be some sort of visible framework holding the exotic energy in place, and you may be able to spot those as you pass through.

[ExabyteMiner256]

I'm aware that hacking doesn't work like it does in the films, but this section was deliberately written to be non-specific about the methods involved. The examples given encompass social engineering, malicious software updates, forced installation, or even physical infection via spore hardware. Also as a quick note the "press-button disconnect" doesn't quite work when your perceptions or beliefs are being edited to not think you need to do that.

Okay, I get it now. I'm sorry about any confusion I may have caused.

So what is it about this passage you specifically have a problem with and what changes to the text are you proposing?

I think that the article should give examples: it could mention things like the "social engineering, malicious software updates, forced installation, or even physical infection via spore hardware" that you talked about in your post in the "malware infection" paragraph. Other than that, it seems fine to me.

[ExabyteMiner256]

Concerning a trip through a wormhole; the best visualisation I have found is here.
https://www.spacetimetravel.org/wurmlochflug

It doesn't exactly look like a tunnel; the closest I can come to visualising it is as a string of three connected spheres - each of which is inside the other when seen from outside. In this animation, the three spheres are delineated by different coloured cubes. As you pass through the middle sphere - the throat - it transforms briefly into an infinite plane, then turns inside-out.


Of course in an OA wormhole, there are no cubic frameworks visible; but there may be some sort of visible framework holding the exotic energy in place, and you may be able to spot those as you pass through.

That is actually what I was expecting it to be like. My question was meant to be about why the article also states that ships which are too large to pass through "come into contact with the walls of the Throat". Does that part of the article need to be edited out? The reason I was asking about wormholes being portrayed as tunnels is because I had thought it looked more like that image you sent, and I guess I was correct about that.  Thanks for clarifying!

[ExabyteMiner256]

As an afterthought, I hope that didn't sound smug or anything.