People in different companies across organisations are running according to some plan or set of instructions - how do we change behaviours across organisations and groups to achieve common goals
Imagine you have a manufacturer and a product that is sold and another company that spreads the product out (often called a distributor). You also have sales companies and shops That's 4 different companies and X number of employees that all need to communicate to marry up their thinking to get the product sold.
What if as an outside investor I want to change the behaviour of a group of people.
I imagine a multidimensional point cloud where each person is a point and each interaction between points is an event. I want to be capable of twisting people into new interactions to provide new services.
If we have the multidimensional data structure and an information case system we can twist people into new transactions by adding new dimensions where dimensions are people and events.
This way we can have an information system that can be adapted in the rules of operation while being used!
Imagine if o2oo problems, ideas and projects are simply different dimensions of a multidimensional and people and data are points. Can define mappings between dimensions for actions and desired behaviours and rules.
If I wanted a company to buy fair trade I could twist fair trade relationships into between relations between manufacturer and suppliers. Or if I need to handle COVID I can twist in some covid handling dimensions.
// each person is a point and each interaction between points is an event
Well, think of events as objects of timespace, and so, in a similar way to how physical objects have mass, which is an integral of stuff over distance (or volume), events may have something I call "tass", as stuff over time (or span): how heavy the events are -- I realized that computational time-complexity is what may be describing that "tass" of events, and elaborated on that more, but my comments on LinkedIn were deleted by an invisible force together with disappearance of conversation opponent Tai Hsu Ph.D.
Events attract and cluster (and, this is not just a casual observation, but mathematical model (namely, Hawkes process) that predicts earthquake aftershocks also works well to predict crime: it also clusters). So, it is possible to think of playing with events (and increasingly bigger ones) in the way that kids play with objects.
// What if as an outside investor I want to change the behaviour of a group of people.
That is a valid desire, but playing with society and groups of people is a bit like having a billiard board with balls of random elasticity (btw., an idea in its own right) - it gets chaotic and complicated fast. An easier way is to put the balls into the water, and, if those balls float, make appropriate waves to get them together.
If I wanted to offer repairs of products sold I could introduce a change and communicate with all the people involved of the service.
Or I could people twist in repair as a service that causes people's case inbox to change. I can twist people's behaviours to do what I want.
Everyone's processes each day wilt be different as different processes are twisted in.
Very much your thought of billiard balls with elasticity.
// I can twist people's behaviours to do what I want.
Obviously, there are multiple ways to achieve this:
However, among the best ways, is to make people begin to desire it by themselves. Actually, you may be interested in reading what I was thinking back in 2015, of the Infinity project, here:
Summary: Imagine that you want something... You define it. Society makes it happen... In a fair, self-motivated way. That's Infinity."
How do you get groups of people to all do things the using the same manner.
Without those people necessarily agreeing with the changes.
How do you offer supreme customer service when your systems only let you move a case in one direction?
You need people twist in addition to infinity.
One individual realises there is a lack of justice with something and people twists everyone else into being just.
Regarding your concept of "people twist", I think what you're describing, is the idea of projection hyperplanes, or vectors, in a similar way that I had talked about basic human questions as base vectors to map human semantic space. In that sense, yes, if you have a new question or problem, you kinda want to project available reality picture into the projection hyperplane defined by the problem or question.
Is it correct to imagine what you call "people twist" as coordinate transformation? (i.e., when we want to change the perspective at an object, we translational or rotational geometric transformations, e.g., using rotation matrices.
If this is what you mean by "twist", I think, you should explain it. Mapping the world into semantic coordinate system should definitely allow one to do such things (i.e., answer questions by solving equations about the transformations needed to apply to people or agents) in geometric sense.
However, technically such "twisting" of coordinate system to see different projections may not be that cheap. One could say that people working in ML field, that are extracting features of interest in various ways (from PCA to NNs), are already projecting phenomena into various projection hyperplanes.
I think the generic idea you are talking about is the idea that an answer to a question is a projection of phenomenon to a hyperplane defined by that question (or a question of actions needed to take to address the issue in question), and the idea of "People twist", is a special case of applying this reasoning to solving problems about reorganizing and re-constraining people social relationships between people and their organizations. Is that the case, or am I missing something?
I think this is a valid reasoning, but the exact implementation of that oracle that rotates the coordinate systems in high-dimensional spaces, to be able to see the problems from the perspective of solutions, is what would be most useful, if you one could make a machine that does those "twists". After all, every invention, and every course of action, was a kind of projection as twist of perspective in someone's head.
Yes there is a hyperplane which represents all a person's cases (I think state is less accurate than case. Otherwise it's a position in multidimensionular space) - where they are, what they're interacting with who they're communicating with, and states of various information systems.
I want to interface with that person directly so their experience or perspective changes so yes it's translational rotational intersections and movement of existing points and Introduction of new points in between existing points.
If you can project all a person's positions and interactions between others and systems you could also have a bidirectional mapping and change the existing mappings.
Using that manner I could silently introduce a change to all customer service agents to service customers differently, perhaps to update customers on a new status that their order is in. Or I can introduce a new check to people working in vans on the motorway at clients sites. I can introduce new behaviours to people by changing the projections and twisting new things into between other things.
Coordinate transformations will be used to relayout the hyperplanulars after a change.
A bit similar to how a layout engine reserved space for things on the screen inside the layout. The bidirectional people twisting system needs to recognise where points go after new points are twisted into position.
I suspect you would use special designer software to identify new points and their relationships or interfaces or interactions and reactions and then write a query that represents where the twisted points go.
So, a running query is a projecting to hyperplane for the corresponding question of concern?
Yes. A query is used to insert points and relationships in between existing points and links between points and positions.
Imagine being capable of creating a company that simply uses other products and services of other companies and people twists them into position so they are all married up together on the same page.
Business could get supremely complicated and advanced.
Well, thinking this way may open up a lot of social possibilities. However, to run such queries, a bunch of intermediary things would have to be developed (I guess: the intelligence community may already enjoy a finished product for this kind of tool.)
Did you ever get serviced by a company and the company's own representative didn't know of the company's own policy on the situation.
People twist should cause that to be impossible.
Or if you've ever dealt with the government and getting problems resolved. Refunds or tax sorted out it's a pain. Nobody is on the same page when you phone.
It's easy to say that all you need to satisfy any constraints, is to twist coordinate system. It's hard to use all ontologies and possible constructs (ontological geometric primitives and complexes) to link it all up to such system. It requires solving human and machine language representation and interpretation first.
What I feel you're getting at is the problem of representing meaning in a computer system.
People naturally use language grammars such as English or Lithuanian to express rules.
How should the van driver on the motorway be communicated with that he needs to do a check of something when he arrives at the customer location? Or that the government employee needs to check something on another subsystem before advancing the case.
Companies typically use memorandums, emails and operational manuals for this sort of thing. And use digital learning platforms for this. All expressed in your native language.
I think if business processes were completely digitised and replaced by information forms and super flexible workflow engines then the need for natural language would go away. But then you are left with a problem when the computer isn't as flexible as a person or customer or employee would want.
Your comment of tass or the wind of time revealing new information or data underneath or behind the present reminds me of the problem of the arrow of time. It moves in one direction.
Personally I think retrocausality is true. Effects cause their causes. This is how God could resolve many problems and cause his will.