From Information to Substance

I am always curious of the relationship between information and substance. Generally in our belief the two things are very much different and are very likely disjointed to each other. From Hebrews chapter 11, however, I had few abnormal thoughts on this topic.

Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

In Chinese Translation (希伯来书 11)

1 信就是所望之事的实底，是未见之事的确据。

As we know, in any sense faith belongs to the category of information. It is impossible to materialize faith because once it becomes accessible physically, faith no longer is faith. It is then fact, and we do not need faith to accept fact.

Therefore, we may have an alternate, scientific, interpretation of Hebrews chapter 11 verse 1, such as the one I wrote in the following.

A piece of information is a substance while the two must not be coexisted in the same location on the dimension of time.

In the other words, we may calculate the equivalence between information and substance by moving the pointer in the dimension of time. If we may calculate the amount of information that leads to a substance with the known amount of mass, we may then conclude an equation that evaluates the value of the present amount of information with respect to the value of its equivalent substance.

There are several tough issues in the former hypothesis. First, what is "amount", especially when we speak the amount of information? Second, how shall we add the variable of time into the equation?

Anyway, it is quite interesting a thought, isn't it? Between information and substance, there must exist equivalence that allows them to be converted or at least to be evaluated with respect to each other. Once the equivalence might have been revealed, it would affect our life in all facets, from science to technology and from philosophy to economy. This study could be a foundational work for the next generation of our society.

The Art of Immersion, the magic of storytelling

Life is storytelling. Or let's say it alternatively---writing a story is constructing a life. On the Web we tell stories, our own stories. Some of them are professional, some of them are personal. What in the stories are the lives embodied. These stories altogether constitute the Web. By the constitution the Web becomes us and we are immersed into it since it is indeed our lives. The ways of utilizing the storytelling is therefore the art of immersion.

I just finished reading a new 20ll book authored by Frank Rose, a writer and contributing editor at Wired. The title of the book is The Art of Immersion. The book is well written with solid and rich content. I am afraid, however, that the content is so rich and the theme is so profound that the author has not fully disclosed the potential of the topic in spite of the over 300-page length of the book. Nevertheless, I highly recommend the book to whoever is interested in learning how the Web has fundamentally revised our society. In particular, how may we start thinking of the art side of the Web? Make ourselves be immersed and become part of the Web in contrast to being the gods of the Web.

Story

What is a story? In the Prologue Rose wrote, "Stories are recognizable patterns, and in those patterns we find meaning. We use stories to make sense of our world and to share that understanding with others. They are the signal within the noise."

This description of stories is insightful. To a Web researcher such as myself, the term "recognizable pattern" has a few unique interpretations. For example, a recognizable pattern often means a well-defined semantics that machines can identify. Following this interpretation, a story is a meaningful arrangement of data that machines may logically render. Therefore, may we say that the ultimate goal of the Semantic Web is indeed to have data presented in stories? Data without story is a string of digits; but data within a story becomes a reusable product. Isn't the Semantic Web to assign every piece of data a context of story so that we (and machines) can speak of it with emotion? By the way, have I mentioned emotion? What the hell is that?

Storytelling

Through the art of immersion, we can use WWW to drill down as deeply as we like about anything we care. Many Semantic Web people are enthusiastic about the creative consumption of the linked data. I am wondering, however, whether such a linked-data initiative is an art of storytelling indeed. Linked data by themselves are boring. But to speak of them into various stories is fascinating. To me, this is probably the ultimate meaning of the Semantic Web.

But there is another point. Through the storytelling what do we really look for? There is a difference between to explore the characters and to explore the stories. The characters are us, or more precisely the embodied ourselves. The stories are the embodied thoughts and behaviors of us. The difference is as the following. If the storytelling is about to explore the deeper inside of each of us, the data must be annotated in the sense of subjectiveness. On the contrary, the data shall be annotated in the sense of objectiveness when the storytelling is about to explore the objective extent of each of us. This delicate difference is an often neglected point in the exercises of the Semantic Web.

If life is true and art is construct, is a virtual world such as the Web a truth or an illusion? This is a tough question. To me, a virtual world such as the Web is about experience. In particular, it is about the embodied human experience. When we are immersed in the Web, we do not simply put ourselves into a fiction, but into an embodied fiction. A fiction is not real. But it is surreal to have embodied fictions, such as the Disneyland. The Web is a surreal existence that is the embodiment of the countless storytelling.

The wonder of being immersed (and embodied)

In the book Rose frequently referred to an example that is the success of the produce of Mad Men, an AMC's Emmy and Golden Globe-winning series. There is a question. Who shall control a story such as the story of Mad Men---the story writer or the fans?

Accompanied the rise of Web 2.0, there is the crisis of the authorship of the story writers. The prevalence of the social networks makes the communication between the authors and the audience become in dual ways. The storytelling is no longer a single direction activity from the author to the audience. By contrast, more and more audience have participated into the storytelling that is imitated by any author, especially the popular and well-known authors. (Am I doing an editing of the story told by Frank Rose right now?) Especially to the fictions, the audience are revising the characters the author created. The ownership of the characters is no longer solely belong to the author, but to the public collectively. The author creates the characters and the situation they find themselves in. The audience, however, complete the drawing of the characters within the scenario. This is one consequence Web 2.0 has brought to us. Its impact into our society is deeper than we ever have imagined.

But even just this effect has other deeper meaning. If we are embodied in the Web and the embodiment of ourselves is not totally controlled by each of the individuals, the Web actually reveals a deeper resemble of our society, which is beyond we could have thought of before.

How much value and how much reality to be a fictional character online after we are immersed? This is another grand question. The answer to this question could be the motivation to Web 3.0, the next generation of the Web.

Back to the real life

"Life is a constantly functioning information exchange." Rose wrote in the book.

The statement is profound. It tells that a virtual life must also be a constantly functioning information exchange. That is, the Web composed by the virtual lives shall primarily be the aggregation of services in contrast to the ontological layout of concepts. It matches what I foretold the Semantic Web must not be realized until it would be more than a web of data.

In the book, Rose described a four-piece composition of storytelling in the real life. A successful storytelling shall consist of the narrative (one who tells story), the conceptual (one who creates the theme), the stylist (one who decorates the story), and the systemic (one thinker who constructs and directs the distribution of the story). According to the author, the last component is brand new to us due to the emergence of Web 2.0. Moreover, the nature of online distribution is the "serendipitous discovery on a global scale". Unless we start to learn more about this new pattern of storytelling, it will be difficult to lead to the next true leap forward in the Web evolution.

What a deep-thought book it is!

How much will a domain name be worth in the next decade?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

From No Silver Bullet to Computational Thinking

A few literature has influenced the world. Two of them must be "No Silver Bullet — Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering" by Frederick P. Brooks, Jr. in 1986 and "Computational Thinking" by Jeannette M. Wing in 2006. The two-decade time frame in between is one of the most exciting periods in human history---the prevalence of computers. These two distinctive papers represent a remarkable transition of how humans think differently with the rise of the "intelligent" machines. By reviewing history we can know what we need to do in the next.

The year 1986 was remarkable. In the beginning of the year, the Space Shuttle Challenger was unfortunately exploded in 73 seconds after the launch. At the end of the same year, the Chinese government ceased the first student democratic appeal since the beginning of the economic reform. It represented the primary melody of the Chinese policy in the following two decades. Within such a background, Fred's No Sliver Bullet paper seems insignificant. But history does not lie to us. Fred's paper represented the beginning of a very important reform of human thinking in history. In 2006, Jeannette's summary claimed the mature of such a human-thinking reform process.

So what did Fred actually tell in 1986? Beneath the apparently technical debate between the so-named accidental complexity and essential complexity in software engineering, the core of Fred's message was that the origin of these troubles was due to the lack of the real experts who not only understood computer but also were able to think like computers. To be "great" (in contrast to "good") software designers, Fred argued, one must think like computers. We might eventually overcome the essential complexity in software development only if we would have been empowered by such a kind of thinking. In 2006, Jeannette concluded Fred's journey using the term Computational Thinking.

This reform of human thinking is one of the most important events in history. Its impact will last longer than the Chinese economic reform and it is more crucial than the advance of computer technology itself. This event changes how we think, fundamentally!

Before 1986, as Fred pessimistically observed, few people could think like computer. Even till 1998 when I first started writing a C algorithm, my wife (who was a professional computer programmer already at the meantime) laughed at me loudly because I did not have a single clue of what "computational thinking" must be. Today I can still remember her words. "You are writing a parallel algorithm, honey," she said, "but computers can only execute sequentially. Your algorithm will not work." Why was I so foolish? Because in tradition humans used to think in parallel. Now after so many years of writing computer codes, sadly I have to confess that I have nearly lost that original capability totally because I had been trained very hard to think like a computer. Today Fred must not be pessimistic any more and Jeannette is surely enthusiastic. But I feel that, gradually and silently, we human beings are losing something very precious and hard to be earned back. This reform of thinking must be a great evolution. But is it great for computers only or for our mankind as well?

I want to ask a question: is there somebody who remembers how he thought in the pre-computer age? Few, I guess. It is not because you do not remember it after so many years. It is because you are no longer ABLE to remember it. This is the saddest among all the sad.

We, human beings, especially our generation, have been customized by the new way of thinking---computational thinking. We are not only eager in learning it ourselves but also advocating to train our kids to think this way, the way that the machines we create think.

Humans begin to admire and even to worship what are made by man's hand. This is certainly not the first time in history. Computational thinking! What a marvelous term!

What should we do then? I would not suggest us boycotting the tide of computational thinking because it will be hopeless. From No Silver Bullet to Computational Thinking, the history is made.

Instead of fighting against the computational thinking, I advocate reinventing computers. We shall learn how to use computers more effectively. But more importantly, we must teach computers how we think in contrast to make us more and more think like them. Von Neumann started this journey. Let's not cease it. Let's not be the slaves or the pupils of computers. We should be their masters and tutors. Let our thinking be enriched and empowered by the computational thinking instead of being replaced by the computational thinking. This is a destination assigned for the current (human) generation.

Also, Consciousness vs. Memory

"Real time taps into consciousness, search taps into memory." Erick Schonfeld's recent TechCrunch post is illuminating. Beyond what Erick discussed of the real-time search, however, there is some more subtle distinction between the two that is worth of being thought. Hence here are my two cents.

Memory is the reserved and refined consciousness. Unlike consciousness that is often fuzzy and even pointless, memory generally has its definite theme and well-organized. We remember for a reason. The reason thus forms the backbone of memory. To search a particular piece of memory out of many, it is possible for us to figure out the algorithms disclosing the backbones. This is what the search engines have done and continue to improve.

Since real time message is indeed about the genuine consciousness in contrast to the refined consciousness (i.e., memory), the previous matrix of Web search no longer sustains. The genuine consciousness itself often lacks of reason. Most of the time it simply tells the undigested truth and the unconscious feeling. Therefore, it is impossible to "rank" the genuine consciousness the same way as if we have ranked (successfully?) the refined consciousness.

The thinking we have done points us to a new hint of effective real-time information search. In fact, we might not call it information search, but information refining. In contrast to search the real time messages, what the engine really needs to do is to refine the messages with respect to the pre-defined channels. By squeezing the water out, the refining process can eventually bring the high quality search results back to the information seekers.

The traditional/standard Web search delivers the direct access to the embodied, refined-already human consciousness. The real-time search then should direct the access to the procedures of refining the embodied, genuine human consciousness. This might be the intrinsic distinction between the two.

Innovation: discover the profoundness behind simplicity

From Google, Facebook, to Twitter, the innovative businesses start with simple idea, but are developed in profound way. A secret of innovation is thus to discover the profoundness behind simplicity.

Above all, every great Internet business begins with a simple idea. The idea must be so simple that it requires less than 30 seconds to explain and the listeners get it and agree to its reality of value.

A sophisticated, profound idea may be a great science but it is unlikely a great business, especially a great Internet business. A great Internet business must engage at least millions of the ordinary Web users, who are often thought to be dumb, lazy, and possibly stupid (indeed, however, they are not, but they do seemly be so when they are not interested in some "smart" thought). If an idea is too complicated to be explained in 30 seconds, it cannot engage the "stupid" majority. Hence the service built up the idea (thought itself could be as great as the theory of relativity) cannot sustain.

But simplicity is far less than enough to assure success. A simple idea is easy to be copied, especially in the cyberspace. Hence simplicity by itself does not bear great business. The real thoughts behind the great innovative Internet services are the ones that can not only be "understood" immediately in 30 seconds by the ordinary listeners, but also be expressed further in another 30 minutes and still not totally understood by the same listeners. This is the profoundness behind simplicity.

Google was created on a simple idea---search information in the Web. Everybody seems "understand" the idea and agree to its reality of value. Indeed, however, few truly understood it before Google. Google discovered that the Web search was not just about finding answers, but more about to enable the information producers to produce the answers to be asked. The best search business is not the one that does the best on finding answers, but the one that allows and helps the information producers to directly produce the answers to be asked. Therefore, it bore the AdSense and AdWords, which directly connect the information consumers and the information producers. This is the profoundness behind simplicity.

Facebook was also based on a simple idea---make friends online. Everybody seems "understand" it and agree to its reality of value. But again, few truly understood it before Facebook. Facebook discovered that friend making was not just about allowing friends writing each other messages, but more about to explore one's self-potential in all of his social extents. The best friend-making service is thus not the one that does the best on communicating friends, but the one that allows a user to display all of his social abilities. Therefore, it bore the open platform, which transformed a friend-making board to a self-extending space. This is again the profoundness behind simplicity.

Twitter is the newest member in this innovative club. The service is based on a simple idea too. Instant messaging! Everybody seems "understand" it and agree to its reality of value. Still, few truly understood it before Twitter. Twitter saw that instant messaging was not just about sending a message from one to another instantly, but more about producing a network of real time information. The best instant messaging is not the one that can deliver messages the quickest, but the one that can weave all the instant messages to leverage their collective power. This is still the profoundness behind simplicity.

Do all these visionary founders pre-know the profoundness from the beginning? Actually, very likely the answer is no. For example, the Twitter founders still have not thought out their business model yet. These founders are not prophets. But what distinguishes them from the others is that they can sense, even it is unconsciously, the crucial profoundness behind the seemly simplicities. And thus they succeed.

Tell an idea to somebody. In 30 seconds he gets it, but in 30 minutes he still does not really know. This is thus an innovative business.

It is the free choice that produces the value of mind

A computer can execute a program and output a result. What does the asset of mind generated by a computer different from the mind asset produced by a human being? The difference is the free choice. A human can make free choices upon a request that are beyond any sophisticated program can make. It is thus this freedom bringing the value. This distinction could be essential when we think of producing the mind asset for the coming next-generation World Wide Web.

Inherent Complexity

A breathtaking picture, compound intent, inexhaustible extension. Does it tell the beauty of the nature or the beauty of the mind? Or it actually reveals the both. If a tiny simple water drop may disclose facts in such a greater scale, how great may an already big complex being such as a person disclose? It is the compound me that matters.

The picture is from Flickr. At here it is the original link to the photo.

The newspaper crisis

Unquestionably, we are not just in a financial crisis, but in a bunch of crisis. Among them, the newspaper crisis is representative for its close relationship to the rise of the Web. In fact, the newspaper crisis is inevitable disregarding the present financial crisis. The financial crisis accelerates and amplifies the newspaper crisis. It is, however, not the reason of the newspaper crisis.

The rise of the Web media causes the newspaper crisis. The young generation news readers are more and more customized to reading news online than on paper-printed media. The online news is not only "free" but also faster in update and more comprehensive in analysis. The financial crisis became the last hay that crushed the old newspaper camel.

I am interested in the lessons we may have learned from this newspaper crisis. A successful business sector must have produced valuable asset for the society. The "valuable" means that the society members may and are willing to consume the produced asset. For many years, the newspaper business executes the goal very well.

In traditional, the newspapers produce three essential types of asset: breaking news, news analysis, and advertisement. In the pre-Web era, it was fairly costly to access the news sources. It was also fairly costly to write an insightful analysis of a news because few eligible news analysts might have enough supporting materials for them to produce the high-quality articles. And there were not many other ways besides newspapers for people to advertise their products or services. All of the facts added compelling values to the information asset produced by the newspapers.

The rise of the Web media, however, significantly decreases the value of the information asset we have just mentioned for the traditional newspapers. The cost to access the news sources becomes much cheaper; hence the newspapers can no longer charge their readers much by claiming unique news resources. All kinds of supporting materials for information analysis become freely accessible; hence the newspaper can no longer charge their readers much by claiming unique analysis. At last, the Web becomes a more popular and cheaper place for people to put advertisement; hence the newspapers can no longer charge their readers as well as the advertiser by claiming unique market. Therefore, the elapse of the glory becomes inevitable to the newspapers since the entire value of their produced asset has been decreases definitely. This newspaper crisis is not about the greediness of human nature, it is not about the poor execution of the business, and it is not about a normal economic cycle. The newspaper crisis is about the unchangeable fact of the value decrease of the asset that the newspapers can produce.

So here are the lessons learned. The cost of the raw information generation is minimized. The cost of static analysis over the raw information has been cheap. The cost of posting advertisement has been cheap. If the Web has decreased the value of nearly all the information asset in the traditional mean, what should we do to produce new type of information asset that can be charged decently in this new Web age? This is thus the real question the newspaper business should consider instead of believing the problem be solved by simply producing online newspapers.

Never self-excuse with "why"

Inevitably, one may encounter some problems that are too hard to solve in work. At the moment, the last thing the one should say to his colleagues is "why I fail to solve the issue." Such a "why" statement is neither helpful to the project nor constructive to the other project members.

The right attitude is to tell "what else I could do to solve it, even though I have failed to solve it till now". List more options of resolution and actively invite the colleagues into the discussion. Listen to their suggestions and then execute them.

If, in some case, the original proposal is truly beyond the present ability of resolution (which might happen from time to time and we all understand it), the positive attitude is to tell your colleagues the truth straightforwardly. "No, based on my experiments, I believe the solution of the issue is beyond the ability of our currently available resources." Never try to self-excuse more. If the colleagues do not accept this judgment, it is thus the time to quit and look for another position. But still, never self-excuse with "why".

We intelligent because we connected, and unless we connected

We have thought of developing artificial intelligence for long time. Many Sci-Fi novels and movies have predicted the intelligent robots that may bring us both convenience in life and trouble in society. Nearly all of them, however, are trapped by a tiny little misconception of intelligence. Nobody could be really intelligent until he is connected in intelligence. Therefore, the so-called intelligent robots are impossible to be made until we have already pre-constructed an intelligent society (such as an intelligent web) for them to communicate. Standalone will NEVER lead to true intelligence, even the artificial ones.

Truly this is a point that is easy to be overlooked. Many of us are not aware of the fact that we are intelligent because we are born in an interconnected web of intelligence. This situation is by default to nearly every one of us. If we take a look at the very few who are born outside the normal human society and are not able to connect to the pool of human intelligence (such as the kids adopted by animals), they are instead very well adapted to the respective animal intelligence. And for those who are forced to be isolated to any web of intelligence, they show no intelligence at all in any aspect. People may explain the reason to be the lack of "education". Such an explanation is not totally sound because there are many uneducated ones in our normal human society who are very intelligence. Hence the main point is indeed whether the one is able to connect to a pre-existing web of intelligence. Once connected, the true intelligence follows.

We may derive a few very interesting conclusions by applying the insight back to the study of artificial intelligence and Semantic Web. For example, the construction of the Semantic Web may be the prerequisite of developing the true intelligent robots (i.e., the real artificial intelligence). Deep Blue was smart. But any simpler robot (i.e. with simpler algorithms coded) built upon Semantic Web will be 100 times smarter than the Deep Blue. Moreover, this insight could be a momentum for linking the Semantic Web research to the real world practices because it opens a door of the wild wild west that is full of potential of commercial opportunities. The insight allows us to view the picture of Semantic Web in a fresh new way.

In progress, I will post more articles in this track of new intelligence. By the way, the point is also a derivation of the model of Web evolution I suggested.

It is the time to change

Many things have changed in 2008. The first time people in United States elected an African-American president. Through probably the most breathtaking Olympic game in history, China dramatically declared its rise once again being a leading nation of the world. And, we had the worst global recession (or a new great depression) since 1929. Any one of these events might have made a year be unusual, let it alone in 2008 we had all of them, and ... more.

In 2008, we experienced the heartbreaking earthquake that took the life of tens of thousands people. In 2008, we witnessed the astonishing swing of the oil price. In 2008, we watched the dramatic drop of the Web 2.0 hype. Also in 2008, the reality proved that the lasting financial risk computational model is indeed unsustainable.

What do all these events tell? Change is happening.

The American people look for change, and they have "changed" the skin color of their president.

The Chinese people look for change, and they have "changed" the image of China in the mind of people during the last two centuries.

The world itself, however, warns us what kind of "change" we should pursue for sustainable growth in our environment and our society through both of the natural disasters such as the SiChuan earthquake and the social crisis such as the largest economic recession since 1929.

In 2009, changes will continue. At Thinking Space I am going to launch a new series sharing my readings of what is changing. Look forward to your comments.

Happy New Year!