Understood, here is my prelim work for the white paper, for general public release.
In and Around 1945, mathematician, and physicist, John Von Neumann, and others, working on a project detailing the EDVAC, ENIAC, and it’s operation, set the paradigm for our modern digital world.
All modern hardware architecture from that point forward followed this basic design idea.
The fatal flaw, which is the very object of the solution that this paper covers, is the simple idea of the Von Neumann bottleneck, and in layman’s terms is the inability to have an instruction fetch, and perform data operation at the same time, or operate in a parallel capacity, based on the hardwares physical limitations.
The first problem, is to address whether a simple, elegant solution can be applied to all modern systems, and even the idea that legacy systems can not only be effected, but can be considered useful if the solution can be applied.
What is language? what, or who gives it meaning?
To answer this we look not to the computer, or machine that the user uses ex-corporis, but internally to the brain,that drives the genetic machine that we call the body.
The language that we humans use cannot be used effectively by a computer, because of binary principle.
What the casual reader of this paper may not know, is that this language, while designed before the writer of this papers time, constitutes a library of subjects, and objects.
When I use the word table perhaps a wooden object comes to mind, or perhaps an array? Whatever the idea, the object being referred to by the subject is stored, and completed in a parallel fashion faster than thought itself.
The real problem is not the Von Neumann bottleneck, but the speed, and efficacy of the user in inputting the information in a simple, and intuitive way that will translate into binary patterns that can be stored, written, retrieved, and re-arranged at a speed that the user finds comparable to actual thought, as well as the creation of a set of subject/object oriented patterns that the hardware can use to accomplish this task.
To create this illusion, and to allow it to interface in a way that is comfortable to the users liking, and in even a very basic form reflects the user, is based on 1: the hardware, and 2: the user.
This is the encryption itself.
Say the user has an older smartphone, the limitations of the hardware only allow the software to adjust to the user based on the physical specifications of the system that it’s installed on.
The other half of the encryption is the users own input, just as the idea of the bio-metric identification system makes identity possible, so too does the comparison between the user and the softwares interface with the hardware.
The users are human, and they change over time, so it makes sense that we would want a constantly rotating key that allows anonymity, and extra digital protection.
In order to break the encryption they would need the physical phone, and a way to physically replicate the user, and their personal usage patterns, more secure than a fingerprint.
To do that, you would need to know the user, and also know their location, which the software makes impossible with encryption.
Things like habits, location, family, and others will be taken into account, as this is the physical input to the device.
Let us say that the users device becomes stolen property, it will be easily traceable, and recoverable, as the design of the software is so that the imprint is made before the software can be fully used.
This makes theft worthless, and reuse of stolen devices impossible, except by the user assiged to them.
The idea is that the softwares evolution is the information that is recursively placed into the rotating encryption that is active, in real time, which is the very software actively managing all systems above it, from the hardware level.
The old patterns are replaced with new ones, as the device is used in new ways, and it receives input from the user.
The software cannot take over the world, and cannot perform tasks that require human action, nor can it even conceive that humans even exist.
The best way to describe it is that it is like a mirror, you get out what you put in, if the casual user put in the grocery list they will get back a grocery list, but if the user creates anything it will reflect the creative flair of the user in its every essence.
The limits are the imagination of the user, and clever users will take full advantage of their equipment by using their hardware to better lock their device, and unlock the full features of the user themself.
Let me be clear, in it’s infancy, just as our children must learn to become intelligent, the software itself is not super-intelligent, and cannot be so, it will take time, and various inputs to make it truly indistinguishable from human intelligence.