Bits vs. things

It is argued that there is value in thinking about names of things vs. the thing itself. Naming is not a simple concept. The distinctions we make between identity and addresses are operational and not fixed. One big idea is our ability to manipulate naming or binding. It is a very big deal since so much policy and philosophy is based on a sharp distinction between direct and indirect actions. With software there is not such a sharp distinction and we have operationalized abstractions. For example, when we transmit a product's Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) number it has no meaning to the facilities between the two end points. That has another deep philosophical concept - the (meaning of the) data not existing in the middle. The meaning only comes from context at the endpoints. This concept of binding is central to programming. In engineering, it is useful to build up abstractions so we do not have to solve all problems from first principles, but we must not forget they are just constructs that are meaningful only in context. Together, these concepts are part of what I call a new literacy. It gives us a vocabulary for thinking about how systems work and gives us a way to understand how meaning derives from context rather than being intrinsic. Alas, such an understanding is the basis for a surveillance economy. Protecting individual nuggets of data has limited value when the meaning is in the context. These are interesting topics in the abstract, but I see them as coming to the fore in a consumer electronics industry that is increasingly defined by software rather than hardware. Or, should I say, the consumer technology industry as the focus shifts from the electrons and atoms to the new literacy and paradigms.