Yes, we know Big Data is really BIG. Crunching numbers is hot stuff. They say they must be doing something right if they are crunching more and more data. We beg to differ. We think crunching numbers is useful but not sufficient to deliver high value meaning to us. We think a deep belief in the power of mathematics to deliver us from evil is what we call SLANT, an inherited momentum of thought and belief that is not based upon comprehensive systemic understanding.

We know a brilliant entrepreneur who cannot find anyone to help her realize her life’s work.
We know two people, a couple, who hide their relationship because of the harm they expect from their employers.
We know three children who have just died as a result of heroin overdoses.
We know four women with auto-immune symptoms linked to preventable stress, toxins and pathogens in their life.
We know five recent combat survivors who will never again experience the world with comfort and joy.
We know six seniors who worry every day about how their meagre income will stretch across the cost of life.
We know seven elected federal representatives who mostly think and act in order to be re-elected, not in order to be of great service to humanity.
We know eight people with most of one arm missing because their mother took a pregnancy drug that was not diligently regulated and tested.
We know nine people who have lost faith in the political and economic systems they once believed in.
We know ten people who would drop everything and do anything to help you in a crisis — if they knew you, but they don’t.
We know a billion people who feel the bite of global warming, ingest the toxins from unregulated commerce, feel underemployed and insecure for their lives, hope for an organization to end human suffering, dream of being free from local and distant tyrannies.

The answer, our friends, is not big data. Big Data, like the Cloud, is designed to redirect you, just like a magician, from what is really happening so you believe in the magic of numbers and data servers.


The way we at Y Worlds see it, the answer starts with explicit objectives. If the massive companies and governments that access and control our data streams wished to tackle the top ten problems of the world,  they could, and they would, and they surely would succeed.  Distressingly, their objective is obviously not to serve us with high value meaningful products and services but to serve themselves by making us more and more dependent upon their dysfunction, while literally trashing our own freedom to access anything without going through them – they are our master gatekeepers and the cold crunchers of our own private data.  They are people like us who have become inadvertently empowered by us to sever the connection to integrity,  human needs and systemic reality in order to achieve their own goals – reinforced and aided by counting us – the sheep – out loud – until we go to sleep.


Numbers are not our future. Our future rests on our own conscious effortful determination to focus on the most meaningful objectives we can construct, Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems, and to build patterns of knowledge, literally living maps composed of ontological cellular knowledge, that show us the variables in play, and the steps toward fulfilling our potential before our misdirected momentums crunch the life out of us. Science and Math and Numbers are not the problem. The problem is that at the highest level of conscious and subconscious systemic understanding, despite all of the world’s number crunching, we still do not understand.

Y Worlds. Modelers and Builders of a Compassionate World that Understands.

3 thoughts on “Number Crunching

  1. Would be wise to deconstruct the objectives of each and determine the value criteria for what constitutes “meaningful products and services”. Rank the good from the bad. Do it with numbers, yes. It’s not the tool, but how it’s used.

    Further define how corporations render us “dependent upon their dysfunction”. Sure not ALL corporations are “literally trashing our own freedom to access anything without going through them”, no? There are alternative ways of looking at this problem which may include a little less blame. Is it blame?

    Certainly, many will be “cold crunchers of our own private data”, but “master gatekeepers”? No, we’re still free on the web to learn whatever we like and identify alternative options to what they offer. We are not sheep. That is a myth. Don’t buy into it.

    Did they truly become “inadvertently empowered” by us, or was it absolutely intentional, using every means possible to sway us into he furtherance of their objectives? There is nothing wrong with number crunching, but it may give evidence of the stark reality we are not yet willing to face, how vulnerable we are to the persuasion of those who lure us into the dream of their spells.

    The magic of the world is based on numbers. It would be silly to ignore and fail to incorporate into the potentially liberating models described here at YWorlds. What feels meaningful is often subconsciously unprocessed emotions that may lead us nowhere without the guidance of a fully conscious and rational plan. All of the world’s number crunching can bring us closer to systemic understanding, but not without new models.

  2. Thanks Dan. We are presenting an alternative model to the ones most people use to process the world. We do not believe in rankings, we believe in living pattern sets of ontological maps that portray the relative good and bad of many variables at once, across many criteria at once. Anyone using the internet or a bank or a media service must go through the gates of a few massive companies. Not one of these companies functions effectively as a NETS driven entity. We are not blaming, we are objectively identifying. We are not free to learn what we like – no one has put together accurate health knowledge in a systemic way designed to meet our needs – for example. We are sheep because we have already been herded into a pen, we have been tagged with a hot branding iron, and we are generally oblivious to the FACT that we have lost the capacity to sustain ourselves, educate ourselves, and conduct our lives without being dependent upon gatekeepers. The earth is ours, her resources ours, her food ours, yet others get to own it for their own benefit, not ours, and deprive us of beneficent systemic access. Numbers and words in our new paradigm are incapable of representing systemic understanding. We are not against numbers and words. We are telling you that our belief system requires the pursuit of truth through systems. People in government often understand what they do day to day is not in our best interests, but they have become programmed into a governmental mindset.The magic of the world, and the future of humankind, is not based on numbers. A concerted participative effort to understand Multiple Sclerosis, for example, will benefit from research number crunching. Of course. But the solution is more about the willfullness to comprehensively and systematically reframe what auto-immune really is, and to declare that we must severely curb the stressors and agents that our body mechanisms cannot process. The number crunching insight is extremely valuable, but the systemic model of auto-immune is a mass participation curated process that will protect millions of people from harm – the numbers won’t do that. One billion people still smoke knowing it will cut their lives short. No number crunching exercise will change this. Love your final sentence about new models. That is exactly what we are trying to say.

  3. You’re welcome, Alan.

    I find some truth in what you say. Especially the bit about the solution being “more about the willfulness to comprehensively and systematically reframe”, well we could say, ‘what anything complex “really is”‘. The willfulness is the hard part, because existing frames are easy to manage, even if such frames are pen and brand people like sheep. No, we are not sheep, but we do allow ourselves to be treated as less than we really are. We lack the will, or agency to do much of anything about it.

    I understand that “Numbers and words in our new paradigm are incapable of representing systemic understanding”, but that is what we have for now. Indeed both numbers and words are used in describing the human constructs that reign over our world’s systems. It is pertinent that we understand how the reframing is to happen.

    Maybe, over time, the visual interface and models might penetrate the mind without falling back on our ordinary means of communication and cognition. Systemic understanding should be so accessible, but until then, it makes sense to look to those who are directly impacted by the complexity of an auto-immune disease to massively participate in a curated process that would then reduce harm surrounding varying conditions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>