In this approach, if we see something that might be data, we capture it, trusting our instincts in the hunt. Later, we look over the data with friends and colleagues from the full spectrum of fields. We discuss what the data might imply, how it might be used, new vectors of approach that it mysteriously suggests.

Such an approach favors suggestion and connection over proof and definition. It triggers ideas rather than solves problems.  An apple fell on Newton’s head, and we got gravity. This approach is like gathering all the varieties of apples (and any other thought-objects) into a massive room, setting them in motion, and sticking our heads in for a quick look around. The collisions that result will yield insight, if we free ourselves to this process, and create flexible structures for capturing the results.

The question, in other words, is not what does the data mean? but rather, what does the data make me think?

Below, we present some examples of such data. Remember that any individual sample is more powerful when added to a larger data set; therefore, in all of these instances one should imagine the potential in the data when gathered by every possible person on the planet (and perhaps processed by every possible person on the planet (via distributed qualitative computing)).

So, some examples:

• The keystrokes left on your computer by your wandering cat, cryptic messages from the worlds of feline psychology and the physics of independent bodies.
  • When writing a piece on Heisenberg’s dice, my cat walked on my laptop, leaving the intriguing equation:

Heisenberpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

\

]=[

• The angles at which we tilt our heads when reading various materials (the newspaper, a movie poster, a postcard from a loved one).
• The captcha codes we fill out on web forms.
• The mishearing of phrases.
• Occurrences of a given number in all academic journals ever published.

We would not disagree with those who would argue that such data are simply random.

But to say that they are random is to miss the larger point.

By gathering and looking at the “random,” we build connections and spark insight, actions which are decidedly non-random, which stem from the all-important action of the observer.

Or, if we take the importance of the observer to its logical conclusion: if, via the random, the observer imagines some connections, ideas, concepts, or new vectors of approach, then there is no randomness in the elements at all. They were simply floating, full of potential semantic energy, until the observer observed them and transformed that potential into actuality.

Here’s a statement against the notion of randomness:

IF in relation THEN not random.

Do you have any “potential data” sets?