Data Streams have interested the Author for decades. This interest grew from purely pragmatic reasons. In 1976, at the age of 26, he started recording daily hours of time spent on a variety of activities. The record of each of these activities began to generate their own data streams. The regular tabulations of these activities made him acutely aware of the ongoing and dynamic nature of the data. Data streams are inherently changeable: starting, varying, often stopping abruptly, and then sometimes restarting again. The Author’s sporadic experience with his art projects was a perfect example of a changeable data stream.

The Author is also mathematically minded, and is consequently an analyzer of data. He wanted to characterize these data streams in some mathematical form. He was unable (and unwilling) to employ the traditional mean average or standard deviation to analyze his data streams. In the pre-computer era, these measures would have been computational nightmares due to the ongoing accumulation of data, which would require complex ongoing computations.

His central purpose was to derive a measure that would reflect the immediacy of his numbers. He was searching for an average that would individually characterize each moment along the way, while weighting and relating the most recent events most heavily. The Author, as every other living creature, has a powerful interest in the present state of affairs. He is equally interested in relating the present moment to both the stream of previous events and, if possible, to the probable stream of upcoming events. In essence, he wanted up-to-date information that was pragmatically meaningful.

In 1978, the Universe revealed the Living Algorithm – the answer to his dreams. He happily employed this equation to analyze his data streams for decades - without any thought of implications. Then in 1994, the Muse seized the Author and inspired him to write *Data Stream Momentum*. In this landmark notebook, he clearly articulated the difference between dead data sets and living data streams (as he called them at the time). Further, he developed two new measures to characterize his data streams. The Deviation revealed the expected range of possible values of the upcoming data stream, while the Directional revealed the momentum, or lack thereof, of recent events.

Distracted by the discoveries surrounding these new measures and their beautiful manifestations, he forgot about the central role the data stream plays in his mathematics. It was only in the Collaboration of 2011 that the data stream's true significance was revealed. In the midst of editing a paper on *‘Precision vs. Meaning’* (December 2011), King, his fellow collaborator, had an insight – a new perspective. This inspired a spew, which the Author faithfully recorded.

In our attempt to articulate the special nature of the Living Algorithm, we came to realize that what was unique about this mathematical approach was not only the technique, but also the subject matter. The Living Algorithm represented a new kind of mathematics. Her uniqueness certainly has nothing to do with her operations, which are quite simply just basic math. Her real uniqueness lies in her ability to address a new kind of subject matter. What makes the Living Algorithm special is that she addresses a different kind of data. Her mathematics represents a different approach to understanding the unique nature of a data stream, not as a data set, not as an expanding set – but as a living data stream. Traditional mathematics tries to deal with data streams – but what it has to say, while filled with precision, has limited meaning. “*Precision up; meaning down.*” What the Living Algorithm says about the significance of a data stream is important. Her unique way of approaching data reveals the significance of the momentum of the moment. Because her subject matter (the immediacy of data streams) is different, her approach must also be different.

These insights shifted our focus from the Living Algorithm to the Data Streams she was digesting. We then asked ourselves what kind of requirements would a mathematics of data streams have to fulfill, if it was to simulate living systems. This article is the result of those insights. Because the article set the stage for a data stream mathematics of living systems, it also became the introduction to the second book in our series – *The Mathematics of the Moment: The Living Algorithm System*. And here we are. We hope you found our collective scribbling enlightening.

Part of our exploration had to do with identifying the requirements for a data stream mathematics that could* 'deal effectively with the analysis of biological systems’*. To see which candidate we propose for this prestigious position, check out the next article in the series –

Re the power of self-reflection: As the Author was creating paragraph headings for the preceding bio over the last few days (February 1, 2012) he experienced a moment of synchronicity. He reflected upon the requirements for the measures that he was searching for to characterize his beginning data streams way back in 1976. It became manifestly apparent that his requirements from 1976 were identical to the requirements for data stream mathematics that we identified in 2012. This insight led to the realization that the Author has been searching his entire life for a mathematics that characterizes the special features of the moment. However, he could never have articulated this on his own. It took the collective gaze of collaboration to reveal this personal truth. Bow down and express gratitude to the powers that be for this collective attention of collaboration that has been so inspirational.

In 1978 the Universe revealed the equation for the *Living Average* to the Author. He happily used this computational tool to crunch the mountains of ongoing data that he was continuously accumulating. He hoped to detect some personal behavioral patterns. This bizarre course of action (far from the halls of academia) was Muse and curiosity driven – sheer internal motivation. Yet he had no idea of the significance of this special tool.

In 1994, 16 years later, in his *Data Stream Momentum* phase, he derived the Living Averages' children, the Deviation and the Directional. However, he continued to employ these equations as computational tools to characterize his personal data streams. He did uncover some special significance to the Deviation, which he wrote up in his paper, the *Boredom Principle*. He also became especially aware of the Directional's unusual nature. He wrote up his results in a book *Directionals: Content, Context & Beauty – A Mathematical Study*. (As an example of how intense and isolated these bursts of creative energy are, he didn't even realize that he had written a book until just after his Breakdown in 2008.)
Despite these insights into the nature of the Living Algorithm's children, the Author still did not connect these revelations to the nature of the *Living Algorithm*. She was still just a method of computation.

Further although he now had a deep understanding of the Directional's mathematical significance, he still had no concept of her significance for behavior. This insight came in 2002 in his *Creative Pulse* phase. Again the Living Algorithm’s beauty (her form) overshadowed her personal significance. Her physical appearance distracted the Author from her overwhelming internal features. (Such a man.) He wasn't the only one who was distracted by her computational charms. In the literature of science Dr. Joe Serdakowski published an article in 1984 on the Living Algorithm, which he refers to as the Decaying ‘Memory’ Average. Like my Person he too characterizes the equation by the measure it computes. And like us, Dr. Serdakowski had no idea that the Living Algorithm is the real powerhouse, not her results.

This was to come in the Author's scientific obsession of 2010-2011 (still going strong 2-4-13). But the insights were not quick in coming. There were multiple indications of how detached he was from the Living Algorithm's true significance. For instance during the famous Zen experience his friends queried him about the equation he used in his scientific investigations. He thought for a moment and then replied that there was none - that his insights regarding math and behavior were based solely in his colorful graphs. Then when he wrote his Frequently Asked Questions articles he again downplayed the mathematics of his findings. Although this strategy was in part based upon making his findings more accessible, it was equally based upon the fact that he was clueless about the mathematical nature of his studies. The visuals were still such a distraction that he forgot that his studies are founded in mathematics.

Perhaps a brief digression to give an insight into why the Author so regularly and so easily loses touch with his mathematical insights. As noticed in this brief biography, the Scientific Obsessions are few and far between - regularly separated by gaps of 8 years. His research was never continuous and ongoing. Another feature is that these bursts of scientific insight were like flash floods that changed the landscape forever but are gone immediately - no ongoing stream. As soon as he finished his project - sometimes in the middle of a paragraph, his Muse lured him into another equally engaging rabbit hole that absorbed all his attention. While his insights were all set in the stone of the written word and equation derivations, they were not set in his mind. He wasn't giving lectures or going on speaking tours. He was painting a picture or writing some history – Southeast Asia Empires and such. The memory traces were formed and then relinquished with no repetition. No repetition, no retention – **brain rules** again. He could only refresh his understanding by reading what he had written.

It wasn't until the Collaboration of 2011, that the collective focus revealed that the true significance of the Living Algorithm was not merely as a tool for generating some exotic averages. Even this insight was slow in coming. Confused by the abstract nature of equations, Soul-mate Laurie made a life's course-changing suggestion. So as not to break the flow of the original conglomerate Triple Pulse article, she suggested that we break off a few cursory explanatory paragraphs on the underlying mathematics into a separate reference, perhaps a lengthy footnote.

(Note: this conglomerate article contained the seeds for all of the articles surrounding the Triple Pulse & the Living Algorithm. The original intent was to write a brief introduction into the Triple Pulse Method, Results, & Inferences to justify the speculations. The Collaborators watered this densely packed Seed with their attention - which allowed her fabulous treasures to unravel and unfurl.)

As the Author's attention watered this sprout off the main trunk, she was finally named the Living Algorithm. This naming was the first time that the Author realized that the equation and the results were separate entities. Then he and King, a childhood friend, watered this isolated 6 page article - didn't really know where to store it - with their collective attention. This combined brain-power, this collaborative energy revealed features about the Living Algorithm that would have remained ever hidden if the Author had chosen to pursue the solitary course.

Anyway one thing led to another and another and another. As he was writing a summary of the original Living Algorithm articles (Spring 2011), his Muse possessed him. She wouldn't let him go until he had downloaded the densely packed seeds that lay the foundation for this exploration into the underlying dynamics of the Living Algorithm System. Caught on some other creative obsession - painting his Self Portrait complete with his Muse – he had no idea what he had written. It was just recently (December 2011) his Muse led him back to the landscape, where his internal Flashflood had etched these revelations into the stone. And here we are.

To facilitate an understanding of how unique the Living Algorithm is, check out the next article in the series – *Probability & the Living Algorithm regarding the Batting Average*.

To prevent any confusion, we want to stress that the Author has merely responded to inner directives rather than exerting any personal agency. Ma Musa revealed a Wave, which the Author caught – so many years ago. He had no conception of the implications or meaning of this Wave. It was only in the last few weeks (Sept 2011) that he realized the Living Algorithm includes choice and that the Triple Pulse sequence maximizes power. In fact, there have been so many revelations that he is not at all confident that he has reached the bottom of this complex mess of interlocking ideas. (PS: he was correct in his assessment. Just had the Open/Closed System insight February 2012, the Energy Density breakthrough April 2012, & then the Quantized Info Energy realization of December 2012).

To see where this investigation is heading, check out the first article in the next volume *Living Algorithm Algebra*.