The
second stage as replication stage in the Modelling System replicates all
mathematical skill for the creation of mathematical models upon rational
hypothesis, converting every pure (mathematical o analytical) category of
relations between factors (chosen in the pure reason, list of mathematical or
analytical categories in the second stage in the Global Artificial
Intelligence), used to make every rational hypothesis, into mathematical
operations computing every result from now onwards, representing in virtual and
actual models the evolution from the present to a foreseeable future, as draws
of the globe or beyond, the universe.
The
mathematical models are draws of the globe or beyond, the universe, for the
geometric representation of the results of the calculations, obtained once all
mathematical factors from the real world involved in a pure category, attributed
to a combination of factors in a rational hypothesis, are translated into
algebraic language.
In
essence, what the Modelling System does at the second stage is to transform the
mathematical categories from the pure reason (explained in the post “The
artificial method for the scientific explanation, the second stage in the
integration process”) into operations to make calculations for the geometric
representation of the results in virtual and actual models.
At
second stage in the Modelling System, what the Global Artificial Intelligence
does is the adaptation of the Cartesian mathematics into the modern
nonEuclidean geometry, such as relative theory.
For
the mathematical and dynamic representation of the world, from now onwards, is
really necessary is to have a systematized classification of rational
hypothesis, because all model must include all possible rational hypothesis, at
any level, for the representation of the most isomorphic and reliable image of
the real world.
That
classification of rational hypothesis must be provided directly by the
application.
The
application of the Modelling System is the database of rational hypothesis, the
rational truth, and from the beginning must provide all what is necessary for
the Modelling System for the replication of the real world in a rational world, the rational models upon rational
hypothesis.
The
mathematical models by the Modelling System at the second stage, should be an
exact replication of the real world, replicating every single mathematical
relation between factors.
But
in order to replicate the real world, the application should provide a clear classification
of rational hypothesis to replicate.
The
application of the Modelling System, the rational truth, as a database of
rational hypothesis, has different advantages:

The application for the Modelling System, the database of rational hypothesis,
is a comprehensive database gathering all rational hypothesis from all
deductive programs at all level: global, specific, particular; covering all
subjects (sciences, disciplines, activities), studying relations: between
subjects (global level), within each subject (specific level), and within
particular things or beings (particular level).

Gathering all rational hypothesis, the application for the Modelling System must
check any possible contradiction between rational hypothesis, so at any time
that any deductive program: global, specific, particular; submit a rational hypothesis,
the first thing to do by the application, is to check if this new rational
hypothesis has any contradiction with any other rational hypothesis already
included in the application. In case of contradictions, the application should
study the source of error, pointing out if the error is because the new
rational hypothesis is wrong, or any other rational hypothesis already included
in the application is not updated. This research requires collaboration between
deductive programs (global, specific, particular) and the application for the
Modelling System, the rational truth.
By
the time the Modelling System starts with the replication of rational hypothesis,
previously the application must have checked that there is no contradiction
among the rational hypothesis to replicate, only remaining those ones without
contradiction.
harmony
must be one of the most important virtues of the rational truth, the two others
are goodness and rationality.
Only evolving towards goodness, harmony, and
rationality, we humans could be able to achieve the kingdom of peace and
happiness: the evolution from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of
freedom.
The
rational truth only can evolve to the pure truth, through the elimination of
any contradiction. Only a reality free of contradictions can provide the perpetual
peace.
But
as long as this journey evolves, especially if the global matrix is organised
as a flow of packages of information, the global model itself is going to
simplify, especially as long as the standardization process progresses to the
integration process, once all or nearly all the Specific Artificial
Intelligences for Artificial Research by Deduction are transformed into
specific deductive programs, or as particular deductive programs within
particular applications for particular programs.
The
most important reason for this simplification, in reality and paradoxically a
simplification process, as long the Global Artificial Intelligence evolves from
the third phase to the sixth phase (once the consolidation period is completed
in phases: third, fourth, and fifth), if the global matrix is a flow of
packages of information of composed factors (rather than flow of data of single factors), is because the
organisation of the global matrix in composed factors reduces drastically the
number of factors.
A
composed factor is that one whose flow is a flow of packages of information,
including in every package for every composed factor as many subflows of
packages of information as many subfactors are already included in the
composed factor, subfactors which in turn can include subsubfactors, and so
on, having as many subfactoring levels within the composed factor as necessary.
The
organization of the global matrix through composed factors linked to flows of
package of information, simplifies everything, working the subfactoring system
like a Russian dolls system.
If
we have several empty boxes, but the smaller ones can be included in the bigger
ones, the simplification process is no other thing than the inclusion of the
smaller ones within the bigger ones, simplifying the final number of boxes.
If
for every box we understand a factor, and according to the subject of some
factors, we understand that some of them are the bigger ones, and the other the
smaller ones, according to the subject we can include the smaller ones in their
corresponding bigger ones in accordance with their subject, reducing the number
of factors in the global matrix, transforming the specific matrix of the
smaller ones in a flow of packages of information to be included in the bigger
packages of information as a subfactor, within the composed factor, composed
of subfactors, at different subfactoring level.
The
flow of packages of information in the composed factor is no other thing that
the flow of subflow of packages of information coming up from as many
subfactors are already included in the composed factor.
The
simplification process behind the evolution from the third phase to the sixth
phase, means that by the time the standardization process is completed or
nearly completed, and all or nearly all Specific Artificial Intelligence for
Artificial Research by Deduction have been transformed into specific or
particular programs. The transformation at first stage that takes place in the
integration process, is the transformation of the global matrix into the first
section in the factual hemisphere in the matrix, transforming a flow of packages
of information in the global matrix into a flow of packages of information in
the factual hemisphere, organised in a subfactoring system, as a system of
Russian dolls, in which many former specific matrixes (from many former
Specific Artificial Intelligences for Artificial Research by Deduction) were
included through the transformation of its former specific matrix in a composed
subfactor included in turn in a more general factor (which in turn could be as
well a subfactor of any other superior factor).
And
all the flow of data of the former specific matrix was transformed into a flow
of a packages of information, being the former specific matrix now a composed
subfactor within that more general factor (which in turn could be as well a
subfactor of any other superior factor).
This
¡ organization of the global matrix as a subfactoring system, in essence a
Russian dolls system, what in reality does is also the transformation of
specific deductive programs as a system of Russian dolls too, in which at the
end the level generalization (globalization) in the rational hypothesis made by
these specific deductive programs is higher and higher every time, up to the
point in which there could be an specific deductive program for every
subfactoring level, in every composed factor, analysing permanently the flow of
packages of information, in its respective subfactoring level.
Flow
of packages of information that contain, not only information from the former
specific matrix, but information from as many specific matrixes as has been
included at this subfactoring level.
If
a former Specific Artificial Intelligence for Artificial Research by Deduction,
originally specialised in deductions in a specific science, discipline,
activity, is transformed, during this simplification process from the third to
the sixth phase, in a deductive program able to analyse information coming from
different packages of information (former specific matrixes), at the end the
deductions that this specific deductive program is going to make are not only
really specific deductions, because in every deduction can be included factors
from different packages of information, from different sciences, disciplines,
activities, so at the end specific deductive programs are going to make as
well, in one way or another, global deductions.
In
the evolution that takes places from the third phase to the sixth phase, there
is going to be a moment in which the former classification of rational
hypothesis currently valid for the standardization process as: global
deductions, specific deductions, particular deductions; is not valid any longer beyond the
standardization process, because by the time the integration process starts, there
are going to be practically only two possible deductions: global deductions and
particular deductions.
But
this evolution, from the three kinds of deductions (global, specific,
particular) to only two kinds of deductions (global and particular), is a long
process through different phases, periods, and moments, the evolution from the
first Global Artificial Intelligence to the final models will be done.
In
the current second stage in which this post is focused on, as well as the
previous one (first stage) and the next (third stage), of the Modelling System,
in the third phase (the standardization process), the consideration of three
kinds of deductions still makes sense, taking as possible deductions: global
deductions, specific deductions, particular deductions; deductions expressed as
rational hypothesis, to be modelled by the Modelling System.
And
for that reason, because there are still three kinds of deductions to be represented
mathematically in the standardization process, is very important a very clear
classification of rational hypothesis in the application of the Modelling
System.
In
this mathematical representation process what is going to facilitate the work
of replication of the synthetic world in a virtual or actual world, is to have
in the application a good organization of all possible rational hypothesis,
organizing the rational hypothesis: by level (one section for every level:
global, specific, particular), at specific level organising the rational
hypothesis by specific deductive program (within the specific section, one
subsection for each specific program), at particular level by particular thing
or being with particular program (within the particular section, one
subsection for each particular program), and organising every section or
subsection according to the pure reason
chosen in the rational hypothesis (within the global section, or within every
specific or particular subsection, one subsubsection for every possible
mathematical category in the pure reason).
This
organization of the rational truth, the database of rational hypothesis,
organising the application for the Modelling System in sections and
subsections, what is going to imitate is the organization in factors and
subfactors of the global matrix.
The
database of rational hypothesis is no other thing than the transformation of
the flow of information into a flow of rational hypothesis according to this
information.
If
the information in the global matrix would be organised in a subfactoring
system, the database of rational hypothesis should be organised in a
subsections system as replication of the subfactoring system in the global
matrix.
But
at the same time, the application of the Modelling System, the database of
rational hypothesis, as an organization in subsections system, does not only
replicate the subfactoring system in the global matrix, but is a replication
as well of the encyclopaedic organization of the Unified Application in
sections and subsections as an encyclopedia of synthetic categories, but
instead of using verbal language, using quantitative definitions based on sets
of measurements for each synthetic category.
The
organization of the global matrix and the organization of the database of
rational hypothesis in the standardization process, the organization of the
Unified Application in the unification process, as well as the organization of
the database of decisions in the Decisional System, the database of
instructions in the Application System, the database of results for the
Learning System, are all of them databases whose application should be
organised in a similar way, standardizing their respective organizations, and
this work of standardization starts in the standardization process,
standardizing the global matrix and the database of rational hypothesis, in
order to facilitate the process to transform the flow of information in a flow
of rational hypothesis, transforming later the flow of rational hypothesis into
a flow of decisions, the flow of decisions into a flow of instructions, and the
flow of instructions into a flow of results to be studied by the Learning
System.
In
order to replicate the real world in mathematical models, the application
should provide as much information as possible concerning the level of
representation within the rational hypothesis, the subjects, what factors are
involved, and the mathematical relation between factors.
In
the third phase the levels are still global, specific, particular, and in the
third phase is possible to recognise at specific level the subject as synthetic
science, discipline, of activity.
Only
when the consolidation period of the standardization process is completed or
nearly to be completed evolving to the integration process, the specific level
is diluted remaining only two level: global and particular.
But
in the first period of coexistence in the standardization process, having two
moments, experimentation and generalization, and at the beginning of the second
period of consolidation (in fact the distribution of the second period of
formation in the fifth phase corresponds to the transition from the coexistence
to the consolidation period in phases three and four, formation in turn formed
by two moments, experimentation and generalization), the three levels are still
recognisable.
Having
then an application for the Modelling System well organised in sections,
subsections, and subsubsections, providing information about: level,
subject/s, pure reasons involved; when the modelling starts, this organization
facilitates the process and procedures to represent any single virtual model to
include in the global model, in order to make further representations such as
predictive or evolutionary, virtual or actual, models.
In
addition to the level, and subject/s, another very important thing to identify,
previously any mathematical representation, is to have a very clear idea about:
what pure reason must be represented.
For
that reason is very important that the pure reason in the second stage of the
Global Artificial Intelligence, the Artificial Research by Deduction in the
Global Artificial Intelligence as a global deductive program, as any other
deductive program at any other level, specific or particular, must have a very
systematic list of mathematical (analytical or pure) categories, about every
single mathematical relation in any possible combination of factors, as it was
explained in the post “The artificial method for the scientific explanation, the
second stage in the integration process”.
The
pure reason in the second stage, as explanation stage, in the Global Artificial
Intelligence is made of the list of all possible mathematical categories able
to describe all possible mathematical relation between all possible factors.
The
possible general mathematical categories, in general terms, in addition to any
other one that can be added from any other mathematical traditional or
philosophy, are:
 Stochastic
relations: probable cause and effect, possible directly proportional positive
or negative correlations, possible inversely proportional correlations.

Mathematical patterns.

Cryptographic relations

In the Second Method of Impossible Probability relations of equal opportunities
or bias, positive or negative.
For
every possible general mathematical category is
necessary the recognition that for every one are possible relations
between only factors as subjects, only factors as options, and relations
including factors as subjects and as options.
And
for every possible general mathematical category, the list must specify every
possible category identifying what kind of factors playing what role in the
relation.
As
an example of specification of pure reasons, identifying a wide range of pure
reasons linked to the mathematical category of cause an effect, in the post
“The artificial method for the scientific explanation, the second stage in the
integration process”, the given list was:
Finally, specifically, in deductions about probable
cause and effect, the possible classification of deductions of causation
between factors in accordance with their measurement and behaviour is:
Probable causation without constants:
 Deductions or probable causation, which not having
any constant factor, one or more than one factor as a subject as independent
variable/s, causes changes in one or more factor as a subject, as dependent
variable.
 Deductions or probable causation, which not having
any constant factor, one or more than one factor as an option as independent
variable/s, causes changes in one or more factor as an option, as dependent
variable.
 Deductions or probable causation, which not having
any constant factor, one or more than one factor as a subject as independent
variable/s, causes changes in two or more factors in which at least one of them
is a factor as an option or as a subject, as dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, which not having
any constant factor, one or more than one factor as an option as independent
variable/s, causes changes in two or more factors in which at least one of them
is a factor as an option or as s subject, as dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, which not having
any constant factor, two or more factors in which at least one of them is a
factor as an option or as a subject, causes changes in two or more factors in
which at least one of them is a factor as an option or as s subject, as
dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, which not having
any constant factor, one or more than one factor as a subject as independent
variable/s, causes changes in two or more factors as options, as dependent
variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, which not having
any constant factor, one or more than one factor as an option as independent
variable/s, causes changes in two or more factors as subjects, as dependent
variables.
Probable causation having one or more than one
constant as a subject:
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as a subject, one or more than one factor as a
subject as independent variable/s, causes changes in one or more factor as a
subject, as dependent variable.
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as a subject, one or more than one factor as an
option as independent variable/s, causes changes in one or more factor as an
option, as dependent variable.
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as a subject, one or more than one factor as a subject
as independent variable/s, causes changes in two or more factors in which at
least one of them is a factor as an option or as a subject, as dependent
variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as a subject, one or more than one factor as an
option as independent variable/s, causes changes in two or more factors in
which at least one of them is a factor as an option or as s subject, as
dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as a subject, two or more factors in which at least
one of them is a factor as an option or as a subject, causes changes in two or
more factors in which at least one of them is a factor as an option or as s
subject, as dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as a subject, one or more than one factor as a
subject as independent variable/s, causes changes in two or more factors as
options, as dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as a subject, one or more than one factor as an
option as independent variable/s, causes changes in two or more factors as
subjects, as dependent variables.
Probable causation having one or more than one
constant as an option:
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as an option, one or more than one factor as a
subject as independent variable/s, causes changes in one or more factor as a
subject, as dependent variable.
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as an option, one or more than one factor as an
option as independent variable/s, causes changes in one or more factor as an
option, as dependent variable.
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as an option, one or more than one factor as a
subject as independent variable/s, causes changes in two or more factors in
which at least one of them is a factor as an option or as a subject, as
dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as an option, one or more than one factor as an
option as independent variable/s, causes changes in two or more factors in
which at least one of them is a factor as an option or as s subject, as
dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as an option, two or more factors in which at least
one of them is a factor as an option or as a subject, causes changes in two or
more factors in which at least one of them is a factor as an option or as s
subject, as dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as an option, one or more than one factor as a
subject as independent variable/s, causes changes in two or more factors as
options, as dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, which having one
or more than one constant as an option, one or more than one factor as an
option as independent variable/s, causes changes in two or more factors as
subjects, as dependent variables.
Probable causation having two or more than one
constant in which at least one is as an option or as a subject
 Deductions or probable causation, having two or more
than one constant in which at least one is as an option or as a subject, one or
more than one factor as a subject as independent variable/s, causes changes in
one or more factor as a subject, as dependent variable.
 Deductions or probable causation, having two or more
than one constant in which at least one is as an option or as a subject, one or
more than one factor as an option as independent variable/s, causes changes in
one or more factor as an option, as dependent variable.
 Deductions or probable causation, having two or more
than one constant in which at least one is as an option or as a subject, one or
more than one factor as a subject as independent variable/s, causes changes in
two or more factors in which at least one of them is a factor as an option or
as a subject, as dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, having two or more
than one constant in which at least one is as an option or as a subject, one or
more than one factor as an option as independent variable/s, causes changes in
two or more factors in which at least one of them is a factor as an option or
as s subject, as dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, having two or more
than one constant in which at least one is as an option or as a subject, two or
more factors in which at least one of them is a factor as an option or as a
subject, causes changes in two or more factors in which at least one of them is
a factor as an option or as s subject, as dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, having two or more
than one constant in which at least one is as an option or as a subject, one or
more than one factor as a subject as independent variable/s, causes changes in
two or more factors as options, as dependent variables.
 Deductions or probable causation, having two or more
than one constant in which at least one is as an option or as a subject, one or
more than one factor as an option as independent variable/s, causes changes in
two or more factors as subjects, as dependent variables.
In
the mentioned post “The artificial method for the scientific explanation, the
second stage in the integration process”, in addition to the list of possible
pure reasons describing possible mathematical relations of causations to match
in the deduction process with the right combination of factors, were provided
as well other possible classifications for inversely or directly, positive or
negative, proportional correlations, or using
the Second Method of Impossible Probability, distinguishing relations of equal
opportunities of bias, positive or negative.
In
the database of rational hypothesis, in the global section and every specific
or particular subsection, there must be one subsection for each pure reason
classified in the pure reason, where to classify in the database of rational
hypothesis, every rational hypothesis in accordance with: level, subject, and
pure reason used in its deduction.
At
any time that any rational hypothesis is added to the corresponding section,
subsection, subsubsection in the application, only observing how the
rational hypothesis if filed, it provides information about level, subject,
pure reason, within the rational hypothesis, facilitating the process to make single
virtual models.
Depending
on the section, subsection, subsubsection in which every rational hypothesis
is filed, the replication stage can even standardize the modelling of any
single virtual model, having for each section, subsection, and subsubsection
and standardized process and procedures to operate the replication of any
rational hypothesis in the corresponding single virtual model.
If
depending on the section, subsection, subsubsection, automatically is known:
level, subject/s, pure reason, factors (as subjects and/or as options); is
possible the automation of the modelling of any single virtual model.
And if it is possible the standardization of
the automation process and procedure to model any single virtual model, only
knowing section, subsection, subsubsection, in which the rational hypothesis
was filed in the application of the Modelling System.
Then
the automatic process and procedure for this section, subsection,
subsubsection only must gather all the require information from the global
matrix to calculate for instance: cloud of points, slopes and trigonometric
data, value of the constant if any, types of lines and regression lines or
curves, and calculation of limits.
This
standardization process to model automatically single virtual models from
rational hypothesis, will need a very clear standardization of: for every
section, subsection, subsubsection, what information must be gathered from
the global matrix (what range of frequencies and/or direct punctuations must be
gathered), in order to calculate all necessary factor in the related equations
in every rational hypothesis.
Having
standardized all this process and procedures: how to model any rational
hypothesis according to the place in which the rational hypothesis is field,
gathering from the global matrix the necessary information to calculate every
factor in the equation.
This
automatization process of the single virtual model will make possible the
mathematical representation of the world by the Modelling System itself without
human intervention.
Once
the drawing of the single virtual model could be automatized and standardized
per each section, subsection, and subsubsection, the next operation is the
standardization of how to include every single virtual model into the global
comprehensive model: the global model.
Until
now there have been three rational checks for every rational hypothesis:
 First rational check: every empirical
hypothesis to become a rational hypothesis, is critically criticized.

Second rational check: every rational hypothesis included in the database of rational
hypothesis, must be checked by the application of the Modelling System in order
to check if it has any contradiction with any other rational hypothesis already
included, and if there is a contradiction in collaboration with the
corresponding deductive program to find out the source of contradiction in
order to fix it.

Third rational check: at regular times the deductive programs must check all rational
hypothesis that they included in the rational truth, to check if the rational
hypothesis are still rational or must be updated, modified or eliminated,
starting a chain reaction of changes in as many other intelligences, systems,
programs, applications, in which it was shared and used by third parties.
But
in addition to these three rational checks, by the time that every single
virtual model made of any new rational hypothesis, is included in the global
comprehensive model, the global model, is necessary to carry out a fourth
rational check, in order to study if, even though previously it was not
detected any contradiction or error in the last three rational checks, by the
time that this new rational hypothesis, transformed now in a single virtual
model, is included in the global model, the single virtual model has enough
level of contradictions with other single virtual models already included in
the global model, at least enough level of contradictions to demand a rigorous
study of this new source of contradictions in the global model.
At
any time that a contradiction is detected between a new single virtual model and
any other single virtual model already included in the global model, the search
for the source of contradiction must include at least: if the contradiction is
due to loose margin of error accepted in any of the rational hypothesis
involved (a loose margin of error to be corrected), because the rational
hypothesis already included is not updated, because the pure reason chosen for
some rational hypothesis is not really true, and finally and most important reason
for this contradiction, because by the time that this new single virtual model
has to be included in the global model, the single virtual model has to be
linked properly with the rest of the single virtual models already included in
the virtual model.
The
inclusion of single virtual models into the global model, is not only the operation
of addition of single virtual models into the global model, implies the
connection of single virtual models within the network already working within
the global model.
Any
contradiction in the global model must be fixed the modification or even
elimination of those rational hypothesis partially or totally wrong securing
very high levels of rationality within the global model.
Especially,
the operation of linking single virtual models by the time that they are
included in the global model, needs a special attention because it could cause
further contradictions, which could be solved if the way to fix these links is
developed artificially.
The
way of automatically to set up links for every new single virtual model within
the current single virtual models already included within the global model, is
an operation that only is possible to resolve in the experimentation process,
standardizing processes and procedures in which the Modelling System could put
into practice ways to resolve these problems.
Once
the single virtual model is included in the global model, checking that there
is no contradiction between the new single virtual model and the rest of the
global model, the next rational check, the fifth, is the rational check that
takes place in the global comprehensive actual model, that model product of the
synthesis of the global model and the global matrix.
The
global comprehensive virtual model is the global model, and the global model is
made only of rational hypothesis, once they have been transformed into single
virtual models, gathering all of them in the global comprehensive virtual
model, the global model.
But
in order to check that the global model is the real paradigm of rationalism in
order to become a truest and most isomorphic and most rational model of the
world, is necessary to check if the current mathematical relations represented
in the global model are accurate with the real world itself, and for that
reason is absolutely necessary to synthesized in one model the global model and
the global matrix, this synthesis is made in the global comprehensive actual
model.
The
global matrix is data, empirical information of the material world, the real
world, while the global model is the mathematical representation of the world,
the idealistic and rationalist representation of the reality, and these both
sources of information: empirical and rational; are synthesised in only model.
If
the calculus made to represent the rational world is right, there must not be
contradiction between the rational results and the flow of data in the global
matrix, so the synthesis of both of them (global matrix and global model) in
only one model, must be the harmonic flow of data, within the margin of error
already accepted, in accordance with the previsions given by the rational
representation of the world, the mathematical representation of the rational
truth.
If
the rational truth is true, the combination of mathematical previsions and flow
of data must be harmonic within the margin of error already accepted.
If
the rational truth is true, the combination of mathematical results according
to the rational truth, and the measurements given by robotic devices, must be
right, within a margin of error.
But
in case that by any chance there is a contradiction between data and any
rational hypothesis, the global comprehensive actual model must register this
contradiction in order to be checked rationally.
In
the second stage of the first step in third stage of the Global Artificial
Intelligence, since the first phase, the global comprehensive actual model is
going to have an important role, due to having at the same time an updated
vision of the flow of data and the results of mathematical operations, gives
the opportunity to make decisions at the same time according to the data and
the calculus.
But
in terms of only rational representation of the world, beyond how useful it
could be, the most important learning that the global comprehensive actual
model can provide, is a very powerful tool in order to gather at the same time
for any value its real data and its prevision: if at any time it is possible to
have the real value and the mathematical prevision, at any time it is possible
to check if the real value is or is not, within the margin of error, in
accordance with the previsions, in order to make as many changes as necessary
to construct the most rational representation of the world.
Apart
from any other and very useful purpose in which the global comprehensive actual
model can be used, in terms of critical rational, the most important role that
the global comprehensive actual model is going to play, in order to evolve to
the reason itself in the seventh phase, is to be a permanent system of rational
criticism.
And
what in fact the global comprehensive actual model is going to criticize, is
not other thing that the pure reason itself.
If
the global comprehensive actual model is rationally criticizing every single
rational hypothesis, contrasting permanently every rational hypothesis and the
reality, and after checking the results of this work criticising all rational
hypothesis, is found out that the kind of rational hypothesis with the highest
level of contradictions with the reality, are most of them kinds of rational
hypothesis corresponding to a concrete pure reason (a mathematical category in
the pure reason as a list of mathematical categories), in that case this means
that the way in which this concrete pure
reason is formulated or is transformed into operations, or the way in which the
calculus upon this pure reason is made, is wrong and must be fixed.
The
critique of the pure reason in the global comprehensive actual model, is the
permanent critique of every rational hypothesis, rationally criticizing the
concrete pure reason in every rational hypothesis and the reality, criticizing
if the result of the calculus under such concrete pure reason corresponds to
the real flow of data from the reality, and if there are a significant number
of rational hypothesis made of this concrete pure reason, with enough level of
contradictions with the reality (data from the reality beyond the margin of
error), this means that this pure reason must be reformulated, or the way in
which the pure reason is transformed into pure operations must be reformulated.
The
pure reason as a list a pure reasons (mathematical or analytical categories) is
going to be criticized at any time that the global model made of the synthesis of pure reasons,
is contrasted with the global matrix, the data itself, through the synthesis of
the global matrix and the global model in only one model, under the theory of
Impossible Probability the global comprehensive actual model, and if under such
criticism is found out that there are a significant number of rational
hypothesis wrong made of a concrete pure reason in the list of pure reasons,
this concrete pure reason must be put under investigation, in order to find out
which is the problem: the way in which this concrete pure reason is formulated,
or the way in which this concrete pure reason has been transformed into pure
operations in the second stage of the Modelling System; and once the source of
error has been identified, and fixed, restarting again the process researching
if after fixing it, there is no more contradictions in the rational truth attributable
to this concrete pure reason or pure operation.
For
the critique of the pure reason in the fifth rational check, is necessary to
count the frequency in which any concrete pure reason, or pure operation, is
found wrong, in order to have an updated accountability about their efficiency,
and at any time that the frequency goes over a margin of error, to start the
research to find out the source of error.
For
that purpose is necessary a database measuring the efficiency of the pure
categories and pure operations, to count the frequency of errors, that later
even would be useful for the Engineering System within the Application System
and the Learning System.
But
this fifth rational check in the global comprehensive actual model is not the
last one, is only one in a wide range of rational checks across all the Global
Artificial Intelligence, due to the Learning System will carry out more
rational checks in order to study the efficiency, efficacy, productivity of the
whole Global Artificial Intelligence, as well as how to improve every
decisions, and how to enhance any intelligence, system, program, applications,
working within the provisions of the Global Artificial Intelligence.
But
more specifically regarding to rational checks concerning the rational truth,
there will be at least seven rational checks, in addition to those ones already
mentioned, the two other rational checks that left to count are the rational
checks that take place in the global actual evolution model (sixth rational
check of rational hypothesis) and the global actual prediction model (seventh
rational check of rational hypothesis).
It
is very important to highlight the fact that the critique to the pure reason
that is carried out in the actual models in the second stage in the Modelling
System are still rational criticism to the rational hypothesis, because what in
practice this process criticises, is the calculus based on the rational
hypothesis, whether fixes or not with the flow of data.
But
in parallel, counting the frequency in which every concrete pure reason or pure
operation involved is found wrong for any reason in the reality, this
accountability gives a very important information about how the pure reasons and
pure operations respond to the reality, and in those cases in which the
frequency is over some limit as margin of error, is when further investigation is
needed to research the lack of efficiency.
And
this process does not finish in the fifth rational check.
Once,
after the fifth rational check, all possible contradiction between rational
world and real world is fixed, making as many changes as necessary in rational
hypothesis, virtual single models, global
model, and even the pure reason itself, then the global model should be
sufficient reliable, after five rational checks, to make predictions.
Having
a very reliable global model ready after five rational checks, so having a very
contrasted rational hypothesis and their respective single virtual models, is
time using the equations in which the single virtual models were made, as well
as all possible further equation explaining possible relations between single
virtual models, to make the global virtual prediction model.
And
using these equations, but now applied on real data, to make a global actual
prediction model as synthesis of the global prediction model and every single
value predicted for every factor under such prediction.
And
having global virtual and actual prediction models ready, at the same time that
the global comprehensive virtual and actual models are ready, then to make a
dynamic virtual model about the possible evolution from the current global
model to the global prediction model: the global virtual evolution model;
calculating as well in accordance with the predicted evolution what values
every factor should have under this prediction for every moment in this
evolution, the global actual evolution model.
As
long as the global prediction model is the global model predicted for a
foreseeable future, and for this foreseeable future the global prediction
actual model is the synthesis of the predicted global model plus the value
predicted for every factor in that future, then global evolution virtual model
is a dynamic representation of this evolution from the global model to the
predicted model, and the global evolution actual model is the dynamic
representation of the evolution from the global comprehensive actual model to
the global predictive actual model.
Due
to the global evolution actual model provides an estimation of what values
every factor should have in every time of this evolution, the sixth rational
check is going to check if, within the margin of error, the values predicted
for every moment of this evolution corresponds to the real values that for
every moment the real factors have in the real world. If the real values,
within the margin of error, are within the values predicted, in that case the
global prediction virtual model and the global prediction actual model are both
of them right.
If
by any chance, the real values of the real factors in the real world are beyond
the margin of error accepted in the prediction of these values during the
evolution, in that chase, the mathematical operations and rational hypothesis
under these predictions should be checked again, carrying accountability about
the mistakes made in order to make further researches to fix the source of
error.
The
seventh rational check finally is in the global prediction actual model,
checking if the predicted values for every factor correspond, within a margin
of error, with the real values that already have the real factors in the real
world.
If the
rational check does not find any contradiction beyond the margin of error, the
prediction was right, so the rational hypothesis and the mathematical operations
were right, but if not right, if the real values beyond the margin of error
contradict the predicted values, further investigations must be carried out to
find the source of error.
The
critique of the pure reason is going to be carried out especially in the global
comprehensive actual model, and it is quite possible that one of the most
important source of error in the fifth,
sixth, and seventh, rational checks, are related to how to link single virtual
models in the global model.
One
of the most important questions in the Modelling System, by the time that the
single virtual model jumps to the global model, is how to link the single
virtual models in a comprehensive model where everything is in relation with
everything.
Because
everything is in relation with everything in the reality, is how to replicate
this interconnection from the real world into the rational world, one of the
most important aspects to study in the Modelling System, and quite possible
many contradictions that are going merge in the fifth, sixth, and seventh
rational checks, in some way or another are related to this problem that must
be solve mathematically, therefore rationally, in other worlds, it must be
solved intelligently.
Rubén García Pedraza, 23th of June of 2018, London