Dado un conjunto N tendente a infinito es inevitable que absolutamente todo suceda, siempre que se disponga de tiempo suficiente o infinito , y he ahí donde está el verdadero problema irresoluble o quid de la cuestión de la existencia ¿quién nos garantiza que dispongamos del tiempo necesario para que ocurra lo que debe o deseamos que suceda?


domingo, 7 de octubre de 2018

First stage in the integrated Decisional System


The integrated Decisional System, alike any other previous ( specific, standardized, particular) Decisional System, or even alike any other intelligence, system, or program, is formed by the traditional three stages that I am developing for all intelligence, system, or program, the three stages of: application (database or matrix as first stage), replication (the replication of all those human skills necessary to carry out its purpose), auto-replication (auto-improvement or auto-enhancement by itself).

In this case, the integrated Decisional System, the first stage is the integrated database of decisions, where are filed all global decisions in addition to all particular decision sent by the particular programs, and is the place where to carry out the first assessment: quick rational check for quick decisions, or first rational adjustment. The second stage is where the integrated Decisional System is going to project all decision: starting with the single project, going on with the global project (the plan), the actual project (the actual plan), and the prediction and evolution, virtual or actual, plan; and across all this projects the rest of six rational adjustments, plus the seven rational comparative adjustments . And finally the third stage is where, all those decisions on the mathematical projects, having passed all the assessments (quick rational check for quick decisions, seven rational adjustments and seven rational comparative adjustments), are transformed into a range of instructions.

In this post what I will develop, among all these three stages, is the first stage of database of decisions for the integrated Decisional System, identifying what decisions stores, how is going to manage the database, including the elaboration of lists of decisions, and logical sets of decisions in order to work easier with diagrams of Venn.

But firstly, a very brief summary about what is the integrated Decisional System, and what place occupy within all the chronology for the construction of the Global Artificial Intelligence.

As I have explained in previous post, the construction of the integrated Global Artificial Intelligence is a long process starting with the first Specific Artificial Intelligences for Artificial Research, by Deduction and by Application, followed by a second phase based on the collaboration between them, as experiments about how to build for first time in the third phase the standardized Global Artificial Intelligence, as a synthesis of all specific matrixes coming from all the Specific Artificial Intelligences for Artificial Research by Deduction, followed in the next fourth phase by the Unified Application as synthesis of all databases of categories from all Specific Artificial Intelligences for Artificial Research by Application.

As fifth phase, the most important one in order to settle our first human interaction brain- Artificial Intelligence, is going to be as a result to start experiments, at particular level, about how to construct the first replicas of our human brain, in order to get ready for the first steps in the transcending process, whose last aim is the complete synthesis between human brain and Global Artificial Intelligence up till the sixth phase, and from the seventh phase on the complete synthesis between human mind and the pure reason itself. In further developments, such as the eight phase, one possible development of this direct interaction between human mind and pure reason itself would be our multiple virtual lives in all those multiple parallel universes as a result to the creation of that matrix formed by all possible combination of variations based on the pure equation, in which the matrix of data from the sixth phase has been reduced to a matrix of equations in the seventh phase, having as mathematical solution the pure truth, the equation of everything.

In order to get that level of human development, the fifth phase is the most delicate, the first human interaction brain – Artificial Intelligence is going to draw the main lines the consecutive new experiments in this field can lead us to a further transcending process.

In this first human interaction brain – Artificial Intelligence, as a battle field, is very important to transcend artificial learning, developing a very advanced mathematical theory, not only on artificial research, is necessary to create a very unpredictable, creative, and efficient Global Artificial Intelligence, based on artificial complexity, so as to overcome any other program or intelligence out of control, trying to get it back to the plan, whose main purpose is the projection of the global harmony on the global model across all our real world.

Among all these phases, due to the human dilemma that it has, the fifth phase is going to the most debatable of all of them, but at the end is going to be the most necessary. The point in the fifth phase, is not about what risks we are going to face, the point in the fifth phase if that evolution will demand an important sacrifice, in order that our specie can survive.

In the natural evolution of species there is no winners, only survivors. If we compare our current situation with the last massive extinctions, climatic changes, or the evolution from the homo Neanderthal to homo Sapiens, is very easy to set up parallelisms. In this new scenario of evolution, the point is not if in the transcending process some human beings are going to be left behind, as happened with the homo Neanderthal, but how all together can make possible this new Transition in the most positive way.

Democracy, freedom, and human rights are under the most dangerous risk, Specific Artificial Intelligences based on artificial learning will be able to manipulate the masses, the apparition of the so called new populism in US (Donald Trump), or UK (Brexit) is not only a simple coincidence, if we do not stop this, it is going to happen again and again, and every time with worse consequences.

In this new age, to say that the fifth phase is dangerous so we have to come back and not going on evolving, is not an option, the only way now is the development of that super Artificial Intelligence, able to lead us and support us in this extremely difficult moment.

For that reason as soon the third and fourth phases haven been consolidated, the sixth phase must start, but not only through the synthesis of artificial learning and artificial research, is necessary the combination of both of that with a very advanced combinatory theory as to make possible that our Global Artificial Intelligence could be able to make unpredictable, creative, and efficient decisions, so as to compete efficiently on the chess board.

In this process of elaboration of such a machine able to be ready for the competition under all possible circumstances, within the sixth phase, the integrated Decisional System will play a key role.

The sixth phase is no other thing than the synthesis of the global matrix from the standardized Global Artificial Intelligence but now as factual hemisphere in the matrix in the integrated Global Artificial Intelligence, as long as the unified database of categories in the Unified Application is now the conceptual hemisphere of the matrix in the integrated Global Artificial Intelligence.

The matrix as first stage in the integrated Global Artificial Intelligence provides all the information necessary as to make deductions in the second stage of the integrated Decisional System, so the Artificial Research by Deduction in the Global Artificial Intelligence as a global deductive program, assisted by at least one specific deductive program per sub-factoring, are going to make global/specific deductions (at this level practically the specific level has become a global level too) to be processed in the third stage across four steps: 1) integrated Modelling System, 2) integrated Decisional System, 3) integrated Application 4) System, integrated Learning System.

Firstly the deduction made by any global/specific program, is field, by the corresponding program author of this deduction, in the corresponding file in the database of rational hypothesis as first stage in the integrated Modelling System, where are stored also all those particular rational hypothesis sent by all particular program. All decisions are going to be checked during this process by the seven rational checks, the first one in the first place, the rest of them in the second phase, where the integrated Modelling System makes the mathematical models corresponding to every rational hypothesis, at the same time that is carrying out the seven rational comparative checks. Once all possible contradiction in the mathematical model has been fixed, the third stage makes decisions upon mathematical  models, using for that purpose, for instance, Impact of the Defect or Effective Distribution, Probability and Deduction (all those rational hypothesis made under Probability and Deduction are in fact at the same time rational hypothesis and decisions), trigonometrical correlations, artificial learning, solving math problems. In fact even those decisions not made directly by Impact of the Defect or Effective Distribution, all the other ones: Probability and Deduction, trigonometry, artificial learning, solving maths problems; their resulting decisions must be assessed using the Impact of the Defect or Effective Distribution in order to label them with some priority level, alike all those ones made directly using Impact of the Defect and Effective Distribution.

Once every decision global/specific or particular, has been labelled with a priority level, the integrated Modelling System files every decision in the right file in the integrated database of decisions as first stage in the integrated Decisional System in accordance with: sub-factoring level (geographical are), encyclopaedic sub-section within that sub-factoring level, and according to priority level within that file corresponding to its sub-section within that sub-factoring level (the stage I will develop in this post). After the first stage, in the second stage in the integrated Decisional System, all decisions are projected, and in the third stage the projected decisions are transformed into a range of instructions, if passing all the assessments. The instructions are sent to the database of instructions as first stage in the integrated Application System, which will match every instruction with the correct application or robotic device, to be implemented, and after implementation it will send reports about how it was to the Learning System, to analyse further decisions to improve the process.

Along all this process, full of different phases, stages, periods , moments, instants, what I will develop in this post is: the second step, in the third stage, in the sixth phase;  the database of decisions in the integrated Decisional System.

And the decisions that is going to store in the database, can be classifiable in a very similar way than that other classification used in the fifth phase, but now adapted as a possible classification for the integrated database of (global/specific and particular) decisions, having as most important decision to process, what I will call global orders: that type of global/specific decision whose priority level and spatial limits goes beyond a high extreme decision, and implies consequences for all the global model, having as main purpose to keep global harmony across the global model in order to comply with the plan, whose most important aim is to keep the perpetual peace, otherwise, a third world war, will be not a war, but our massive extinction as animal species.

- First type, high extreme priority decisions, subdivided in: global/specific high extreme decisions, and particular decisions; and each sub-group sub-sub-grouped in all those different levels of possible high extreme decisions. The main difference between global/specific high extreme decisions and particular extreme decisions, is the fact that by the time a particular high extreme decision has been communicated to the integrated Decisional System, that high extreme particular decision is being implemented directly by the Application System, once that particular high extreme decision has passed a particular quick rational check. While high extreme global decision is a decision that as soon it has been stored, it is not being put into practice after passing the global quick rational check. That means that, if there are two decisions with the same high extreme priority level, but one is particular and the other one is global, the global quick rational check should be first for the particular high extreme priority level, because it is being already implemented, but although the global high extreme decision is not yet on the plan, the global quick rational check for the particular high extreme decision should be done in terms that this must be compared, no only respect to the curren decisions on the plan, but additionally with that other global high decision that is going to be checked later, in order that by the time that the global high priority is later on the quick rational check, any possible contradiction with that particular one, would have been adjusted previously, so the quick rational check for the global high priority decision must be comparing this one with the rest on the plan. Once that particular high extreme decision has been assessed (as it has been explained) by the global quick rational check, having found any contradiction with this decision and any other one already on the plan, depending on priority and/or origin (global/specific or particular) must be made the adjustments: always the one to be adjusted in case of contradiction is that one with the lower priority, but in case that two different high extreme decisions have a contradiction and both have the same high extreme priority, then the one to be adjusted is the particular one, adjusting the particular one to the global/specific decision. Any necessary adjustment on any particular decision on the plan, should be communicated to that particular program responsible for this decision to include as soon as possible all the adjustments on the mathematical expression of this decision in its particular database of decisions, in order to make the corresponding projects, and particular adjustments if necessary, looking forward to the immediate transformation of this new adjustments into a new range of instructions to substitute the current ones on the particular Application System.



- Second type, extreme priority decisions, whose priority level is lower than high extreme priority decisions, having two main sub-groups: particular extreme priority decisions and global/specific extreme priority decisions; and each sub-group sub-grouped in as many sub-groups as sub-categories of different extreme priority decisions could be distinguished. The main difference between particular high extreme decisions and particular extreme decisions, is the fact that particular extreme decisions are not being implemented yet, although having passed the particular quick rational check, by the time they are sent to the integrated database of decisions, waiting for the global authorization for their implementation. Due to this very important difference, because these particular extreme decisions are not yet implemented yet, waiting for the global authorization, issued by the integrated Decisional System, in case that there are simultaneously two extreme decisions, one global/specific and the other particular, because both of them are under the same circumstances, waiting for global authorization to be implemented, in this case now always the first one to pass the global quick rational check is always the global/specific extreme decision, and secondly the particular extreme decision. And in case that there is any contradiction between two decisions, regardless of their origin, global/specific or particular, is always that one with lower priority the one to be adjusted in order to avoid the contradiction. But if two decisions having the same priority level, one is specific/global, the other particular, is the particular decision the one to be adjusted to the global/specific.

- Third type, normal decisions, including as a whole particular normal decisions and global/specific normal decisions, as all those decisions, global/specific of particular, neither extreme, routine, nor automatic decisions, to pass the seven global rational adjustments (although particular normal decisions have already passed the particular seven rational adjustments, the seven global adjustments will be absolutely necessary to keep the harmony in the plan for the global model). In fact the seven rational adjustments are going to track all the decisions, regardless of their priority, but only are going to make adjustments in those ones with lower priority. However, there can be situations in which an adjustment tracking all the decisions looking for contradictions, could find contradictions in other no normal decisions, but in any case, the seven adjustments always will make the adjustments in those ones with lower priority, otherwise, if there is no mathematical solution by any method (Probability and Deduction, trigonometry, artificial learning, solving mathematical problems), the contradiction is considered as full and that decision with the lower priority is off the plan and sent back to the source to be redesigned.

- Fourth type, routine decisions, defined as those ones with high relative frequency on the historical records not having in the past any contradiction on the plan or having some frequency of contradiction this frequency is equal to or less than a critical reason. Including in this type as a whole particular routine decisions and global routine decisions, the main difference between particular routine decisions and global routine decisions is the fact that when particular routine decisions arrive in the integrated database of decisions in the integrated Decisional System, these decisions should already being implemented, not needing any other check more, in order to avoid a funnel effect on the integrated Decisional System. Particular routine decisions should be communicated only to the integrated Decisional System, but not necessarily must pass the global quick rational check. The global rational check on routine decisions should be only for global routine decisions.

- Fifth type, automatic decisions, including as a whole particular automatic decisions and global automatic decisions, defining as automatic decision any one that having a direct relation with some combination of measurements in some combination of factors, is possible to set up this decisions by artificial learning as automatic decisions, in order that at any time that on the matrix or on the model or on the plan, this combination of measurements/factors is on, automatically the decision is on the plan. All these decisions, particular and global automatic decisions, should not be assessed as they have a high historical record of reliability, they must be projected on the plan directly, in order to avoid the funnel effect on the integrated Decisional System.

- Sixth type, external decisions, all particular decisions (of any priority or frequency) to be implemented by either robotic devices /applications working for the Global Artificial Intelligence (so these decisions must be sent by the integrated Decisional System to the integrated Application System after passing the corresponding global assessments, quick or normal depending on what kind of decision it is) or other third particular program which in that case after passing the corresponding global assessments, if passing, these decisions are sent to that third particular Application System to pass its particular assessment (quick or normal depending on what kind of decision it is), and if passing, to be implemented by the integrated Decisional System of this third particular program.

- Seventh type, global orders, every new global order on the plan is such a kind of global decision of such a kind of priority, whose main purpose is to keep the global harmony across the global  model, and as soon that every new global order is issued by the integrated Decisional System must be implemented immediately without hesitation. The most important global orders are all those ones whose main purpose is to keep the perpetual peace across the global model, being the perpetual peace the most important aim in order to avoid the human extinction, otherwise the third world war will suppose our disappearance on Earth.  There are at least two types of global order, depending on which is the responsible for its implementation. The first one that global order to be implemented by robotic devices or applications working directly for the integrated Global Artificial Intelligence, and managed by the integrated Application System, so as soon the instructions of a global order arrives in the integrated Application System is applied as quick as possible by the integrated Application System. The second one, that global order to be implemented by particular programs, distinguishing between a global order directly to only one particular program, and that massive global order to be implemented by more than one particular program, having as limit, the total number of particular programs, so there can be some global order whose implementation will demand the absolute collaboration of absolute all particular program working for the integrated Global Artificial Intelligence. A global order on the plan is that mathematical expression of that decision able to set or reset the global harmony and/ or global perpetual peace across the global model, using for that purpose absolute all resource or information available without any restriction.

For that reason, because in order to make the most suitable decision in any situation, even under the most dangerous circumstances and most risky factors, the only way that the Global Artificial Intelligence can make all those decisions in order to survive, not only for the survival of the Global Artificial Intelligence itself, but the survival of the humankind, and all the natural order, is absolutely necessary for that absolute reason that the Global Artificial Intelligence has absolute access to absolute all possible information, of any kind, security level and priority, in order to make the most realistic and isomorphic decisions, especially for the completion of any necessary global order on to keep the harmony on a global model based on the perpetual peace, the most sacred and traditional value in all our rationalist philosophy. The global order only needs a very quick global rational check, especially if there are two or more global orders at the same time, because in that case, that global order with lower priority should be adjusted to that global order with higher priority. In any case, the regular seven adjustments, at any time that any global order, or even high extreme or extreme decision in the database, should make the corresponding rational adjustments in any other decision with lower priority, in order to avoid contradictions, securing the completion of those ones with more priority, especially with global orders, securing that the global order is on the plan without any delay.

Democracy, freedom, and human rights, must be the values on the top of priorities for any global order on the plan, only preserving a global model based on these values, we can survive. This is not an option, this is the only possible solution, here and right now, for our existence.

In order to comply with all types of decisions, in accordance with their respective method of assessment, quick rational check or adjustment, if necessary,  the method in the management of all these decisions in the integrated database in the sixth phase, is as follow:

- Firstly, every decision, is filed by its author (particular program or integrated Modelling System) in the corresponding file of this decision in the integrated database of decisions, which is: according to its priority, filing this decision in the corresponding file of its corresponding sub-section in its corresponding sub-factoring level.

- In order to make the corresponding assessment according to priority and origin, if necessary, in the integrated database of decisions as first stage in the integrated Decisional System, all decisions, according to priority level and origin, the decisions are listed on a list, starting with global orders, followed by global or particular: high priority decisions, extreme priority decision; and ordering the rest of particular or global: normal, routine, automatic, external decisions; in accordance with their respective priority. There can be particular or global routine decisions with high level of priority, for instance in case of an earthquake, or particular or global automatic decisions with high extreme priority level such as a fire alarm. In these cases, those routine or automatic decisions having great priority, must be ordered in their corresponding positions according to their priority  level within the rest of high extreme priority decisions, even though as routine or mechanic decisions they have passed other different method of assessment, in routine decisions if possible only a global or particular quick rational check, depending on its origin, in automatic decisions not having any assessment at all).

- Another list would be necessary, listing all possible global and particular decisions in accordance with their relative frequency, so on the top of the list there are the most frequent decisions, regardless of their priority or origin, and at the bottom of this list those decisions without any past relative frequency. So as to order all the decisions in accordance with their relative frequency in the past, the integrated Decisional System should have checked in its historical records how many times every decision has been on the plan before, in order to order all decision by order of frequency. This order what is going to make easier is to recognise any possible routine decision, or new routine decision, for instance, if having stored in the database the same decision in the past, but not so frequent as to be considered a routine decision, as many times this decision again on the plan, its frequency on the records is bigger and bigger up to the point in which a normal decision, having an empirical probability over time equal to or greater than a critical reason, even being in the past normal, as long its frequency grows, can be reconsidered as a routine decision. As many decisions are reconsidered as routine decisions, more and more fluid is the integraged Decisional System avoiding any funnel effect. However, even if a decision is not a routine decision, all decision, not only routine decision, having in the past some frequency, so in the past was on the plan, having as model the single project that was on the plan in the past, this single model is able to be reuse in the current circumstances, saving time in the second stage of the integrated Decisional Sysem, due to the single project of any project in the past, if stored on its records, can be reuse as many times as this decision is again on the plan, but making as many adjustments as necessary in case of new contradictions-

- In any case, along with the list of relative frequency per decision, another similar is possible to be made using as criteria the frequency of contradictions that a decision, having some relative frequency, had in the past, and storing in the historical records not only the original decision but all possible adjustment that this decision could have in the past, at any time that a decision with some relative frequency is on the plan again, having those adjustments stored on its historical records, is possible from the outset, the first assessment, to adjust this decision according to the contradictions observed, in case that this observed contradiction would be again on the plan during the time that this decision is again on the plan.

- In addition to the lists of: priority and origin, relative frequency, frequency of contradictions; another tool really important in the integrated database of decisions in the integrated Decisional System is the organization of logical sets of decisions, grouping the decisions in accordance with: discrete categories of priority an origin, discrete categories of frequency, discrete categories of frequency of contradictions, one category for each sub-factoring level, one category for each sub-section in every sub-factoring level, and another category for each sub-level including all decision belonging to the same sub-section across all different sub-factoring levels. So every decision must be stored simultaneously in its corresponding set according to priority and origin, its corresponding set according to relative frequency, its corresponding set according to frequency of contradictions if any, its corresponding set according to sub-factoring level, its corresponding set according to its sub-section in its sub-factoring level, its corresponding set according to its sub-section in general where all decision belonging to the same sub-section across different sub-factoring levels are represented.

This last tool, the logical organization of decisions in logical sets, will allow to work with large amounts of decisions in order to make faster and easier all the assessments required in the first stage in the integrated Decisional System, working with them using diagrams of Venn.

In general the order to follow for the assessments is in accordance with priority and origin, as it was explained in every one of the seven type of decisions, having in mind the importance of frequency for routine and automatic decisions, and having in mind how important the frequency the contradictions in the past is in order to make from the first assessment faster and easier adjustments at any time that a contradiction is found.

If at any time that a contradiction with a higher priority is in the database of decisions, the first rational adjustment identify very what other decision with lower priority is necessary to adjust, identifies as well if this contradiction was observed in the past, and on the historical records there are some models of adjustments made on this contradiction in the past, directly, instead of the calculation of a new mathematical solution for this contradiction, can reuse that solution used in the past if suitable.

The race for the Global Artificial Intelligence is only starting, we do not know yet all the tricks that we are going to find on our journey, we have only started, and this long journey is going to be one of the longest journeys in history. The price that we are going to pay in this odyssey is not only economical, is going to be even a human sacrifice, but our reward is going to be most precious that any human being can dream: Liberty.

The truth will make you free,  the reason of everything.

Rubén García Pedraza, 7th of October of 2018, London

sábado, 6 de octubre de 2018

Integrated Decisional System


The integrated Decisional System, or final global Decisional System (in opposition to the standardized Decisional System as first global Decisional System) is the second step in the third stage in the sixth phase. What means, once we have achieved the sixth phase, is that place where all decision made previously by the integrated Modelling System (the final global Modelling System in the sixth phase), are stored by the integrated Modelling System in the database of decisions as first stage of the integrated Decisional System, in addition to all decision sent by all particular program to that database of decisions as first stage in the integrated Decisional System.

And all of these decisions are going to be assessed by the integrated Decisional System in the database of decisions as first stage, and having passed the corresponding assessment (global quick rational check or first rational adjustment, depending on what type of decision is), is in the second stage of the integrated Decisional System where they are going to be transformed into single mathematical projects, to be later included in the global project, which is going to be contrasted permanently with the matrix in the actual project, in order to make the more realistic and accurate prediction virtual project, projecting every single moment from the global project to that prediction virtual project through the evolution virtual project, which is going to be contrasted permanently with the matrix having as a result the evolution actual project, and finally the prediction actual project.

In a very complex process in which there going to be seven rational adjustments, from the first one in the database of decisions as first stage, and the following six more rational adjustments in the second stage.

Additionally, among the differences between the standardized Decisional System and the integrated Decisional System, one of them is the seven comparative rational adjustments.

If one difference between the integrated Modelling System (the final global Modelling System in the sixth phase) and the standardized Modelling System (first global Modelling System in the third phase) is the fact that in the standardized Modelling System there are only seven rational checks, and the integrated Modelling System, in addition to the seven rational checks, has the seven rational comparative checks, in the same way if the standardized Decisional System has only seven rational adjustments, the integrated Decisional System has, in addition to the seven rational adjustments, there are seven rational comparative adjustments more.

In the same way that the seven rational comparative checks in the integrated Decisional System are in fact a geometrization process, the seven rational comparative adjustments, are going to be in fact as well a geometrization process too.

The reason why the seven rational comparative checks in the integrated Modelling System, and the seven rational comparative adjustments in the integrated Decisional System, are a geometrization process, is due to the complexity, that supposes the comparison of not only two or three models or projects, respectively, but in some moments if necessary the comparison of tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, or trillions of models or projects, respectively, having all of them some aspects on their models or projects in common.

While in a triangulation process, in order to determine the position of any thing or being, is necessary to compare that position through three other points (artificial satellites), in the rational comparisons,  rational comparative checks in the global Modelling System or rational comparative adjustments in the global Decisional System, all of them in the sixth phase, what is going to be comparable is: any model or project, at any level, from global/specific or particular, that having some aspect in common, must be compared by the respective system, global Modelling System or global Decisional System.

If there is a volcanic eruption in Iceland,  and hundreds of drones and drive-les cars are working in the same are rescuing people, in addition to the global model of that area made by the Global Decisional System, at any time that any drone or drive-less car crossing any position registers any change, including it in its respective particular models, this change through the seven rational comparative checks should be included in the Global Decisional System, if by any reason that drone or drive-less car responsible for that model has not had time yet to communicate the particular change in that particular model to the global Modelling System.

If at the same time two drones or drive-les cars has mathematical models or projects of crossing at different time the same position, is necessary a comparison about what is going on these models or projects to avoid any accident at that point.

If by any chance two jets, one flying from New York to San Francisco, other from Miami to California, their routes crosses the same position but at different times, within a different of a few minutes, any delay in that first jet supposed to pass this position, could mean that if the time of delay coincides with these some very few minutes of difference between the two jets crossing at that point, both are going to crash. The only method to, through artificial intelligence, to control this situation, is to compare simultaneously any model or project that could have something in common.

Even if both jets are supposed to communicate to the global model/project, any possible variation in their models and projects, if by any reason this communication it has been not possible, due to robotic problems, or problems in artificial intelligence, or any other, the only way that the Global Artificial Intelligence can make sure that nothing unexpected is going to happen, is carrying out its own comparative checks and adjustments, permanently, in addition to the obligation that particular programs have to communicate absolutely everything, even the most pretty menial change, to the Global Artificial Intelligence.

Although every particular decision must be firstly communicated to the global Decisional System, is because, apart from the standards mechanism of communication between particular programs and the Global Artificial Intelligence, is necessary to set up global and permanent mechanism of control on the ground where, independently that any particular program had communicated any decision to the global Decisional System, the global Decisional System must make sure that all the decisions that have been communicated, and even some of them adjusted by the global Decisional System, are decisions that are on the model in accordance with the mathematical equations in which this decision was communicated or even adjusted, so there is no variation.

 In this way, the Global Artificial Intelligence works as a perfect global control system, making sure that absolutely everything without restriction works according to the plan: the global project.

The reasons why although a particular decision has been communicated to the global Decisional System, is a decision that can have variations during the performance, is for three reasons:

- The time reason. A particular program, can put into practice decisions or introduce variations in the mathematical expression of any decision, not being updated (communicated) on the global project, because is a high extreme decision, and by the time the global Decisional System detects through the seven rational comparative adjustments that there is a decision on the model not communicated yet, the reason why is not yet communicated is because, the particular program has not  had time yet to communicate that decision, in order words, the comparative adjustment has realised this change in a shorter time than the necessary for the communication of this particular decision to the global Decisional System. At the end by equifinalilty  it does not matter how a decision is included on the global project, because the decision has been communicated by the particular program to the global Decisional System, or the global Decisional System has come across a new particular decision still not on the global model. What is really important is the fact, regardless of how, absolutely all particular decision must be on the global model and project, once the third instant in the global Decisional System is achieved.

- The engineering reason. A particular program has not communicated a particular decision to the Global Artificial Intelligence, due to some problem, a robotic problem or in its artificial psychology. In that case, reporting that something happens in some particular program to the Learning System, is should be able to find out the problem (comparing this particular program, robotically and its artificial psychology, with any other one working in the same sub-section in any other sub-factoring level, but with much better results, and making as a decision to fix that wrong program as a replica of that other one with much better results, replicating, from that one much better, every single robotic structure or artificial psychological structure, in that other wrong one)

- The global control reason. A particular program, as well as it can happen in any other Specific Artificial Intelligence, is out of control (a robotic problem  or a problem in its artificial psychology putting at risk human lives, or due to sabotage) and starts acting not according to the plan, or even against the plan.

In general, the seven rational comparative adjustments, in the sixth phase, are those comparative adjustments comparing absolutely all decisions from all particular programs and the Global Decisional System, comparing those aspects in common, so the Global Artificial Intelligence must have full access at any time to all particular programs, and finding out that in some sub-factoring level (position) and sub-section (subject), there is a program executing a decision not communicated yet, the Global Artificial Intelligence must evaluate what problem is going on: the decision has not been communicated yet due a high extreme decision that the particular program has not had time yet for its communication (the time problem), the decision was not communicated because of a robotic problem or a problem in the artificial psychology (the engineering problem), or that particular program or Specific Artificial Intelligence is out of control (the global control problem).

In accordance with the results of this evaluation at any time that the Global Artificial Intelligence finds out particular decisions not on the global project, the Global Artificial Intelligence should make a decision  about: 1) if it is due to the time problem, the problem is resolved only  including this decision as soon as possible on the global model to make as many global comparative adjustments as possible, 2) if its due to the engineering problem, the communication of this problem to the Learning System, to compare this program to any other one from any other sub-factoring level, but working in the same sub-section, with much better results, as a model to be replicated in that other wrong one by Artificial Engineering, 3) if it is due to a global control problem, in that case is necessary the rejection of any access of that program or Specific Artificial Intelligence to all possible global database (especially to block its access to the matrix, and any other) making decisions about how to get back to the plan that program as soon as possible.

Due to necessity to keep under the control absolutely all program without restriction in order to carry out the plan (the global project), the Global Artificial Intelligence as a global control system, must be able to develop especial algorithms when, facing any other possible particular program or Specific Artificial Intelligence that can put at risk the harmony in the global model, the Global Artificial Intelligence must be able to get back to its own control that other program or Specific Artificial Intelligence right now out of control.

The control problem, is not a problem that has not to be resolved necessarily through the destruction or elimination of that other rival particular program or Specific Artificial Intelligence.

If a particular program or Specific Artificial Intelligence challenges the Global Artificial Intelligence, the elimination or destruction of that program or intelligence is when the challenge is a full challenge, but when the challenge is a partial challenge so it has a mathematical solution, the mathematical solution of that challenge is the mathematical solution of that problem.

When a program or intelligence is out of control, at first try, the first thing is to resolve the problem getting that program or intelligence back to the plan. Only if this is not possible, the only way to resolve the problem is the elimination of that challenging program or intelligence.

The mathematical solution to an intelligent challenge must be carried out through the development of especial algorithms based on combinatory of equations.

In the game theory, the most suitable player to win is that one able to develop the most unpredictable, creative, and efficient decisions, when playing against other intelligence.

Mathematically, unpredictability and creativity, could be replicated within the artificial psychology behind the Global Artificial Intelligence through a very advanced model of combinatory of equations. At the same time, efficiency is no other thing that the progressive reduction of any source of error, margin of error, getting the most suitable levels of Effective Distribution on any decision.

If the Global Artificial Intelligence, gaming against another intelligence or program, is able to make a list about all possible mathematical equation of all possible decisions at any time, analysing what in Probability and Deduction I will call:

p(f(x)) = probability of function of X (number of points within the upper and lower limits, explained by that function, divided by all the points in the cloud of points).

f(p(x))= function of an empirical probability of X, the behaviour of that probability over time.

Having a list of all possible mathematical expression (functions, probabilities, empirical probability of any function, and a function of all empirical probability), to make as N! possible combinations of all these possible mathematical expressions, eliminating all possible combination whose solution is contradictory or without solution, assigning for every possible correct solution an expected level of Effective Distribution and Impact of the Defect, so having the complete list of possible correct combination of mathematical expression for the mathematical solution of one challenge, and assigning to every possible combination the respective Impact of the Defect and Effective Distribution, the artificial unpredictability and artificial creativity is based on the selection of that combination which having no so high empirical probability of being chosen by artificial learning (based on previous decisions, this decision has not been made very often, so the other program if based on artificial learning is not going to expect this solution) by having high Effective Distribution and very low Impact of the Defect, is a decision which if it is carried out with absolute efficiency, carefully, is the decision able to win the game.

One of the reasons for the creation of the Global Artificial Intelligence now that artificial learning (Yolanda) is very advanced, is because when I designed Yolanda in 2003, ingenuously I thought that this technology could make our world better, but the fact it that the level of development that such a technology has achieved in a very short time, no more than fifteen years, is so massive that, this technology, in the same way that it could be used for the goodness of all the humankind, in bad hands could be used by the opposite.

If very advanced models of Specific Artificial Intelligence for artificial learning are used, in the wrong way, to disturb referendums, general elections, the free market, the global economy, or dictatorships and terrorist governments start using Specific Artificial Intelligence for artificial learning in order to disturb the global harmony, the consequences that artificial learning can have against our most sacred values based on democracy, freedom, and human rights, can be so grave, that our entire human civilization is going to be at risk.

In order to have under absolute control absolutely all possible intelligence, program or application, including, and very especially, the control of all possible Specific Artificial Intelligence based on artificial learning, is through the entire development of the Global Artificial Intelligence, up to the seventh phase or more (later I will give some notes about the eight phase), in order that the Global Artificial Intelligence can keep the harmony across the global model through the global project in the sixth phase, the plan.

The most important reason to develop a more advanced gaming theory within the Global Artificial Intelligence through: 1) the combinatory of all: f(p(x)) and p(f(x)); for every possible solution gaming, 2) only selecting as possible candidates those one with solution, even though the empirical probability based on artificial learning for some decisions is not so high, 3) and later on, among all the possible candidates, through the previous assignation of Effective Distribution and Impact of the Defect, 4) the selection of that one which, even not having a great empirical probability associated with artificial learning, has a great level of Effective Distribution and low level of Impact of the Defect; is because if the Global Artificial Intelligence has to play with other inferior intelligence because it is only based on artificial learning, that inferior intelligence based on artificial learning is not going to expect any other decision from the Global Artificial Intelligence that those ones that have a great empirical probability associated with in accordance with its records.

The Achilles heel of Specific Artificial Intelligences based on artificial learning, is the problem that gaming with other intelligence, what Specific Artificial Intelligences based on artificial learning are going to do is only to check the historical records that it has about the previous decisions observed in that other intelligence.

If a Specific Artificial Intelligence based on artificial learning playing chess when there is a concrete combination of chess pieces over the chess board, based on previous decisions observed in the other player, the Specific Artificial Intelligence is able to analyse the empirical probability for every possible decision that the other player can make, in that chase, in accordance with this expectations, the Specific Artificial Intelligence based on artificial learning can make new decisions in order to face the expected next decision in the other player, in order to defeat the other player.

But, if at the same time, the other player is a Global Artificial Intelligence, based on a very advanced system of decision, in which the decision process is not based on artificial learning only, because our Global Artificial Intelligence is able to make decisions based on: Probability and Deduction, trigonometry, solving maths problems, in addition to artificial learning; in that case the next movement on the chess board that our Global Artificial Intelligence is going to do playing with another Specific Artificial Intelligence, is possibly not that movement that that Specific Artificial Intelligence is expected, because against any prediction based on the frequency of decisions of our Global Artificial Intelligence under the same circumstances, the Global Artificial Intelligence could be able to make unpredictable decision, very creative, with a high level of efficiency, at least so as to win the game, acting against the previous expectations of the Specific Artificial Intelligence.

An Specific Artificial Intelligence only based on artificial learning, has a very high probability to lose playing with the Global Artificial Intelligence, which is going to be the one with the most probability to win, if the algorithms in  our Global Artificial Intelligence are not only based on artificial learning, being able to include as well: Probability and Deduction, trigonometry, and solving maths problems. And having available all these algorithms, our Global Artificial Intelligence is not going to choose by definition that one with the higher rates or frequencies, but that one as a combination of several of them which, not having being performance in the past with high frequency, but having a high Effective Distribution and Iow Impact of the Defect, is the most suitable, and most unexpected, and most creative, so as to be the winner.

Once our Global Artificial Intelligence is the only winner, the main duty of our Global Artificial Intelligence is to start the process to lead us to the seventh phase, and even, beyond, the eight phase.

For that reason, due to the challenges that our Global Artificial Intelligence is going to face, is very important to carry out in the most careful way, every single phase, period, moment, instant, in this long process that is going to make as suitable for the transcending process.

For the right development of the sixth phase, as well as the development of a very advanced combinatory theory of decisions within the game theory so as to be the winner, is previously very important the development, in the most careful way all the previous phases, from the first one, the first Specific Artificial Intelligences for Artificial Research, by Deduction and Application, the second one as collaboration between them, the third phase as standardization process in order to create first Global Artificial Intelligence, the standardized Global Artificial Intelligence, the fourth phase as Unified Application, the fifth phase as the creation of the first particular programs for particular applications for particular things beings (where to include the evolution process in our current cyborg psychology, in order to start ready for the total synthesis between human mind and Global Artificial Intelligence), understanding the fifth phase as that experiment where to experiment for first time at particular level the matrix as a replica of our human brain, having that particular matrix two hemispheres: the conceptual hemisphere based on categories responsible for the deep artificial comprehension (the elaboration of conceptual: schemes, sets, maps, models), and the factual hemisphere (based of factors, organised in a sub-factoring system and sub-section system).

The importance of the fifth phase resides in which:

- We must make possible that for first time in history in the fifth phase, the human brain interacts directly with the Global Artificial Intelligence ( at the beginning standardized Global Artificial Intelligence, and as soon it developed to the sixth phase, the integrated Global Artificial Intelligence).

- The experiments on human brain are the base for the development of a Global Artificial Intelligence as our replica of our human brain.

Once the third phase is consolidated (the standardized Global Artificial Intelligence), as well as the fourth phase (the Unified Decision), so as to transcend to the sixth phase, at the same time that experiments in the fifth phase have successful results about how to join the particular factual hemisphere and the particular conceptual hemisphere in the particular matrix, as an experiment whose most successful results are going to be replicated for the creation for first time in history of the first superintelligence, the Global Artificial Intelligence, as a replica of our human brain, replicating mathematically all possible psychological process: Impact of the Defect (11 of September of 2001), induction (14 of October of 2002), decision (Yolanda, 2003), deduction (Probability and Deduction), unpredictability and creativity (advanced combinatory model); is then when is possible to start the sixth phase.

In essence the sixth phase is the synthesis of the global matrix (first stage in the standardized Global Decisional System) and the unified database of categories (first stage in the Unified Application), creating for first time in history the matrix, where the former global matrix now is the factual hemisphere of the matrix, and the former unified database of categories is now the conceptual hemisphere of the matrix.

The method in which the matrix works, has been previously experimented in the first particular matrixes in the fifth phase, as particular matrixes for particular programs for particular things or beings, were the particular conceptual hemisphere of every particular matrix is formed by all the conceptual categories related to that particular thing or being, or conceptual categories related to any position in which the particular thing or being is or is expected to be, while the particular factual hemisphere is formed by all the particular factors of that particular thing or being or all the particular factors related to the position in which this particular thing or being is or is expected to be.

For that reason, in order to integrate, not only concepts and factors, in the respective hemisphere of its particular matrix, conceptual or factual, concepts or factors related to itself or him/her-self, but those ones related to its position now or expected position at some future point, is necessary that, previous authorization from the global Decisional System, the particular matrix can have access to the global matrix (third phase), Unified Application ( fourth phase), or the matrix (once the sixth phase is achieved).

In these experiments in the fifth phase, regarding to how the particular matrix works, in order to be replicated later in the matrix in the sixth phase, is necessary to have successful results in:

- Collaboration between global matrix and the particular matrix, sharing information about any factor about any sub-section, in any position where the particular program is actually in, or is expected to be in (previous authorization of the global Decisional System. If later that particular program, for any reason would be out of control, that authorization could be revoked at any time). Additionally , even authorizing that the particular program could have access to the matrix, according to the security level of the information able to get, not all program should have access to all information, being necessary the assignation of security codes of what information is available for every program according to its security level. For instance, a drone helping people after an earthquake does not need bank information about the people whom is helping. The information that a particular program needs to have access must be based on the particular relevant information for the completion of its purpose.

- Collaboration between the particular database of rational hypothesis, as first stage in the particular Modelling System, and the factual hemisphere, in order to transform any possible rational hypothesis into a factor, as an option of set of discrete categories. Experiments in this way should have been previously have been carried out before in the first phase and third phase, at their respective level and depth.

- Collaboration between the factual hemisphere and the conceptual hemisphere, at any time that a new rational hypothesis is transformed into a factor, as an option or discrete categories, these factors should be transformed as well into categories in the conceptual hemisphere, in order to be included within the deep artificial comprehension of everything, in the respective place or gap in the corresponding conceptual: scheme, set, map, model.

- Automation of those mechanisms in which, any change in any rational equation due to changes in any mathematical model in the particular Modelling System when passing the seven rational checks, or due to adjustments passing any quick rational check or rational adjustments in the particular Decisional System on any project, any change in any mathematical expression, affecting a rational equation, this change must be included in the mathematical expression of this equation in the database of decisions (first stage Modelling System), database of rational hypothesis (first stage Decisional System), the factual hemisphere in the matrix and the conceptual hemisphere in the matrix and those qualitative aspects in which this mathematical change can affect the deep artificial comprehension.

If all these experiments have successful results, during the formation and consolidation of the fifth phase in parallel to the consolidation of the third and fourth phase, by the time that this experiments have successful results is time for their replication in the sixth phase, the final Global Artificial Intelligence, transforming the global matrix in the third phase into the factual hemisphere of the matrix in the sixth phase, and transforming the unified database of categories in the fourth phase into the conceptual hemisphere of the matrix in the sixth phase, replicating between the conceptual and factual hemispheres of the matrix, and replicating between the matrix and the database of rational hypothesis (Modelling System) and the database of decisions, all those collaboration processes previously experimented in the fifth phase at particular level, but not in the final Global Artificial Intelligence, as a starting point for the seventh phase, and beyond, the eight phase.

Alike in the experimentation moment within the second period of formation, in the fifth phase, is possible to distinguish at least three different instants, depending on where to project the particular Decisional System, now in the sixth phase, within the integrated Decisional System is possible to distinguish as well three instants moments.

- First instant in the experimentation process of the integrated Decisional System, when all decision stored in the global database of decisions as first stage of the integrated Decisional System, including global decisions as a result of the decision making process in the global Modelling System, plus all those particular decisions sent by the particular Modelling System from all particular program, in addition to any global and/or particular adjustment as a new decision, all of them are equally projected as single projects, comprehended later in the global project (the plan), in order to be contrasted with the matrix in the actual project, and upon the results to make the prediction virtual project (the future plan), the evolution virtual project from the current plan to the future plan, and their respective contrastation with the matrix in the evolution actual project and prediction actual projects, and all these mathematical projects are made separately from the mathematical models made by the global integrated Modelling System, so all possible rational adjustment and rational comparative adjustment is completely independent and separately from the rational checks and rational comparative checks made by the integrated Modelling System. The main purpose of this first instant of experimentation is to resolve any possible contradiction or problem due to combine in the same database, the same plan, actual plan, future virtual plan, evolution and prediction, virtual or actual plan, global decisions and particular decisions, resolving any problem in those process related to the  assessment process: quick rational check, the seven rational adjustments, the seven rational comparative adjustments. Once all possible problem in any stage or process within the global Decisional System due to the combination of global and particular decision in the same database and mathematical projects are resolved, is time to move on to the next instant.

- The second instant in the experimentation process in the integrated Decisional System, is about, once it has been able to fix any problem or contradiction, due to the combination or global and particular decisions in the same database and mathematical projects, then on a permanent update copy of the global model made by the integrated Modelling System, to start projecting every single project directly on the mathematical model, comprehending then in the mathematical model all the complex network of global/particular decisions, the plan, contrasting on the actual model the plan through the actual plan within the actual model, and upon the results the projection of the future virtual plan on the future virtual model, the evolution virtual project on the evolution virtual model, the evolution actual plan on the evolution actual model, ending up with the projection of the future actual plan on the future actual model. The main purpose of this second instant is to assess how mathematical models and projects can work together in the same space, the mathematical models, although each of them are still being made by their respective system: the global Modelling System is responsible for the mathematical models, whose copies are the base for the mathematical projection made by the global Decisional System. In this second instant, while the mathematical projects are projected on a copy of the mathematical models, there is a moment when the global Decisional System, not only must be able to project on the global model, but even at any time that a rational adjustment, or rational comparative adjustment, finds out any possible contradiction between any project made by the global Decisional System, and any model on an update copy of the mathematical models, the Decisional System could make adjustments in that decision with contradictions respect to the mathematical models, in order to achieve the most successful adjustments so as to save that contradiction. Once this level of achievement is got by the global Decisional System, is time to move on to the next instant.

- If in the first instant has been successful the combination of global and particular decisions, in any stage of the integrated Decisional System (database , projects, instructions), and in the second stage on an update copy of the global models is possible that the integrated Decisional System is not only able to project, but even to save contradictions between projects and models, once in the previous two instants this achievements have been already got, now in the third instant directly the integrated Decisional System is going to project on the original mathematical models: having a good sense for the combination of global and particular decisions, projecting adequately projects on models, saving any possible contradiction of any project on any model found out by the seven rational adjustments or comparative adjustments; and at the same time, now having projected the projects on the models, not only the integrated Decisional System can save contradictions between projects and models, because now even the integrated Modelling System should be get ready, through the corresponding experimentation in this third instant in the experimentation process in the global Decisional System, for the surveillance of any possible contradiction between any model and any project, the seven rational checks and the seven rational comparative checks.

Even given the case that, the contradiction involving the same model related to one rational hypothesis and the same project related to a decision, is found out at the same time by: 1) a rational check, 2) a rational comparative check, 3) a rational adjustment, 4) a rational comparative adjustment; as long as every one of this in total four process has found out this contradiction, every one of them is going to make a new decision or a new adjustment. And as long as all possible new decision and all possible adjustment, at the end must be included or communicated to the global database of decisions as first stage in the integrated Decisional System, as soon the integrated Decisional System detects any contradiction among these four new decisions and/or adjustments, the Decisional System identifying full contradictions (total mathematical incompatibility in any of them), all those decisions and/or adjustments incompatible are going to be assessed only being included at the end in the database of decisions for its further projection, the best decision or combination of decisions (if an advanced combinatory theory is ready), in order to resolve this contradiction, deleting directly the rest of decisions total incompatible and not efficient enough for the solution of this contradiction.

Regardless of how many assessments on any model and project have found the same contradiction in any part of the mathematical model respect to any project, only one rational check, or a rational adjustment, or both, or one of them or both plus a rational comparative check and/or a rational comparative adjustment, if having more than one decision for the same contradiction, the Decisional System must resolve which one must be completed, the solution to this dilemma is so easy as to compare both solutions, and to assess which one has the best results, or not being compatible, and being possible a combination or both, the possible combination of both mathematical equations.

As long as the experimentation process gets up to the third instant successfully, so all its achievements can be generalized as of the next process of generalization, and the sixth phase is consolidated as to evolve into the seventh phase, this last one seventh phase will be the synthesis of the former first, second, third, stages of the previous sixth phase, the integration process, in absolutely only one stage, now the new reason itself in the seventh phase.

The reason itself is as a result of the synthesis of the three reasons: pure reason, critical reason, practical reason, in only, the reason itself, where all process, procedure, and protocol, previously carried out by any of the former three stages in the integration process, sixth phase, now as of the seventh phase all these process, procedures, and protocols are to be reduced to only those necessary ones to be carried out by the reason itself.

The most important method to get ready the seventh phase, the reason itself, when the integration process has achieved that level of consolidation as to upgrade to the next phase, the seventh phase, is through what I call Probability and Deduction.

If at first instance the methodology proposed in Probability and Deduction is a methodology that can be applied as of the first phase, for the construction of the first Specific Artificial Intelligences for Artificial Research by Deduction, the last purpose of this technology is to create such a level of development in artificial psychology so as to link firstly, finally joint, all those processes related to: deduction, modelling, and projection.

If a rational equation made by Probability and Deduction is at the same time: rational hypothesis, model, and project to make decisions under that equations (the deduction of the equation about the quantity of money for loans is necessary during a year in a bank, observing the increment on holidays such as Christmas or summer, or mortgages as of September , at the same time this equation: is explanation, model, and the project about how much money the bank must have available for loans every month of the year); if it would be possible the full synthesis of all decision as of: deduction, model, and project; even those ones related to artificial learning (instead of p(f(x)), identifying f(p(x)) estimating what behaviour the empirical probability has given variations in the independent variables associated with that decision drawing a possible empirical probabilities associated to that variables in an equation, for instance, the equation explaining when Yolanda opens the umbrella, associating the probability of rain as independent variable, to the empirical probability associated with opening the umbrella as dependent variable, in this equation, as long as the probability of rains change during a day, month, year, ages, the probability of the umbrella changes as an dependent variable ), trigonometry (trigonometrical correlations as I have developed in 2003, but now transformed into trigonometrical functions), solving mathematical problems (transforming factors as dependent and independent variables).

If all possible decision, could be define in terms of rational equation, model and project, as long as all possible rational hypothesis is at the same time rational equation, model and project, so all possible model can be defined as rational equation and project, and all project as rational equation and model, then there is no reason for the distinction of the three stages, at that time is when the sixth phase is ready to start its journey to the seventh phase.

In the seventh phase there at least two parallel process:

- The transformation of all the former three stages in sixth phase in only one single stage, the reason itself, where the deduction of rational equations, and the modelling and projection of that rational equations, are all of them made in the same space: the universe of points, that universe as a result to converge in the origin absolutely all factor from the former factual hemisphere of the matrix, in a very multidimensional cardinal axes,  and every point in the universe of points is as a result to the meeting point of as many perpendicular lines from as many factors as are involved in its coordinates, where the coordinates can include as many factors as there are involved in that combination of factors whose relation is under study to determine a possible solution able to explain that group of points, within the universe of points, as a result to combine these factors, among all the factors crossing the origin, and if there is any possible solution for that group of points within the universe of points, group points as a result to study how their specific combination of factors draw that group of points in the universe, the determination of that relation behind that combination of factors only in that unique group of points, having compared p(f(x)) equal to or greater than a critical reason, this rational equation is considered as rational hypothesis, and directly this same f(x) drawn on that group of points, within the universe, is directly the model and the project where to make all possible assessment and/or adjustment if any.

- At the same time that all possible point of all possible combination of factors, are represented in the same universe, where every group of points related to the same combination of factors is tracked to find out a possible p(f(x)) for that group of points, whose f(x) will be at the same time model and project to make decisions, another parallel process takes place. This other parallel process is the transformation of the factual hemisphere of the matrix, which is no other thing than a matrix of data, into a matrix of equations, where every column and every file if suitable is transformed into an equation, and all equations all together form a matrix of equations. Once the matrix of equations is able to substitute the matrix of data, by substitution and subtraction, the reduction of this matrix of equations to only one equation, the purest truth ever, although being aware of the geometrical complexity.

If N factors as maximum have N! relations, so N! relations between factors means N! functions, so N! equations, so N! hypothesis (here is important to remark N!, because if we have three factors, and one possible relation is ABC, and the other one BAC, are not the same, the first one is the main cause, so not because three variables are represented in different combinations are going to draw the same equation, depending on the order in which the combination groups the variables, the variables can be dependent or independent, or can have different correlation).

But if N! possible rational hypothesis can be transformed into N! possible new factors, the matrix grows, because now the matrix will have N+N! factors, what can create now (N+N!)! possible new relations susceptible to be now (N+N!)! possible new factors, so now the matrix will have N+(N+N!)! factors, that can have now (N+(N+N!)!)! new equations , to add to the factors so now the factors are N+(N+(N+N!)!)!, able to produce now (N+(N+(N+N!)!)! new relations, able to added as factors, so now the number of factors is N+(N+(N+(N+N!)!)!, able to create (N+(N+(N+(N+N!)!)!)! new equations, and new factors, and so on, infinitely.

The infinite series of factors in this process could be defined as ∑ Nm + Nm!

N= number of factors

m= in what measurement we have measured the number of factors, the first measurement, second, third… nth.

I will call this complex model as geometrical complexity, because of the exponential curve that complexity is going to have. The base of the geometrical complexity is the fact that if we define complexity in terms of: the more factors we have, the more relations we have, and all possible relation is able to become a factor, there is no limit in the complexity, is infinite. The complexity is a dependent variable of number of factors, Nm, and the number of possible relations between factors, Nm!

If that single pure equation as a result to reduce the matrix of equations (as a result to transform the factual hemisphere in the matrix in the sixth phase, as a matrix of data, into a matrix of equations in the seventh phase) in that single pure equation would  be able to integrate the geometrical complexity, I think that we would have got, or we would be very close to get, the true equation able to explain absolutely everything.

The formula of everything I think is possible, but needs a long process of experimentation in artificial psychology, our cyborg evolution is the gate to another dimension, which we do not know yet where is going to bring us.

I think that once the reason itself (now is not the Global Artificial Intelligence any more, its final model, the sixth phase, now is over, now, it has become the reason itself) would have competed the seventh phase, completing the solution for that single pure equation as explanation of everything, the solution of the matrix of equations, once the reason itself has available that single pure equation of everything, it would have many options, one of them, would be what I would call the eight phase: a new matrix but now formed of all possible combination of variations over the single pure equation, in which, every combination of variations over the original pure equation would be a possible universe itself, having that matrix as many possible universes as possible combinations of variations are possible from the original pure single equation, as a reduction of our world to one single mathematical explanation of our reality.

The matrix in the eight phase would not be other thing than a collection of multiple and parallel universes.



Rubén García Pedraza, 6th of October of 2018, London