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 these 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 the integrated Decisional System is, and
what place it occupies within the chronology for the construction of the Global
Artificial Intelligence.
As
I have explained in previous post, the construction of the integrated GlobalArtificial 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 - 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.
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 level, 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 System, 4) integrated Learning System.
Firstly, the deduction made by any global/specific program, is filed by the
corresponding program author of this deduction, in the corresponding file in
the database of rational hypotheses as the first stage in the integrated Modelling
System, where are stored also all those particular rational hypotheses sent by
all particular programs. All decisions are going to be checked during this
process by the seven rational checks, the first one in the first stage, the
rest of them in the second stage, 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 of 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.
Throughout
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 are going to be stored in the database, are 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.
- First
type, high extreme priority decisions, subdivided in: global/specific high
extreme decisions, and particular high extreme 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 as it has been stored, is not 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 current 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 is sub-grouped into 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 authorisation 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, it is always the one with lower priority
that one to be adjusted in order to avoid the contradiction. But if two
decisions have the same priority level, one is specific/global, the other
particular, the particular decision is 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 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 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 with high relative frequency on
the historical records, not having in the past any contradiction on the plan or
having some frequency of contradiction the 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 do not necessarily need to 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. The most important
global orders are all those whose main purpose is to keep the stability across the global model. There are at
least two types of global orders, depending on which is responsible for their
implementation. The first one is 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 that as soon as the
instructions of a global order arrive 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 collaboration of all particular program working for the integrated Global Artificial
Intelligence. A global order on the plan is a mathematical expression of
that decision, able to set or reset the global harmony using, for that purpose, all resources or
information available.
A global order should only need 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 with higher priority.
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 at the top of the list are the most frequent decisions, regardless of their priority or origin, and at
the bottom of this list are 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 decisions 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 genera, where all decisions belonging to the
same sub-section across different sub-factoring levels are represented.
This last
tool, the logical organisation of decisions in logical sets, will allow us 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 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.
Rubén García Pedraza, 7th of October of 2018, London
Reviewed 21 October 2019, Madrid
Reviewed 17 May 2025, London, Leytostone
