Integrated Decisional System

The integrated Decisional System, or final global Decisional System (in opposition to the standardised Decisional System as the first global Decisional System), is the second step in the third stage in the sixth phase. This means that once we have achieved the sixth phase, is that place where all decisions 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 the 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.

All of these decisions are going to be assessed by the integrated Decisional System in the database of decisions as the 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 of the actual project, and finally the prediction of the actual project.

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

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

One difference between the integrated Modelling System (the final global Modelling System in the sixth phase) and the standardized Modelling System (the 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,  seven rational comparative adjustments more.

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

In a triangulation process, in order to determine the position of anything or being, it 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 area 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 driverless cars have mathematical models or projects of crossing at different times the same position, it is necessary to compare what is going on in 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, the other from Miami to California, their routes cross the same position, but at different times, within a different of a few minutes, any delay in that first jet is 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 control this situation, through artificial intelligence, 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 for any reason this communication 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.

Every particular decision must be firstly communicated to the global Decisional System, because apart from the standards mechanism of communication between particular programs and the Global Artificial Intelligence, it is necessary to set up global and permanent mechanisms of control on the ground where, independently 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, 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 a particular decision has been communicated to the global Decisional System, is a decision that it can have variations during the performance, are 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 it is a highly 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. In the end, by equifinality, it does not matter how a decision is included in 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 that regardless of how, absolutely all particular decisions 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 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 the necessity to manage and coordinate all programs in order to carry out the plan (the global project), Global Artificial Intelligence, as a global data center, must be able to develop special 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 management that other program or Specific Artificial Intelligence, or otherwise, to eliminate that program or intelligence.

If a particular program or Specific Artificial Intelligence challenges Global Artificial Intelligence, the elimination 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 to that challenge is the mathematical solution to that problem.

In game theory, the most suitable player to win is the 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 a combinatory of equations. At the same time, efficiency is the progressive reduction of any source of error margin of error, getting the most suitable levels of Effective Distribution on any decision.

If Global Artificial Intelligence, gaming against another intelligence or program, is able to make a list of all possible mathematical equations 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 the 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 Global Artificial Intelligence now that artificial learning is very advanced, this technology could make our world better, but the fact is 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 for the opposite.

The potential misuse of artificial learning could pose serious challenges to essential values such as democracy, freedom, and human rights, with risks that may significantly impact global stability.

In order to manage all possible intelligence, program or application, including, and very especially, the management of all possible Specific Artificial Intelligence based on artificial learning, is through the entire development of Global Artificial Intelligence, up to the seventh phase or more (later I will give some notes about the eight phase), so 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 of the game, 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 of 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 on 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 case, in accordance with these 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 according to the empirical probabilities recorded on 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 more sophisticated algorithms more focused on artificial creativity rather than frequency; 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 expecting, 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 an unpredictable decisions, very creative, with a high level of efficiency, at least to win the game, acting against the previous expectations of the Specific Artificial Intelligence.

A Specific Artificial Intelligence only based on artificial learning has a very high probability of losing playing with Global Artificial Intelligence, which is going to be the one with the most probability of winning 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. Having available all these algorithms, our Global Artificial Intelligence is not going to choose by definition the one with the higher rates or frequencies, but that one as a combination of several of them which, not having performed in the past with high frequency, but having a high Effective Distribution and low Impact of the Defect, is the most suitable, and most unexpected, and most creative, so as to be the winner.

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:

- For the first time in history, in the fifth phase, we are going to interact directly with Global Artificial Intelligence (at the beginning of standardised Global Artificial Intelligence, and as soon as it develops to the sixth phase, the integrated Global Artificial Intelligence).

- Experiments on human psychology and artificial psychology are the basis for the development of a Global Artificial Intelligence as a 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 the first time in the history of the first superintelligence, the Global Artificial Intelligence, as a replica of our human brain, replicating all possible psychological process mathematically

In essence, the sixth phase is the synthesis of the global matrix (the first stage in the standardized Global Decisional System) and the unified database of categories (the first stage in the Unified Application), creating for the 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 with in the first particular matrixes in the fifth phase, as particular matrixes for particular programs for particular things or beings, where 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 how the particular matrix works, in order to be replicated later in the matrix in the sixth phase, it 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 authorising that the particular program could have access to the matrix, according to the security level of the information able to get, not all programs should have access to all information, making it necessary the assignation security codes for 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 it is helping. The information that a particular program needs to have access to must be based on the particular relevant information for the completion of its purpose.

- Collaboration between the particular database of rational hypothesis, as the 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 a 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, it 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 problems in any stage or process within the global Decisional System due to the combination of global and particular decisions in the same database and mathematical projects are resolved, it 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 reached 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) or partial contradictions, all those decisions and/or adjustments 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 totally 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 if not being compatible, or 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 for 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 caused by the independent variables associated with that decision, drawing a possible empirical probabilities associated with 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 are at least two parallel processes:

- 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 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 altogether 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, 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 be 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.

This is a geometrical complexity because of the exponential curve that the 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 relations is able to become a factor, there is no limit to the complexity, it is infinite. The complexity is a dependent variable of a 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) has 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 found out that single pure equation of everything, there are 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.

Rubén García Pedraza, 6th of October of 2018, London
Reviewed 21 October 2019, Madrid

Reviewed 16 May 2025, London, Leytostone