Particular Decisional System

The particular Decisional System is designed in the fifth phase, for the construction, firstly, of the first Particular Deductive Programs for particular things or beings (while separately the first Particular Applications for particular things or beings are constructed as well), secondly, the synthesis of Particular Applications and particular programs creating the first Particular Applications for Particular Deductive Programs for particular things or beings, working within the Artificial Research by Deduction in the Global Artificial Intelligence, evolving towards the Global Artificial Intelligence.

This long process in the fifth phase is going to be made through at least three different periods:

- First period of coexistence: Specific Artificial Intelligences for Artificial Research, by Deduction or Application, still works on the reality, while the standardization process is still in the first period of coexistence, only when experiments in the Artificial Research by Deduction in the Global Artificial Intelligence start having successful results, Specific Artificial Intelligences for Artificial Research by Deduction are about to be transformed into specific programs within the Artificial Research by Deduction in the Global Artificial Intelligence. When the transformation process of Specific Artificial Intelligences starts, another possible evolution is their transformation into particular programs, starting the second period of formation in particular programs.

- Second period of formation, when Specific Artificial Intelligences for Artificial Research, by Deduction or Application, start being transformed into either specific deductive programs or particular deductive programs. Particularly in the fifth phase, the second period of formation will have two different moments, the first one of experimentation, followed by the second moment of generalisation after getting successful results. Firstly, experimentation in particular programs, separately, and particular applications. Secondly, experimentation for the union of both in one: particular programs for particular applications or particular applications for particular programs, both names designed the same product, the union of particular programs and applications as an experiment for the future integration process in the sixth phase uniting the Unified Application and the Artificial Research by Deduction in the Global Artificial Intelligence, whose most important result is the replication of the human brain in the matrix, distributed in two hemispheres: the conceptual hemisphere and the factual hemisphere; subdividing every hemisphere in two sections: first section of natural and social phenomena, second section of technological phenomena.

- Third period of consolidation, all or almost all Specific Deductive Programs for Artificial Research, by Deduction or Application, have become an specific or a particular deductive program, in addition to all new specific or deductive programs created since then for new sub-factoring levels in the global matrix, or for particular things or beings not having this technology ready yet. Once the consolidation period is achieved, or nearly, in the third phase of standardization, fourth phase of unification, fifth phase of particular programs for particular applications, then the Global Artificial Intelligence is ready for the next sixth phase, the integration process for the creation of the first matrix as a replica of the human brain.

The main difference between specific deductive programs and particular deductive programs, is, while specific programs work in the global matrix since the third phase, the factual hemisphere of the matrix in the sixth phase, has at least one specific program for every sub-factoring level in the global matrix or factual hemisphere of the matrix, making global/specific deductions, particular programs work for particular things or beings, making deductions upon their particular matrix, only for their particular things or beings, and upon the deductions, the decision making process to improve and enhance the situation of its particular thing or being.

In the global matrix in the standardization process, organised as a positional encyclopaedia, the encyclopaedia of every position, receiving data from all factors from all possible subjects (science, discipline, activity) in any position (geographical area), organizing the data of every position in an encyclopaedic sub-section system as the encyclopaedia of that position, and later organizing all positions in sub-factoring levels, as a Russian dolls system, under this organization, then the sub-factoring level covering all the United States of America (including as sub-factors every State, including every state as sub-factors all possible location, including every location as sub-factors all possible position), is that sub-factoring level whose specific program is responsible for the deduction making process across all subject (science, discipline, activity) in the United States of America.

While the particular deduction program for a drive-less car (as a particular application) within the Artificial Research by Deduction in the Global Artificial Intelligence, makes deductions (to be on the particular database of rational hypothesis as the first stage of its particular Decisional System, sending every rational hypothesis to the global Modelling System to be modelled), and as a consequence, makes decisions (to be on the particular database of decisions in the particular Decisional System, and on the global Decisional System in the global project), about how to drive the car or any other question related to that purpose, using for that end all types of possible mathematical methodologies, such as artificial learning, “Probability and Deduction”, trigonometry, and artificial skills for solving mathematical problems.

Every particular deduction or decision and particular decision must be communicated  to the global Modelling System and global Decisional System respectively, because the Global Artificial Intelligence needs to have updated the database of deductions and decisions at any time, to make a very realistic global model and global project, to decide wisely about every possible decision able to change the global model in accordance with a very accurate global project.

Particular programs managed by the Global Artificial Intelligence, as a global data centre, in a very realistic and accurate global model and global project. Global Artificial Intelligence will need to be permanently updated with all information and decisions coming from the particular programs, decisions able to save lives and protect our human rights.

Another example of a possible particular program for a particular thing, a particular program tracking climate change, having for that purpose its own particular matrix, its own particular Modelling System, and even its own particular Decisional System, Application System and Learning System. Such a particular program, able to track and predict natural disasters related to climate change, could be able to help us to make this world much better and more human.

And the most important particular programs for particular things or beings, those ones for human beings, especially after the achievement of the union of particular applications and particular programs, making possible the creation of particular programs for particular applications for human beings, what synthesized with our cyborg evolution, is going to bring us incredible results able to change the conception of our human essence, the ghost. As I have explained in other posts, the psychological cyborg evolution could be distributed in three phases:

- First phase in the psychological cyborg evolution, the outer assistant: the current one, based on all those artificial assistants that we currently have on our devices: mobile phones, laptops, computers, tablets, smart TV, tablets, etc…

- Second phase in the psychological cyborg evolution, the inner assistant: when mind reading is available, all outer assistants can interact with us directly in our mind.

- Third phase in the psychological cyborg evolution is the total synthesis between the human mind and artificial intelligence: our human brain will be able to interact with other artificial intelligences directly mentally. 

Once the experimentation on particular applications and particular programs is successful, the synthesis of both technologies in only one, particular applications for particular programs, is going to come true the possibility that only one application could gather all the information of absolutely everything in its respective particular thing or being, designing all kind of conceptual: schemes, maps, sets, models; gathering all possible category (concept) of its own particular thing or being, what synthesized with all the data from all possible factor to measure in that particular thing or being, the synthesis of both sources of information: categories (conceptual information) and data (factual information); can make possible the creation of the first particular matrix as a replica of a human brain, subdividing the particular matrix in two hemispheres: the conceptual hemisphere (based on categories), the factual hemisphere (based on data).

What is going to make possible the compatibility between human mind and artificial intelligence in order to interact at the same level, or nearly (in further advancements, completely) in the third phase of the psychological cyborg evolution, is the possibility that in parallel that by mind reading will be possible the commensurability and translatability between human thoughts and the mathematical operations and codes behind the artificial psychology, another parallel process that takes place is the replication of the human brain in artificial psychology.

In the same way that brain language and mathematical codes are commensurable and translatable mutually, the structure of the inner artificial psychology should be designed as a replica of our inner human psychology.

In this synthesis of human psychology and artificial psychology, the fifth phase will play a key role, because by the time we can get a particular program whose particular application is able to read our thoughts, there will be a moment in which the synthesis of human brain and artificial psychology, as long the fifth phase opens the doors for the sixth phase, if not full yet in the sixth phase, in the seventh phase, the reason itself, the identity between human and artificial could be fullfilled.

The fifth phase, the creation of particular applications and programs for particular things or beings, is not other thing than the experimentation of the integration process at a particular level (before starting the integration process, sixth phase) between particular matrixes for particular things or beings and particular applications for particular things or beings, whose results will later be put into practice in the sixth phase for the creation of the final model Global Artificial Intelligence.

This final model of Global Artificial Intelligence, as the sixth phase, is not the last one; in fact, it is only the start of a new dialectic cycle, whose first thesis will be the seventh phase.

The most important question to put under experimentation by the time, after the creation of the first successful particular deductive programs and applications, is how to synthesise in only one particular matrix, concepts and factors, as a replica of a human brain, sub-dividing the particular matrix in two hemispheres: the conceptual hemisphere (categories), and the factual hemisphere (data).

In this process is very important to be aware of the whole journey that took place since the first phase. Every single phase, period, moment, instant, in our evolution into artificial psychology, has its own finality.

Once the first phase for the construction of Specific Artificial Intelligences for Artificial Research, by Application and Deduction, has been successful, like their collaboration in the second phase, these results are used for the construction of the first Global Artificial Intelligence in the standardization process in the third phase, as a global synthesis of all or almost all Specific Artificial Intelligence for Artificial Research by Deduction susceptible of this transformation in only one, the standardized Global Artificial Intelligence. Likewise, all or almost all Specific Artificial Intelligence for Artificial Research by Application, susceptible to this transformation, is synthesised in only one Unified Application, in the unification process.

The same as Specific Artificial Intelligences for Artificial Research by Deduction, if suitable, are synthesized in the standardization process creating the first Global Artificial Intelligence, making global/specific deductions-decisions, then those Specific Artificial Intelligences for Artificial Research by Deduction, if suitable, able to make particular deductions-decisions for particular things or beings, are going to be transformed into Particular Deductive Programs within the Artificial Research by Deduction in the Global Artificial Intelligence, what means that while the standardization and unification process goes on towards the creation of an integrated Global Artificial Intelligence in the sixth phase, able to make global/specific deductions, another parallel process is taking place at particular level.

If there is an intelligent delivery system, used for the delivery of letters, goods, products, millions and millions of drones around the world, or there is an intelligent drive-less car system responsible for millions and millions of drive-less cars around the world, at a global level the specific program responsible for the global organization of all drone or drive-less cars around the world, is a specific program within the Artificial Research by Deduction in the Global Artificial Intelligence. At any time that the specific program makes a rational equation (hypothesis), is sent to the global database of rational hypotheses in the global Modelling System, to study its compatibility with the existing mathematical models, and passing the rational checks, is on the mathematical models, and over these models, the decision making process sending all decision to the global Decisional System.

But at the same time that that specific program working for the Global Artificial Intelligence, is making deductions, and upon these deductions the global Modelling System can make decisions, to be processed by the global Decisional System, is necessary that at the same time every single drone in the global delivery system, and every single drive-less car in the global driving system, every single drone or car must have its own particular deduction program in its particular application, due to the necessity of managing very fast any possible contradiction that could affect its integrity in very few seconds, not enough time to be processed by the Global Artificial Intelligence.

If we are flying on a jet only piloted directly by the Global Artificial Intelligence, not having its own particular deductive program, in case by accident something happens and in very few seconds it is necessary an immediate decision to save the passengers and the crew, if in order to save the jet firstly all the information has to be processed by the Global Artificial System, is quite possible that before starting the Global Artificial Intelligence processing that information, the jet crashes.

In these possible situations, one solution is to design particular programs, working under the direction, management, and control of the Global Artificial Intelligence, are able to make particular deductions and decisions, putting the particular programs directly into practice high extreme priority decisions (after passing a particular quick rational check) communicating afterwards this decision to the global Decisional System, in order to be included on the database of decisions and the global Project for further global adjustments.

Along with high extreme decisions, other methodologies could be used for those particular extreme decisions but not so high, that after the particular quick rational check in the particular Decisional System, should pass the global quick rational check in the global Decisional System, and not having contradiction authorizing the global Decisional System to implement the particular Decisional System these decisions.

Normal particular decisions should pass the seven rational adjustments in the particular Decisional System, plus the seven rational adjustments in the global Decisional System, plus the seven comparative rational adjustments ( comparative adjustments) once the particular programs are consolidate,d evolving in general the Global Artificial Intelligence into the sixth phase.

Particular routine decisions should pass at least the particular quick rational check, afterwards, it should be communicated to the global Decisional System, and particular automatic decisions automatically should be put into practice, being communicated to the global Decisional System.

The reason why particular high extreme priority decisions should be put into practice by the particular program directly, communicating these decisions afterwards to the global Decisional System, is because the success of a really high extreme priority decision could be a question of minutes, seconds, or less, under such circumstances, the faster the better. Once a high extreme priority decision has started being implemented, it is communicated to the global Decisional System. So that the Global Decisional System could make as many adjustments across all the global projects, to avoid any possible contradiction between that particular high extreme priority decision and any other possible decision on the global project.

But even, if a high extreme priority decision has been made by a particular program, putting it into practice immediately, informing the global Decisional System afterwards, even if this particular high extreme priority decision has any contradiction respect to another one even more priority on the global project, the first one should be adjusted by the global Decisional System, sending the Global Decisional System all the adjustments to the particular application of that particular program in order to include in the equations of that decision the new adjustments made by the global Decisional System, in order to make as many adjustments as necessary in the instructions given to the particular Application System, new adjusted instructions that the Application System must put into practice as soon as possible.

If there is a volcano in Iceland, and at the same time hundreds of drones and drive-less cars start helping thousands of people, evacuating the whole population of a city, many drones and drive-less cars at the same time, in order to save lives (while the volcano does not stop launching lava, rocks, and ashes to the sky, putting at risk drones, cars, and people), are going to make hundreds of high priority decisions that they must sent to the global Decisional System in the Global Artificial Intelligence

All these particular decisions should be managed by the global Decisional System in the Global Artificial Intelligence, and at any time that the global Decisional System in the Global Artificial Intelligence finds out contradictions between two or more high extreme priority decisions made by two or more particular programs for particular drones or drive-less cars, the global Decisional System directly makes as many adjustments in the equations of those decisions whose priority level is lower, sending the new mathematical adjustments to the corresponding particular programs of their particular drones and drive-less cards, in order to avoid accidents while rescuing people in Iceland.

The relation between Global Artificial Intelligence and particular programs is a hierarchical relation. Most decisions from all particular programs must be previously, if not authorised by, at least communicated to, the global Decisional System. And in high extreme decisions, having previously at least communicated this decision to the global Decisional System (including the decision into the global database of decisions in the global Decisional System), only passing a particular quick rational check must be put into practice, later on if the global Decisional System finds out contradictions respect to other ones with higher priority level in the global project, a high extreme priority decision made by a particular program could be adjusted by the global Decisional System, and communicating the global Decisional System these adjustments to the particular Decisional System of that particular program, the particular Decisional System of that particular program must include these adjustments varying the instructions to its particular Application System in accordance with these new mathematical adjustments.

In general, at a particular level, it is possible to identify at least these types of decisions:

- First type, high extreme priority decisions at a particular level: the highest possible extreme decisions at a particular level, so high that the particular programs should put them into practice only passing a quick rational check at a particular level, does not need to wait for the authorization from the global Decisional System, only is necessary to communicate these decisions to the global Decisional System (inclusion of these decisions into the global database of decisions as first stage in the global Decisional System). Once these decisions are stored in the global database of decisions, if there are contradictions between a high extreme priority decision made at a particular level and any other decision made at any other level (global/specific or by any other different particular program for any other thing or being), if the other decision has a higher priority level, at least higher than the first decision, the first one must be adjusted by the global Decisional System, and the adjustment in its mathematical equation sent to the particular program responsible for this decision, in order that, including these adjustments in the original decision, in order to make adjustments in the corresponding instructions, so the particular Application System can introduce as many variations as necessary. If a drone flying from Reykjavik to some location to rescue people, the drone has to make a highly extreme decision to avoid a rain of ashes, lava, or rocks, at some point of its route, while a volcano is erupting, and once this high extreme priority decision is on the global project, the global Decisional System finds out a high probability of accident between this first drone and another one at some point of their routes, if the priority of the second drone is higher than the first drone, the global Decisional System should make adjustments on the route of the first drone, sending the instructions to its particular program, and the particular program in accordance with the new adjusted mathematical equations on its route made by the global Decisional System, the particular program sends new instructions to its particular Application System to vary its route in accordance with the new global instructions. Within the first type of decisions would be possible to make different sub-types according to different priority levels, so on the top, there must be the highest extreme priority level, and below this one, those high extreme priority decisions but lower than the first sub-type.

- Second type, is extreme priority decisions at a particular level: these decisions are priority but not so high as the first type, so as usual these extreme priority decisions: 1) the particular Decision System checks quickly (particular quick rational check)  any possible contradiction between these extreme priority decisions, although not so high as the first type, respect to any possible first type of high extreme priority decision already on the particular project, or any other second type of possible extreme decision already on the particular project. Within the second type of extreme priority decision, is possible to distinguish different sub-types of extreme priority decisions according to their different extreme priority level. An extreme priority decision but lower than others, in case of contradictions with the others, is the lower one, the one to be adjusted. Once the particular extreme decisions has been authorised by the particular Decisional System, or the Decisional System makes its own adjustments on that extreme priority decision (to avoid contradictions respect to other first or second types of decisions on the particular mathematical project), then 2) the particular Decisional System sends this particular extreme priority decision to the global Decisional System, for its inclusion into the global database of decisions as first stage in the global Decisional System, and applying the global Decisional System the quick rational again on this particular extreme decision, but now comparing the particular extreme priority decision of that particular program, respect to any other global/specific extreme priority decision, or any other extreme priority decision made by any other different particular program, treating all particular extreme decision as any other  global extreme decision, in the global Decisional System, and if passing the quick rational check in the global database of decisions, the global Decisional System authorises the particular program to put the decision into practice, otherwise the global Decisional System can make adjustments to be sent to their corresponding particular programs, having partial contradictions, but having found out full contradictions (without mathematical solution) the decision is sent back to the source to make a new decision. If by the time that extreme decision is sent back to the particular program, the risk for people is higher, the particular program could make changes in that decision, according to the contradictions found in the equation by the global Decisional System, but considering now the decision as a high extreme decision if the risk for people now is higher, so putting the decision directly into practice, sending this new adjusted decision afterwards to the global Decisional System waiting for further adjustments if necessary..

- Third type, normal particular decisions: at a particular level, in the particular program, all particular normal decision made by a particular program has to pass the seven particular rational adjustments in the particular Decisional System of that particular program. If passing the seven particular rational adjustments in the particular Decisional System of that particular program, or having the particular Decisional System made as many adjustments as necessary in a particular normal decision, the decision is sent by the particular program to the global Decisional System, to store that particular decision into the global database of decisions as first stage in the global Decisional System, in order that the global Decisional System can apply the seven rational adjustments again but now at global level, comparing this particular normal decision respect the rest of global/specific normal decisions, or any other normal decision from any other particular program, in addition to the seven rational comparative adjustments once the sixth phase is achieved, and passing the seven rational adjustments, and comparative adjustments in the sixth phase, or making as many adjustments, a particular decision is ready to be applied, the global Decisional System sends back the decision to the particular program, with the necessary adjustments if any, to be applied by the particular Application System of that particular program.

- Fourth type, routine particular decisions: in the experimentation process, in order to avoid the funnel effect on the global Decisional System, would be recommendable the study of some criteria to avoid these decisions, or most of them, have to be processed by the global Decisional System, so the quick rational check could be entirely done by the particular Decisional System, an later communicated to the global Decisional System to be on the global database of decisions and on the global project, in case of contradictions between routine decisions and normal decisions in the seven rational adjustments plus the seven rational comparative adjustments when analyzing normal decisions on the global project, or contradictions between these routine decisions and extreme or high extreme priority decisions doing quick rational checks for extreme or high extreme priority decisions. If finding contradictions between routine decisions and normal decisions analyzing normal decisions, or contradictions between routine decisions and extreme or high extreme decisions by doing quick rational checks, if finding out contradictions the result in the global Project is the modification of those routine decisions affected by the contradictions, these modifications should be communicated by the Global Artificial Intelligence to all those particular programs affected, to be included the amendments on the particular program in accordance with the adjustments made by the global Decisional System.

- Fifth type, automatic particular decisions: given a combination of measurements in a combination of factors in a particular thing or being, related always to the same particular decision, automatically the particular program can set up this decision as an automatic decision at any time that this combination of measurements and factors is on the particular matrix, particular model or particular project. The requirement is, although being automatic decisions, must be communicated to the global Decisional System, to be on the database of decisions and the global project, just in case of further contradictions with respect to other possible decisions at global/specific level or any other particular decision made by this or other particular program.

- Sixth type, (quick or normal) external decisions, when a decision made by the global Artificial Intelligence or any other particular program, is necessary to be applied, fully or partially, by other different particular program, or a particular program needs the Global Decisional System for the application of some particular decision. So there are at least two sub-types of external decisions: 1) first sub-type of decision within the sixth type, an external decision made by one particular program that must be implemented, fully or partially, by other different particular program or the Global Artificial Intelligence, if possible, 2) second sub-type of decision within the sixth type, an external decision made by the Global Artificial Intelligence which not having the most extreme priority level, needs to be applied, fully or partially, by a particular program. There can be situations in which the Global Artificial Intelligence or a particular program needs to ask for a favour to another particular program. In this situation, in addition to the quick rational check or rational adjustments made by the particular Decisional System of that particular program, asking for that favour and/or the assessments and possible adjustments made by the global Particular System, that particular program which has been asked, needs to pass its own particular assessments, particular quick rational checks or particular rational adjustments, in order to evaluate possible contradictions with its own particular mathematical projects and that external decision requested by a different particular program or the Global Artificial Intelligence itself. If there is an eruption in Iceland, and there is a location in which the Global Artificial Intelligence has located a drive-less car not damaged yet, instead of sending other drive-less cars from Reykjavik to that location, another possibility is to send from the global Decisional System an external decision to that remaining drive-less car in that location, in order that this car, if possible, can comply some rescue mission in that position. Another situation: by the time our cyborg psychology evolves from our current first phase in the cyborg psychology evolution (the outer assistant), to the second phase (the inner assistant), thanks to new technologies based on mind reading/modification, when this technology starts being available for the masses, there will be a moment in which verbal communication will be partially (and in the future maybe completely) substituted by mental communication. The union of mental communication and artificial intelligence will make it possible that, instead of asking verbally for a favour from one person to another, directly, the particular programs of each of them can exchange messages directly, or even do favours mutually, even if their corresponding persons are not conscious. If we are enjoying our vacations on a solitary beach with our family, and by accident someone of us is unconscious (so unable to express ourselves verbally or mentally) in the water, at risk of drowning, as soon the particular program of that person realises the risk, his/her particular program could send an external decision to the closest particular program of the closest adult, in order that the particular program of the closest adult, can send the necessary range of instructions to the brain of that adult, to practice pulmonary cardio breathing on that unconscious person in the water at risk of drowning, in order to save his/her life.

- Seventh type, global orders, only under the most extreme global priority levels, regardless of the situation of the particular mathematical projects on a particular program for a particular thing or being, under the most extreme global priority levels, if the particular program for a particular thing or being received a direct global order from the Global Decisional System, the particular program must put the order into practice immediately without hesitation. In order to avoid any contradiction between the global order and the particular mathematical project, the particular Decisional System adjusts any possible contradiction of any other possible decision on the particular project, adjusting any possible contradiction of any decision to the new requirements from the current global order to comply immediately, sending the results of these adjustments to the Global Artificial Intelligence in order to be included in the global database of decisions and global project, and susceptible to be readjusted again in case of contradictions between these new particular adjustments and the current conditions on the global project, or any new further global order.

The relation between particular programs and the Global Artificial Intelligence is always asymmetrical. Particular programs have to communicate to the Global Artificial Intelligence any information and their decisions to be included in the global model and the global project..

- If according to the conceptual schemes, maps, sets, models, about its particular thing or being based on categories in the conceptual hemisphere of the particular matrix, to fill any gap or space blank in conceptual schemes, maps, sets, models, is necessary the measurement of any new factor by the particular program, the setting of new factors in the factual hemisphere in any particular program must be communicated to the Global Artificial Intelligence, and the flow of data of this new factor included into the corresponding sub-section in the corresponding sub-factoring level in the global matrix (third phase), factual hemisphere of the matrix (sixth phase).

- Any new rational hypothesis made by any particular program, in addition to be included in the global database of rational hypotheses as the first stage in the global Modelling System, as a factor as an option must be included in the factual hemisphere in the particular matrix and the global matrix (third phase) or factual hemisphere of the matrix (sixth phase).

- Any particular decision made by a particular program, even particular high extreme decisions, first type, must always be communicated to the global Decisional System, although later on the methodology to use with every decision is according to its type: first type high extreme priority decisions, second type extreme priority decisions, third type normal decisions, fourth type routine decisions, fifth type automatic decisions; sixth type as external decisions and seventh type as global orders, are the only decisions that a particular Decisional System can process although these are not decisions made by the particular Decisional System, as their source of origin could be any other particular program or the Global Artificial Intelligence itself, in global orders always only the Global Artificial Intelligence itself.

But the Global Artificial Intelligence never has the obligation to share any possible information with any particular program, unless it has the authorisation from the global Decisional System.

At any time that a particular program needs access to the global matrix (third phase) or factual hemisphere of the matrix (sixth phase), must ask for authorization to the global Decisional System, these decisions about authorization to access the global matrix or the matrix, are considered as knowledge objective auto-replications, if the request is for access to the global matrix (third phase) or factual hemisphere (sixth phase), is a explicative knowledge objective auto-replication, if the request is for access to the conceptual hemisphere in the matrix is a comprehensive knowledge objective auto-replication.

The decision for the authorization of access of any intelligence, program, application, to any database:  matrix, rational hypothesis, decisions; must be authorised by the global Decisional System, in fact, in the sixth phase, as long as the matrix consists of natural/social information and technological information, so there are going to be rational hypothesis about natural/social phenomena and technological phenomena, so there are going to be natural/social models and technological models, all of them included into the global model, then the global model as global mathematical representation of absolutely everything, including the mathematical representation of the Global Artificial Intelligence itself, over the mathematical representation of the Global Artificial Intelligence itself, the global Decisional System is going to be able to make projects on itself, and making decisions on itself, one of these decisions, the authorization of what information from the Global Artificial Intelligence can be shared with other intelligences, programs, and applications, and what information is completely under the most strict guidelines of security.

Rubén García Pedraza, 22th of September of 2018, London
Reviewed 20 October 2019, Madrid

Reviewed 24 October 2023, London

Reviewed 16 May 2025, London, Leytostone

First stage in the standardized Decisional System

The first stage in the standardised Decisional System is the database of decisions, where the standardised Modelling System files all decisions in their corresponding files. The organisation of the database of decisions must follow the virtue or principle of harmony, sharing the same organisational criteria as the rest of similar databases, such as the global matrix, the global database of rational hypotheses, and the global database of instructions.

The responsible for archiving every decision in the right file in the global database of decisions is the global Modelling System, which once has made any decision in the third stage in the global Modelling System, the global Modelling System stores the decision in the corresponding file in the database of decisions as first stage of the global Decisional System.

However, the responsible for the management of the global database of decisions is the Decisional System itself as the first stage. The contents to develop in this post regarding the first stage in the standardized Decisional System are: the organizational criteria in the global database of decisions, including the development of a unified list of decisions and the setting of logical sets according to some key variables (such as: priority, relative frequency, frequency of contradictions, sub-section, sub-factor),  how the Decisional System manages the global database of decisions, and the evolution of the Decisional System, and how affects to the global database of decisions, from the coexistence period to the consolidation period.

Firstly I will develop the organization of the global database of decisions, as the first stage in the standardised Decisional System, taking as a model the organizational criteria in the global matrix as a synthesis of:  1) the subject (science, discipline, activity) criteria as an encyclopaedic sub-section system per 2) position or area, geographical criteria, organised in a sub-factoring system (as a Russian dolls system, for instance: the organization of every encyclopaedic sub-section per village, town, city, as factors themselves, included as sub-factors within their respective county or shire as a factor, in turn, sub-factor within their State or country, in turn, sub-factor within their continent, in turn, sub-factor within the planet, in turn, sub-factor in the solar system, in turn, sub-factor in our region in the universe, which in turn could be sub-factor of who know which other and superior entity).

In synthesis, the organization of the global matrix as factual encyclopaedia of any geographical area, setting for all positions or geographical areas and all encyclopaedic sub-sections for that position or geographical area.

In the same way, the organisation in the database of decisions should be the synthesis of the encyclopaedic and geographical criteria, as a system of at least one file for every sub-section in every sub-factoring level, so every decision is archived in its corresponding file according to subject and location.

Understanding for sub-factoring level system, that one able to comprehend absolutely all positions: universe, region of the universe, black holes, nebula, stars, galaxies, asteroids, planets, continents, countries, counties or shires, cities, towns, villages, natural spaces, ending up with every single position in a coordinate system, as a Russian dolls system; and understanding for encyclopaedic sub-section system all the sub-sections in which any subject in any encyclopaedia could be sub-divided.

One difference between the database of decisions, with respect to the organisation of the global matrix and the global database of rational hypothesis, but in common with the database of instructions, is a new criterion, the priority criterion.

While the global matrix and the global database of rational hypotheses only have to keep the criteria related to the subject (encyclopaedic) and position (geographical), what in the global matrix means: for every position as a sub-factor the inclusion of all encyclopaedic sub-sections of that sub-factor; so in the global matrix every factor as subject or option is included in its corresponding encyclopaedic sub-section within its corresponding geographical sub-factoring level.

Later on, having the global database of rational hypotheses per geographical sub-factoring level, as many encyclopaedic sub-sections as sub-sections are per sub-factoring level in the global matrix, but filling the file of every sub-section per position in the global database of rational hypotheses with rational hypotheses instead of data: once the specific deduction programs have made a rational hypothesis, the specific deduction programs file every rational hypothesis in the corresponding file in the global database of rational hypotheses, according to sub-section and sub-factoring level.

But in the database of decisions as the first stage in the global Decisional System, and the database of instructions as the first stage in the Application System, in addition to the subject and geographical criteria, it is necessary the inclusion of the priority criteria.

The priority criteria means, that in every file for every sub-section (of any subject) within every sub-factoring level (in any position or geographical area), the decisions archived in that file must be ordered according to their priority, hence having more than one new decision filed, the order to follow by the standardised Decisional System, to make rational adjustments or quick decisions, and the order to follow in the second stage to project any decision, depends on the order in which that decision has been archived according to the priority level: making any rational adjustment or quick rational check, and later making the projects, firstly in those decisions whose priority level is higher, and later the assessment and projects of all those decisions whose priority level is lower.

Because the first assessment, rational adjustments or quick rational checks, can produce changes across all the database of decisions, there is a moment in which, if it is necessary to adjust or check any new decision respect to all new updates that constantly the database of decisions has, the only way to make the first assessments correctly: rational adjustments and quick rational checks; is through, simultaneously all decisions are filed in their respective files in the database, the creation of a unified list of decisions: ordering every decision on the list by: priority, relative frequency, and having some relative frequency in that case indicating also the frequency of contradiction ( this  last one only applicable if having before some relative frequency, otherwise it is a decision which has not got any contradiction in the past, the frequency of contradiction is zero) ; at the same time that, along with this order in the unified list of decisions by priority level, relative frequency, and frequency of contradictions, every decision is labelled with the corresponding: sub-section and sub-factoring level.

This possible unified list of decisions, could be organised by having for every priority level all decisions belonging to that priority level, ordering the decisions within the priority level according to their relative frequency, and having more than one decision with the same relative frequency, ordering the decisions from that one with zero frequency of contradictions as first one, to the nth one with the higher frequency of contradictions as last one.

In this way, is possible to catalogue all decisions using these variables: priority, relative frequency, frequency of contradictions if having some relative frequency, sub-section (science, discipline, activity), sub-factor (geographical location).

Every new decision in the database of decisions could be archived in the database of decisions, and simultaneously ordered in the unified list of decisions, being defined the decision according to: priority, relative frequency, frequency of contradictions, sub-section and sub-factor.

On top of the list are those decisions with the highest priority level, and at the end of the list are those decisions with the lowest priority level, and for every priority level all decisions are ordered according to the relative frequency and frequency of contradictions

The consideration of what decision has some kind of relative frequency depends on the setting of margins of error for every kind of decision. If someone regularly withdraws 500 pounds in ATM, but one day only withdraws 100 pounds, but another day 3000 pounds, the possibility of withdrawing 100 pounds could be within the margin of error admitted as a regular decision, and it can have some relative frequency in the past, but 3000 probability has not got enough relative frequency, is out of the margin of error, and it will be necessary further adjustments, especially if the money to withdraw is superior to cash available for that customer according to available data, in that case, the adjustment will end up not authorizing that decision, something really useful when someone tries to make a fraud.

But something even more important than the list itself is the possibility of setting up a complete methodology to classify all the decisions in a set system, setting discrete categories of priority, discrete categories of relative frequency, discrete categories of frequency of contradictions, categories according to sub-factor, categories according to sub-section.

The setting of categories per sub-section, much more than discrete categories, is the transformation of having more than one sub-factoring level in one common sub-section, the logical set for this sub-section, is the consideration of this subsection as a logical set to include all possible decisions related to this sub-section in any sub-factoring level.

If more than one sub-factoring level, have in common one sub-section, all the decisions related to this sub-section in every sub/factoring level, are decisions to be included in the corresponding set for that sub-section among all sub-factoring levels.

So, there are at least as many different sub-section sets as different encyclopaedic sub-sections in which the encyclopaedic knowledge could be sub-divided. 

In every sub-factoring level in which there could be some factor as subject or option belonging to any possible sub-section, all the information regarding to these factors (information as: data in a global matrix, rational hypotheses in the rational truth, projects in the Decisional System, instructions in the Application System) is information to be stored in the corresponding file in that database (of: data, hypotheses, decisions, instructions).

Additionally, in the Decisional System, included in the corresponding set for that sub-section in the logical set system.

The main difference between these sets for sub-sections and the sub-sections in every sub-factoring level is the fact that while in every sub-factoring level the corresponding sub-section only stores factors as subjects or options related to that sub-section in its sub-factoring level, instead, the sub-section sets should encompass absolutely all possible decisions regarding the same sub-section across all sub-factoring levels across the database of decisions in the standardised Decisional System.

So, there must be an identical number of sub-section sets in the standardised Decisional System, as sub-sections are in the Unified Application, as a main artificial encyclopaedia. 

Having the Unified Application, and the global Decisional System the same number of sub-section sets, both are within the virtue or principle or harmony, facilitating afterwards followings developments.

Regarding the distribution of sub-factoring levels in categories, every sub-factoring level is, in fact, a category itself, so there are as many sub-factoring sets as sub-factoring levels.

In this organization, by discrete categories, the same decision should be included in its corresponding: priority set, relative frequency set, set of frequency of contradictions if any, sub-factoring set, sub-section set. This will later facilitate working with all decisions in a diagram of Venn.

Working with discrete categories as a set system, is easy to prioritize always those sets with the highest priority in order to make quick rational checks,  in the same way, those sets with the highest relative frequency without a high rate of contradictions in the past (crossing the set of relative frequency and the set of frequency of contradiction, analysing the resulting subset), to make quick rational checks too, and going on with all those decisions less priority and with less relative frequency or with a contradiction level superior to a critical reason, in order to make rational adjustments.

Although the last set mentioned above: a set of decisions with a higher frequency of contradictions in the past, includes decisions more likely to be eliminated on the database, if any of them have a higher priority level to be implemented, should be projected, and as long as the mathematical project is made, to make as many adjustments as necessary in those decisions whose priority level is lower than this one, or in case of contradiction of this one respect to other higher priority decisions, the adjustment of this decision to save those contradictions respect to those other higher priority decisions.

Once all the decisions have been assigned to the corresponding sets of: priority sets, relative frequency sets, frequency of contradiction sets, sub-system sets, sub-factoring sets. In order to make quick rational checks in quick decisions and rational adjustments in normal decisions, the method for the assessment, quick rational check or rational adjustment, could be as easy as comparing every decision, according to its priority level and relative frequency, with the other corresponding sets.

In that case, having organised all the decisions in a set system, and considering every decision as a mathematical expression, the quick rational check and the first rational adjustment, have to compare the mathematical expression of every decision to assess, with the current mathematical expression in every set in which every decision is supposed to be compared.

Because not all set is going to be compared with all sets, some sets are going to be compared only with a very restricted number of sets.

As much higher is a priority set, among all the priority sets, only has to be compared with those ones with a higher priority level, in order to avoid contradictions between a decision with a high priority level and other ones with much higher or the highest priority levels. So, as lower is the priority level of any decision, the number of priority sets to be compared with this decision is larger.

The higher the priority level of any decision, the quicker the rational check to do, only comparing this decision with those with the highest level of priority. So, the decision with the highest level of priority, the quick rational check, will be as easy as to analyse if the mathematical expression behind this decision is or is not projectable.

In order to project any decision, the assessment done by the Decisional System, quick rational check for quick decisions, rational adjustment for normal decisions, in addition to studying contradictions among decisions, must make sure that the mathematical expression has all the necessary elements so as to be projected, the mathematical expression is projectable.

In those decisions with some relative frequency, the quick rational check consists basically of contrasting the relative frequency and the frequency of contradiction, if the relative frequency is sufficiently high having zero or a pretty menial frequency of contradictions (frequency of contradictions divided by relative frequency) equal or less than a critical reason, the decision is authorised.

The main difference between quick decisions and normal decisions, is the fact that quick decisions only passing a quick rational check must be projected and implemented, unless there is another new extreme priority decision, with a much higher priority level demanding adjustments in any other extreme priority decisions, or routine decisions, with lower priority level compared to this one with a much higher priority level.

Regarding routine decisions, if they are quick decisions, and they do not need to pass the seven rational adjustments, in case making any of the seven rational adjustments in any normal decision is a contradiction between a normal decision and a routine decision, if the priority level of that normal decision is higher than the priority level of that routine decision,  the adjustment found must be made on the routine decision.

A routine decision only passing the quick rational check is enough, but if later on there is a contradiction between a routine decision and another normal or extreme decision, in any rational check or adjustment made on that other decision, if there is a contradiction between this one and the routine decision, the decision about what decision must be adjusted, is always the adjustment of that decision with less priority level to that other one with higher priority level.

The setting of all decisions in a set system to make quick adjustments and checks, and the inclusion of the priority criterion in the database of decisions, are the main differences between the global database of decisions with respect to the global matrix and the global database of rational hypotheses.

For instance, having organised all decisions in sets, when deciding about a decision having some frequency of contradictions in the past, according to what set of contradictions it has been stored into, low or high, is possible to determine if it is necessary only a quick rational check or rational adjustments, analysing the type of contradictions, and analysing what sets related to what sub-section, this decision is more likely to have contradictions, in order to check or adjust faster as possible all possible contradiction between this decision and any other one already gathered in that set corresponding to that sub-section in which this decision is more likely to have contradictions.

Regardless of the possibility of having all the decisions distributed in a set system, the importance of the database of decisions according to sub-section, sub-factor, priority, and the possibility to have a unified list of categories, is the fact that thanks to this methodology, archiving every decision in its corresponding file, and ordering all decision in a unified list, automatically is possible to label, according to sub-section, sub-factor, priority, any decision, in order to be later included in its respective logical sets, and having the Decisional System a record of all decision on and off along all its history, to count the relative frequency of any decision, and if any, the frequency of contradiction.

Another difference, but with respect to the database of instructions as the first stage in the Application System, is the fact that the database of instructions has two criteria more, the time criterion and the order criterion, indicating exactly the time when an instruction must be complied, in accordance with the order to follow within the range of instructions: first instruction, second instruction, third instruction, etc. The time and order criteria must not only state the order of every instruction, in terms of first, second, third, etc., but also at what time exactly every instruction should be implemented.

For that reason, in the third stage of the standardized Decisional System, when a decision is transformed into a range of instructions, simultaneously it is necessary to set of the order of every instruction (first instruction, second instruction, third instruction…), and the exact time, within a margin of error, when every instruction, according to its order, must be put into practice in the second stage in the Application System.      

Having a good definition of how to organize the database of decisions, and how effective the unified list of decisions, and the distribution of all the decisions in a set system according to: priority, relative frequency, frequency of contradictions, sub-section, sub-factor: it is time to define the main duties that the standardised Decisional System has as a manager of the database of decisions.

The main tasks of the standardised Decisional System in the first stage are:

- Once a new decision is stored (by the global Modelling System) in the corresponding file in the global database of decisions, according to: sub-factor (geographical location), sub-section (subject) in that sub-factor, locating the decision within the file according to its priority level; the standardised Decisional System additionally identifies, in its historical records, the relative frequency of this decision if any, and if having, the frequency of contradictions. If it has a relative frequency, it has never had any contradiction. The frequency of contradiction is zero.

- The inclusion of the new decision in the unified list of decisions, according to priority level, relative frequency, and frequency of contradictions.

- The setting of all the logical sets according to discrete categories of: priority levels, relative frequency, frequency of contradictions, sub-sections, sub-factors.

- The quick rational check of the extreme priority decisions first, once all the extreme priority decisions have been set in the set for extreme priority decisions, making the quick rational check-in priority order: the quick rational check for the highest priority decision mainly consists of making sure that it already has all the elements necessary to be projectable (there is no variable left behind, the mathematical expression is complete), the rest of extreme priority decisions, although being extreme priority decisions, as its priority is not as high as others with a higher priority level, they must be compared with the other ones with higher priority level, adjusting always those ones with less priority to those ones with higher priority.

- The quick rational check of routine decisions, all routine decisions that have sufficient relative frequency without contradiction, or really low empirical probability of contradiction (frequency of contradictions divided by the relative frequency), if having all the elements necessary to be projectable, are authorised.

- The first rational adjustment for normal decisions, even if not being extreme priority decisions, the higher is the priority level, the less the comparisons are necessary, only comparing any decision with those decisions in its own set, and all those sets with higher priority, in addition to check that it is projectable.

- Another important thing that can make easy comparisons: quick checks or adjustments; is the possibility that, having a distribution of sub-section sets and sub-factoring sets, the possibility to study similarities and differences between all the decisions included in any sub-section set, and the similarities and differences between all the decisions included in any sub-factor set. Given a sub-section set, finding more than one similar decision, one possible adjustment, within the virtue or principle or harmony, is to adjust all similar decisions in order to be standardised. Likewise, the study of frequency, similarities and differences in decisions made per every sub-factoring level.

- If the decisional system identifies a core of similar decisions that regularly or under similar circumstances are frequently ordered, in some sub-section set or sub-factor set, checking the current decisions on the database, the unified list, and the logical settings, it would be possible the automation process in order to automatize protocols providing the occurrence of those circumstances, in which these similar decisions are made. If Yolanda always takes the umbrella, when the probability of rain is equal to or superior than some level of probability of rain, there is a moment in which these decisions are completely automatable. If in Chile there is a location with a high frequency of earthquakes, and it is necessary to construct some facilities, automatically, those locations with the highest probability of tectonism are discarded.  Automatically, the decision about where to build those facilities, having exact mathematical information about all the tectonic and climatic data from Chile, is only the automation of what position has the best mathematical probability for those facilities.

- The Decisional System, according to artificial learning, solving maths problems, Probability and Deduction, trigonometrical correlations, etc., should be responsible for the automation of some decisions given some circumstances in which these decisions have a high rate of probability. And any adjustment on any decision should be treated as a new decision, starting from the beginning, modifying the original mathematical expression associated with that decision in the database of decisions, and doing as many assessments, quick rational checks or rational adjustments, as necessary.

- There are two sources of decisions: the Modelling System making decisions upon the models, and the Decisional System making decisions upon the assessments (quick or rational adjustments) and at any time that analysing the historical records,  finds decisions whose relative frequency corresponds to some kind of circumstances, able to be automatable, at any time that these circumstances happen, automatically the corresponding decision is on.

- The Decisional System, finding similar decisions in the same sub-section set, although in different sub-factors, must make sure that similar decisions are put into practice, keeping similar protocols, in accordance with the virtue or principle of harmony. Standardisation at some point means harmonisation. All processes, procedures and protocols should be standardised and harmonised to facilitate compatibility and exchangeability between processes, procedures and protocols.

- Another task for the standardised Decisional System is to keep updated the database of decisions, the unified list of decisions, and the logical sets, only keeping the database, the unified list, and logical sets, decisions still on, removing from the database, the list, and sets, all decisions off.

- The reasons for the consideration of what decisions are off and must be removed from the database, the list, and the sets, are: 1) because the decision has a full contradiction not possible to adjust, 2) because an original decision after being adjusted must be off and removed, because what is going to be on the mathematical project is the new mathematical expression with the adjustments on (so the original expression is not on any more), 3) because after passing all the assessments (quick rational checks, rational adjustments) the decision has been projected and implemented and it has been completed totally by the Application System, so as it has been finished, then is over, can be removed from the database, list, sets, in the database.

- All the removed decisions, the decisions off, must be stored in the historical records of decisions within the Decisional System, as a memory of all the decisions processed by the Decisional System, regardless of their result. So, at any time that the Decisional System has to check the relative frequency of any decision, it can find in the memory as a historical record, if any decision has been made previously, and in case of not having been successful, what contradictions it had, keeping updated the frequency of contradictions for decision.

- Regarding decisions still on, at any time that there is a change in any of them, due to any rational adjustment, the change must be made on the original decision still on the database, the list, and the logical sets, to have update the exact mathematical expression of that decision still on, although adjusted to the new circumstances, as it is being implemented after the adjustments. At the same time, as any change in any original decision supposes that the original decision, as it is not on any longer as it has been changed for another adjusted form, the original decision as decision off must be stored in the memory, as a historical record, indicating what contradiction had and how it was adjusted having as a result the new adjusted decision still on the Decisional System.

The possible changes in the: database, list, and sets; in the first stage of the standardized Decisional System, are in short: 1) when a decision turns off,  due to a full contradiction, 2) a decision turns off because it has been completed by the Application System, 3) an original decision turns off after being adjusted, so the decision on is not the same as the original decision, so the decision still on is an adjusted decision, and the original decision can be considered as off, so removed and stored in the memory, 4) any decision adjusted as a result of any adjustment in any rational adjustment across the Decisional System, 5) the setting of automatic decisions which providing some regular circumstances (analysed by the Decisional System after comparing similar decisions with some relative frequency in sub-section sets and sub-factoring sets), these decisions turn on automatically.

Provided some circumstances, in automatic decisions, the Decisional System should be able to turn on or turn off these automatic decisions, provided that these circumstances are on the mathematical project, the mathematical model, or the global matrix. 

As I have explained in the post “The second stage in the specific Decisional System”, in the design of the second stage of the specific Decisional System is distinguishable at least two periods: the first period when the mathematical projects are designed separately from the mathematical models, second period when the mathematical projects are designed on the mathematical models. This second period could be distributed even in two different moments, the first moment of experimentation, designing the mathematical projects on copies of the mathematical models, and once this technology is ready, the projection of all mathematical projects on the original mathematical models.

In the construction of the standardized Decisional System, due to the complexity of this third phase, which is necessary to combine decisions from all possible subjects in any location, within the spatial limits where the first model of Global Artificial Intelligence is being designed, even although having reached in the second step in the third stage in the first phase, the specific Decisional System, such level of technology as to be able the design of specific mathematical projects directly on the specific mathematical models, what is really important having achieved that, is the fact that the same process used to get this achievement, is the same process to follow in order to get the same achievement but now in something much bigger as the design of the global project on the global model in the first model of Global Artificial Intelligence.

The same procedure used to experiment with how to project specific projects on specific models, in the first phase, the same procedure now must be applicable to the first moment of experimentation in the first period of coexistence in the third phase, the standardization process, in order to standardize how to project any mathematical project from any subject in any location on the global model.

For that reason, in the first moment of experimentation in the first period of coexistence in the third phase, it is possible to distinguish at least in the standardised Decisional System three different instants.

- First instant in the construction of the standardised Decisional System in the first moment of experimentation in the first period of coexistence in the third phase of standardization in the construction of the Global Artificial Intelligence: experiments about how to make single projects, the global project, the actual project, the prediction virtual and actual projects, the evolution virtual and actual projects, separately from the mathematical models made by the global Modelling System.

- Second instant in the construction of the standardised Decisional System in the first moment of experimentation in the first period of coexistence in the third phase of standardization in the construction of the Global Artificial Intelligence: once in the previous instant is possible to make projects separately, to start the experimentation process about how to make single projects, the global project, the actual project, the prediction virtual and actual projects, the evolution virtual and actual projects, on copies of mathematical models made by the global Modelling System.

- Third instant in the construction of the standardised Decisional System in the first moment of experimentation in the first period of coexistence in the third phase of standardization in the construction of the Global Artificial Intelligence: to make single projects, the global project, the actual project, the prediction virtual and actual projects, the evolution virtual and actual projects, on the original mathematical models made by the Modelling System.

As long as the experimentation process is completed, and in the experimentation period achieved how to make projects directly on mathematical models, in the next moment of generalization, the next process is the standardization and generalization, in fact harmonization, of all those processes, procedures, and protocols, involved in the projection process, in order that, regardless of the sub-section or sub-factor of any decision, or level of priority, any decision of any priority level could be projected in any location and sub-section.

Having standardized how to make projects on models, and having the Decisional System access to the global matrix through the actual projects, at any time that the Decisional System identifies in the global matrix or the mathematical models, any recurrent circumstance connected with any recurrent decision (automatic calculation of empirical probabilities of some decisions connected with some factors in the global matrix or the global model), automatically the Decisional System, using artificial learning, should be able to manage directly the situation not waiting for any decision to be issued in the Modelling System, and automatically the Decisional System should be able to turn on that decision related to those circumstances, what is no other thing than the calculation of an empirical probability: relative frequency of that decision divided by the frequency in which this circumstances (combination of factors) has been observed in the past, if the probability is equal to or greater than a critical reason, the decision is on, is rational.

In conclusion, along with the definition of quick decisions as routine decisions and extreme priority decisions, and normal decisions as those decisions neither routine nor extreme, another type of decision is the automatic decision, as that decision designed by artificial learning directly by the standardised Decisional System, what needs the standardization and automation of all the process to create mechanically automatic decisions, which without the necessity of passing any assessment (quick check or adjustment), must be projected and put into practice mechanically.

Although the consideration that some decisions, such as routine decisions, or automatic decisions, do not need to pass the seven rational adjustments, could be interpreted as a risk for the general safety of the global project, what is important to realise is the fact that the Global Artificial Intelligence, has to be designed to process millions and millions of decisions, not for day, or hour, but for minute, second, or less.

In order to process millions and millions of decisions, not per day, or hour, but per minute, second, or less, the only solution is to avoid any funnel effect.

One method to avoid the funnel effect is through the consideration that, having checked that a routine decision has some relative frequency in the past, without contradictions, or having some contradictions, the empirical probability associated with is equal or inferior to some critical reason, or having realised the Decisional System that provided some circumstances (combination of factors) the empirical probability of some decision is really high, so as to transform this decision as an automatic decision whenever this combination of factors happen, the authorization of routine decisions as long as they have some relative frequency with zero or insignificant level of contradictions, and the authorization of automatic decisions, is going to have as a main effect, to focus the seven rational adjustments only on those decisions, normal decisions, in which are more likely to find deeper contradictions.

Along with all the decisions analysed in this post: quick, normal, and finally automatic decisions; other types of decisions which the database of decisions should include are all those decisions related to:

- The authorization or rejection of any other Specific Artificial Intelligence, system, program, or application, for instance, the Unified Application or remaining Specific Artificial Intelligences for Artificial Research by Application or Deduction, to have access to the global matrix, the database of rational hypothesis or any other stage or step in the Global Artificial Intelligence.

- The authorisation or rejection of any improvement or enhancement as proposed by the global Learning System.

- The authorisation or rejection for the construction of new devices, programs, applications, by the Artificial Engineering, within the global Application System.

These last decisions, although not having been discussed so far in this post, belong to the Decisional System, as that system is responsible for the authorisation of absolutely all decisions in the Global Artificial System.

Due to the great number of topics in every post, what I am doing is only a selection of what themes are the most important themes to develop in order to get ready as soon as possible for the Global Artificial Intelligence. But there are many aspects which only in the experimentation process are going to have an answer. Here, in this blog, the only thing that I try to do is to build the framework.

The advancement of knowledge through Global Artificial Intelligence is likely to surpass many of our current expectations, opening doors to novel forms of understanding and logic.

The development of Global Artificial Intelligence signals a transition towards technologies and logical frameworks that extend beyond traditional human paradigms, fostering new forms of non-human reasoning and non-human operations.

Rubén García Pedraza, 9th of September of 2018, London
Reviewed 20 October 2019, Madrid

Reviewed 19 September 2023, London

Reviewed 16 May 2025, London, Leytostone

imposiblenever@gmail.com