It is possible a different version of the “million published numeric methods” periodic table-like function could actually be an AI, neural network, or deep learning object created thing. I perceive there is research into instant-identity solvable
equations (possibly differential equations) that represent, possibly deep learning (to name one approach), math function an AI has trained into being at a neural network. So, perhaps the incremental chronological-moment utilizing, (similar to: amount of
time at a linear geometry; other geometries would have different time-styles) effect of using a computer on data, where an AI studies the data, could be gotten around or speeded up with the math function workalike of the AI’s neural network.

So, basically there’s this thing, where if you have a million numeric-method thing that is like a periodic table, and you find matches on it, and then the software suggests an experiment to verify that the numeric method is predictive/meaningfully
descriptive, and furthermore the numeric method might be correlated, linked, or perhaps 1:1 linked, that is directive, of a physics/chemistry/biology sourcing form. So how can this be used? As described at a Quora answer I wrote responding to something
like “if correlation does not imply causation, what does it imply?” I found applications from finding steering constellations, called marionettes, among them possibly completely new marionettes. One marionette might be social wealth being upstream
of child raising style and government spending, which is actually one mathematically findable big part (one arm of the marionette [+]) that finds a basis for the “implausible absent further upstream hypothesis” correlation of hanging with building
space stations.

Uses: so finding new arms of new marionettes creates new areas of chemistry, biology, genetics, social media, communications, quantitative psychology, and even sociology that can be used to describe, and make testable experiments on, things that effect
human existence and well being.

During 2019 AD a human mind mind think,”does air pollution have an epigenetic effect?” then devises an experiment.

This numeric method matching software traces a plurality of effects at the big instant equation of everything that’s been published, then at least some of these, perhaps 1 per thousand (period-table like objects) could be testable as to whether they
had epigenetic components, that are upstream from the previously described math thing that is where you find an upstream source (marionette, marionette arm) to generate a hypothesis testable relationship from examining a bunch of correlations, notably
some which to a human would seem imlausible. restated: the software finds correlations that may then be hypothesis tested as to whether they have an epigeneitic component.

The software then produces a list of 1000 or more new human-unconsidered subjects that have pre-experiment math support for being epigenetically controlled (the math at the published papers looks a lot like the math that crops up at epigenetic systems).

Then if the software is really effective, it finds those (testable for epigenetics math and topic objects) where the output of the equations has the highest generated change with the smallest variable change. This finding of sensitive spots, at a vast
number of different objects, facilitates easy robust experimental measurements; that then creates a littler list of possibly epigeneticslly driven things amenable to really easy, possibly fast, or few-sample experiments that the software numerically
thinks will provide large magnitudes of difference at their measured results.

So, instead of one human, grabbing one idea out of their mind, and testing it, the software comes up with a (repeatedly concentrated) list of say 100 things likely to have epigenetic-contributions, or even effect-directing contributions, and then lists
these epigenetic testable hypothesis out: Then a human looks through them to find ones of interest to humans, like chocolate milk has epigenetic effects on the, 2019 majority, of elementary school students that drink it. (the software figured out school
lunches were easy to test/modify, and might have figured out it is easy to change them if that change is beneficial)

Another epigenetic thing the softwaremight list as being the kind of thing that could be experimented on to produce knowledge with high numeric validity support is: “working two part time jobs has measurable epigenetic difference from one full time
job, both have the same epigenetic change direction that is away from the epigenetic effects of unemployment”, Then of course the software could find things that cause the same epigenetic effect (actual like proteome and other -ome effects) as that
form of renumerated labor that has the highest participant satisfaction.

That new non-work epigenetic functionalike might then be tested, (near here the humans, informed by the software, are directing the experiment generation) to generate a health, cheerfulness, optimism, wellness, measures of romantic-partner-things-going-
well that is epigenetically functional at unemployed persons, retirees, and might possibly be “double dosable” at the already employed to confer even greater epigenetic benefits.

Again, the thing is, the software generates very large numbers of screened for human value, and ease of (and high validity of) experiment hypotheses. That goes well with new science discoveries and devleopable technologies that benefit human beings,
that is people.

Along with humans reading the lists of easy potentially awesome experiments it is possible software could seek value for humans. The software could winnow the list based on any previously published connection to the 1000 or 10,000 most salient, popular,
physically relevant, or beneficially entertaining topics.

There is an actual, if perhaps unimportant risk of looking for things that have already been thought of. If the software goes looking for things that people currently consider beneficial, then humans-in-general might get less mind-share about new things
that they would later value but do not, yet, have a preference at numeric methods table based software discovery.

Personal computers during the 20th century AD were new, and contribute much to human well being. But if a 1968 hypothesis ranking/easy test software were active it might promote research into new greetings and new kinds of small talk that were projected
to raise interpersonal satisfaction, and quantitatively measured willingness to assist 50%. These are valuable new word forms of conversation if they exist, yet it also would be nice if the software could think of personal computers.
(as an aside, these 50% upgrades on pleasant conversation and willingness to assist already exist; garments and social manners, notably varied at the population, can already do this. I might have read that hitchhikers get picked up several times faster
in a suit!, so that is a few hundred percent.)

Also, there is of course a difference between what the upstream from correlation/numeric methods matching/ easy-test hypothesis generating software suggests that people research, create, make and do and the actual amount and content of what they do.
There is a lot of variation, and although correlation software may find several things with more marionette-arm activity, that is testable, adjustable directive causation, than money, it is possible that people would only economically participate at
things that are both actively beneficial as well as possible to value, and or be enjoyed.

Adjustable things that have an effect; I use the word “marionette” or “marionette arm” to say a thing that has causal, notably mathematically modelable, likely predictable, and experimentally testable structure or object that drives an effect.

Some marionette arms are known, discussed, and frequently people suggest improvements at the known ones. (basically a marionette or marionette arm is like a constellation of contributing effect-drivers, notably derived from looking upstream from
correlations at actual published things; also the use of a somewhat periodic-table like list of numeric relations used to find what math apparently describes/drives a then testable thing). Some things that might be marionettes that previously have a
mixed reputation, could be improved when people figure out more about them. Things that are described as having “externalities” Free trolley fare causes more employment opportunity but has the externality of reducing people having private vehicles
which then reduces recreational activity and scope somewhat.

Money could be measured as having a particular magnitude of effect, and then the software could be directed to describe testable numerically-found things that have a bigger effect. It is possible some of those bigger than money things would be
completely new to human beings, thus early technologies might make big improvoments as the 80/20 rule (20% of the effort produces 80% of the results) might be going on, at least as compared with the continuing minute adjustments to money like debit cards.
Romance could have higher upstream causative effect at various measurables than money. Not only does being partnered often cause children, and human physiological children are awesome and wonderful, and I think there should be more human physiological
children, children possibly adjust fiscal capability more than something like the greater job mobility and earnings increase from a college degree; dissolving a romantic partnership can strongly change expense ratios, perhaps even more than almost any
thrifty <->luxiourious city locationing of the person. The software might show romance is a stronger marionette cause than money, and the software could suggest a software-generated list of testable hypothesis with predicted high responsiveness. Giving
single people memberships at online personals sites, with a hypothesis that this will produce greater happiness and earnings might be the kind of easy experiment the software generates. Humans would of course, at least sometimes, review and improve the
suggested hypotheses and experiments. So a human might modifty the experiment to be: Give single people memberships at online personals sites on their birthday.

There is also value to having the software that matches published data and numeric methods at a kind of periodic table to generate experiments that then support/verify the driving/causal effect of particular variables; having the software specifying and
comissioning experiments without human input or consultation. Let’s say there is a published metaanalysis. Just two more studies would give it p<.01, right now it is only at p<.1 The software says to do the experiment, and the higher than one study
value of the metaanalysis is gained.

Similarly, at the previously described: find a list of 1000 things that testably could have an epigenetic component, just doing those 1000 experiments avoids having human-perceived-value-bias winnow the group in a way that might miss out or exlude the
development,and numeric support of, knowledge that is, when found, amazingly beautiful, or a strong basis for other research, or with tremendous (possibly technologizable) utility. For example, at epigenetics perhaps there is a “clear all previous
epigentics” chemical or environmental influence the software might find. Things based his could be highly beneficial medical or even social (videogames? circadian rhythm resetting watch?) technology.

If at a human about whom nothing is known, one third of their epigenetics are beneficial, one third have no numerically discernable effect, and one third are nonbeneficial, then a “clear all epigenetics” thing or method could bring tremendous
improvement, or even make it possible to import a custom version of the beneficial epigenetics to the persons life, onto a newly cleaned and prepared physical being. Also, installing new beneficial epigenetics could be something even better than the half
of their epigenetics that is already going well.

One area of clearing epigenetics might be resetting the immune system, possibly setting it to a momentary zero. Having longevity promotion tendencies, rapamycin, the immunosupressant that makes rats live 60% longer, could be a human testable
immunological reset, with longevity benefits, that could zero parts of the immune system possibly renewing the epigenetic “programmability” of allor just parts ofthe immune system. There are also far out things like a massive one week long high dose
bendryl (diphenhydramine) asmuch as causes continuous unconsciousness as a supression of immunoreaction.

It is possible that if a system is epigenetically perturbed, say a surplus of methyl donors from weird food or a period of emotional stress ( I read stress causes epigenetic changes) that it has a spontaneous rate or velocity of moving back to epigenetic
neutral from changed. What effects that velocity? It could be genetic, and that suggests things like protein drugs and new small molecule drugs that would then cause more rapid progression back to epigenetic neutral could be developed.

Then there could even be drugs that, when coadministered with something that provides epigenetic benefit, say arginine (possibly) or “love” then cause that epigenetic benefit to be greater. Possible versions of more or deeper epigenetic effects are
that the genes that get regulated differently from the epigenetics get regulated at a wider range of tissues. One possibility is increasing the number of ribosomes or increasing the amount of transfer RNA (tRNA), or upping the post translational
modification at things like the golgi apparatus. As to new epigenetics drugs, I think a human researcher could make a very big (perhaps easy to very long) list of things that could increase or decrease epigenetic effects produced from a standard
effector group. All the growth hormones, even things like insulin and anti-insulin (glucagon); anythng that effects liver metabolism of circulating molecules.

So I may have read that protein production is circadian; It is kind of like protein production, but is mRNA production circadian? Drugs or actions/environemnts effecting anything that contours mRNA production compared with a level state graph would
effect all the proteins produced at the body, modifying the entire proteome; and those drugs or possibly environmental effects could be a new Super Epigenetic agent.

So with Super epigenetic agents, is more or less better? Less metabolic activity is published as producing better healthspan and longevity. Longevity improvements from less protein and caloric restriction ups autophagy, so it is different than less
wear. So the research then is does adjusting mRNA production, with a variety of different approaches, affect lifespan. Maybe it would be a little like the way things like yeast grow faster with their histones removed, rapidifying mRNA activity at
translation. More process-gradualizing histones cause longer lifespan though. So a drug that reduces mRNA activity could be a longevity drug.


Other Super epigenetics approaches/drugs: Perhaps posttranslational modifiers like the golgi apparatus are where a lot of the noncoded epigenetic modification to actual protein molecules, not just the actual amount of protein (mRNA), happens. Drugs or
environements that effect the golgi apparatus couldbe quantitatively measured as totheir epigenetic effects. These new drugs or environments might also be a source or way of doing an epigenetics reset to neutral as well.

Then there is the genetics of the golgi apparatus; do people with bigger golgi apparati have different, perhaps larger, epigentic reponses and programmability? Specifying a particular size, competency, or genotype of golgi appartus is likely to be
beneficial at genetically engineered humans.

Notably though, there could be a genome of reduced responsiveness to epigenetics thus causing the genetically engineered humans to be the wonderful, happy, kind, capable intelligent long lived persons that their genes specify them to be, with much less
drift from epigenetics, and a kind of immunity to harm.

I am a human thinking about these now, but what if it were the software, automatically generating a testable epigenetics hypothesis that suggested high numeric resolvability automatic experimentation on epgentic things? They might find a wholebunch of
minimal perturbation causes large measured effect structures and causes.

Further applications of software that finds causes, or numerically verifiable, testable phenomena drivers:
Marionettes as big as money that have not been noticed yet: There could be new things, things that function with the force magnitude of money that have previously never been identified or named, either invisible or so obvious they were like air to a bird
(research word: cultural trance) and experiments that can be done on these newly mathematically isolated, yet not yet named, marionettes that are as big as money, to beneficially technologize as well as improve them for human well being.

Numeric methods matching software could find new things, some might be better than money. There are many marionettes that might have a money like magnitude of directive causation/correlation. Or improving my math metaphor quality a little: New
marionettes, money like yet different, perhaps like vectors pointing to beneficial different cartesian quadrants, with bigger or similar magnitude, possibly these marionettes are also mathematically functionally describable as derivatives with visual
graphs that have smooth curves of improvement with, considering some 3d systems, fewer saddle-curves risking drop-off.

Interestingly, while finding new marionettes similar as to their equational effect as money, the software might find an equation, possibly a vector (or something better) that pointed to the same quadrant, possibly at a slightly differerent angle, than
what wouldhave been called moneyduring the 21st century. It could be called money2 and have different, but similar predictable effects. Money2 might be different kind of money that comes from software that finds, and can possibly build or architect
causal constellations (marionettes);

Causal constellations (marionettes) can also be calm, nifty, voluntary technology objects. Considering (upstream causal function near equivalence) new money2 marionettes (physically measured and active at world, with causal effects and predictable
components) equations might bethingslike money2 and money 4, possibly previously at human experieince as things like a fiat currency, a material-based currency, or bitcoin. These do most of the same stuff, even when viewed mathematically, mostly, but do
have some differences, and those differences could be compared for benefit and further technologized. So the main idea here is that really really nice intelligent people, who mean well, could find (math) marionettes with similar math descriptors to
money, then make that new marionette thing which is like money, active at the same social space as money, so people can then cumulatively utilize whichever is more beneficial. It is beneficial to study which new kinds of money, like money2 are actually
of greater benefit.

There couldevenbe a plurality fthese newmarionettes. Note these are different than financial technologies a new marionette to have a better thing that functions, in many ways, like money, but isbetter.


Is it possible that thinking of a new marionette on purpose could be a beneficial technology.
The thing is that the software that mathematically finds causality upstream to make a constellation of causality (a marionette) is using actual measurements and suggesting verification experiments. The thing is if I think it would be beneficial to think
of a constellation of causes (a new marionette) that causes people to be kind totheir children, searching the data for stuff that does something similar could generate a high-resolution easy experiment, but as a human I would still have to

Previously a financial inventor/technologist might come up with the idea of a corpporation, basically a shares company. BUt that corporation runs kind of like a computer program of a “game” at the money environement.

Some are well known like parenting, genetics, language, “seemliness”/some equation that includes, but is larger than, behaving socially at a frequently occuring behavioral range, also at some humans the preference for order compared with the interval-
of-perceived convenience (big five conscientiousness); notably impulsiveness as compared with planning and order (like big 5) can completely change the direction, application, pooling, availability, and utility of money; humans during the 20th century AD
spanned a range of debt to savings, with some using planning. Upstream of money might be g, general intelligence, as it could possibly correlate with a beneficial testable financial milieu more predictively than assets, earnings and income, liquidity,
and high availability of money at society. These are just human thoughts, the technology of the software finding a bunch of marionettes, possibly hundreds or thousands, with more effect than money could create new beneficial technologies.

So if economics is like a science of money, the new marionettes would have their own completely new sciences with new names. For example one marionette new during the 20th century AD is genetics, so now there is genomics.

Thinking about the software that uses all/most published numerics as something like a periodic table to make new predictions and match phenomena to: Also, people might be considered with calculus as moving curves described with an equation like a
derivative; that compares with point measurements of people used in popular and some published research-on-humans culture that previously might have said things like “people are more permissive about letting their children play alone on suburban
playgrounds now than they were last year.”, could be replaced with a differential equation and, visually a swooshy bumpy graph. Sort of like the way a vector states direction and magnitude, and a graphed derivative shows acceleration and duration.

It is possible some things it could be beneficial to predict about humans could be described with mathematics that communicates better and, both at software and at the human mind, suggests technologizable, quantitatively measured improvements.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)