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.

DQCE (Delayed Quantum Choice Eraser) retrocausal modification of conception: so perhaps previously described is how having a delayed quantum choice eraser (DQCE) linked to which particular one of 10,000 sperm samples (gametes) is utilized to make a person, while also having the system be physics/laser observable a decade or a couple decades after the mechanism specified a initial sperm sample causes retrocausal genome editing. That way an observation of the DQCE sperm selector one or two decades (or more chronological moments) farther along the time span then causes a different sperm sample to be used retrocausally; A completely different person results from the DQCE linked gamete chooser. That gives the person the ability to specify a do-over of their life whenever they like. If someone feels they would like to be blonder they just click on blonder at the computer application that is linked to a photon observing machine. The thing is someone online says retroactively observing the gamete-choosing photon only effects that one timeline, but perhaps the vast majority of persons, at the many MWI timelines, who would like to modify their past step up and participate telling the DQCE sperm chooser they would like an improvement. Let’s say a teenager has a crush, and would like to talk to their crush. All they have to do is go to the software and click “favor sperm with social skills”, It is possible perhaps a majority of persons exepriencing a crush try this out, so if a million or trillion Yous occur at the MWI, most of them will have a crush, and seek to modify their genetics to have a more optimized love life; those possibly beyond trillions of teenagers mostly opt to improve their dating acumen. This causes most versions of the teenager to improve at the majority of the MWI universes where the conception uses a DQCE sperm sorter. This most-timelines opt-in to an improvement, benefitting perhaps the majority of area under the MWI curve, goes with other things besides quality of romance. As the genetics of newly conceptualized beneficial things (isolateable beneficial modal behaviors), like say moving towards opportunity, or being well rested are found, then people, at whatever their chronological age when the new modal beneficial choosable are characterized, opt for those benefits.

Notably as all the sperm samples that the DQCE and software that foster choice and updates at conceptions based on eugenics samples already, so the person still has their intelligence, kindness, longevity, beauty, and median or better social skills at every sperm sample. Readdressing their conception they just have the ability to opt for even more of some characteristic. Going from 99.99th percentile of g intelligence to 99.999th percentile could be a DCQE software navigable upgrade.

Notably, the sperm samples can be analyzed with technology that improves throughout the person’s chronological life. Gene sequencing a separate sample to that of the actual used sperm gives a 40 year old more phenotype from genotype choice precision than that available to the earlier teen.