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.

So out of of 10,000 samples it is possible that the human editing their past can converge on what they feel and think is optimum phenotypically, that is physically, influencing on their actual personal behavior and, if they like, things about their body done a different way based on their observations of actual human society. Perhaps if it were a 1950 AD conception being edited, a drafted male might modify their past conception to produce a college-likely genius girl/woman who is outside of government draft policy. They are twice as likley to skip the draft: College likelihood increased, female sex likelihood increased or determined. A woman that had a difficult pregnancy might opt to edit her reconception to be a male person with the genetics of easy birth, so that male person’s female descendents had an easier time of pregnancy.

I do not know the math of MWI universes, which as of 2019 AD seem to emphasize comparing infinities or possible finite quantities that are notably large, like quantities greater than the integer number of photons in the universe. Upgradeable with improved math and research that I or others do, is the possible idea that if a person edits their conception once a year during the first 200 years of their life, or more and longer lifespan, based on reconceiving for greater longevity, it is possible that the conception edits that a 20 year old does and thus resulting lives, occupy a describable fraction of the sum of all the versions of the person generated; Compare that 20 year old area-under curve at MWI with the number of person versions produced when a 14 year old edits their own conception. If there are a trillion MWI versions of the 14 year old, which as more moments occur, branch to become a quadrillion 20 year olds, Then the 20 year old has a different proportion of genotypic->phenotypic capabilities and personality forms. A 110 year old might have different values and preferences when they edit their conception than a 14 year old.

It is perceptibly rational and beneficial to begin a person’s conception with the most eugenics optimized gametes available, then at conception upgrades, the conception is edited to heighten benficiality based on actual behaviors and feelings of the person as well as characteristics of the people they are around and possibly their “society”.

If a person thinking about causing a child to come into being did not know what else to do they could start out with moment of first conception optimized gametes (sample one at the DCQE sperm sorter), then augment that with having the DQCE sperm choice software be guided by the child-generating human’s nomination of a person, Artificial Intelligence, or software that they think knows better than them (the person that initiated the conception of a child). AT one imaginable application, that way, when at 14 I DCQE sperm-sortation upgrade my conception to produce a phenotype with better social skills so I can effortlessly talk with my romantic crush at 14, that preference is complemented with what the AI, or esteemed person thinks might be beneficial as well. So, more social fluency might be augmented with greater tallness, as the AI knows that taller people experience others spontaneously suggesting new opportunities more often, and however well the romance goes it is likely I will find more opportunities, of all beneficial kinds, at the new phenotype’s future valuable.

Frequent reconception updates could be optimal: also, ease of use in editing one’s own conception (At 2019 AD this would be perhaps a few clicks on a computer that was linked to the photonics of the DCQE apparatus) favors frequent editing, which might go along with more improvements, thus a notably happier more satisfying life for those large, possibly finite, or possibly infinite yet of different size, MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation of physics) generated persons. As I perceive it, conception edits made in earlier youth would have more area under the curve at the MWI than conception edits a 200 year old does. So, rather than it being a momentous thing to edit one’s conception it could be a casual frequent thing done out of optimism as well as when seeking a solution for a nonoptimality.

Also, there is a computer scieince or mathematics approach to optimizing number of sperm samples, the beneficial eugenics base of all the sperm samples, and how much can be addressed (the gamete based genome database span and size)

Of course, with a mechanism that produces synthetic genomes, at new purposefully produced usable gametes, the synthetic genome DCQE gamete chooser/changer can actually have a many bit (like 256 bit or greater) factorial genetic space that the further subsequent chronological moment DCQE observations can then adjust to change the person being conceived or reconceived’s life. That creates more possible genomes than just the sperm sorter version. As of 2019 AD the sperm sorter is buildable now.

As an MWI thing, it is possible that the custom-genome space at a DQCE genome chooser thing could be more beneficial to more people if it had a group of known beneficial, talented, and physiologically and mentally well genomes as base templates. Noting I do not actually know the math of the MWI, the possibility of nonfinite combinatorics suggests that basing the combinatoric possibilities of conceptions and edited reconceptions on a bunch of known to be optimal templates could produce phenotypes, genotypes, personalities and human behaviors that have a mean, median, mode, and perhaps “attractor” towards optimality.

Using templates might reduce the “MWI risk” of a “simple” combinatoric of all possible human DNA sequences. At the risk of causing people, that is humans, to remain people, that is humans, using optimal or near optimal templates for synthetic gamete DQCE reconception editing could make better MWI branches. Known near optimal templates could MWI area-under-the curve favor human, that is people’s genotypes and phenotypes that actually produce conceptions and edited reconceptions that come from a group more statistically/numerically likely to be sentient, happy, well, three, four or five times more intelligent than Treon Verdery, with multicentury longevity, beneficial and also of benefit to other actual sentient humans.

At the sperm or egg choice version of the DQCE conception and reconception technology, there are some CS(computer science)/math branching and batching equations and modelling that are likely to heighten the span and scope of the possible beneficial genomes; Although it could be a different number or quantity, thinking of 10,000 sperm samples: thinking MWI-math, mathematically is it better to group these on subject, that is specifiable genotype and thus phenotype, branches with 300 sperm samples at each subject? Thinking about the 14 year old that is editing their reconception so they can particularly enjoy dating and romance, and easily talk with their romantic crush: one Group of subject area gamete samples available, that is a particular version, of this might be 300 sperm samples isolated based on the genetics of 99th percentile of [big five psychology test] absence of neuroticism with 70th percentile at extraversion. It is possible that at the 14 year old’s first origin conception the 50th percentile of extraversion was used as a conception basis. The 14 year old can use the DQCE gamete specifying software to do reconception, making themselves more sociable while maintaining the already existing eugenics benefits which are also present at the 300 samples of sperm.

At 2019 AD, sperms or eggs could be gathered, prior to research supported knowledge of a genetic basis for, on personality, appearance, and achievement of gamete donors. I favor a technology that concentrates eugenics beneficial genes at stem cell produced eggs and sperm. Notably though, a 2019 AD version of DQCE conception editing can actually use a 20th century style collected eggs and sperms to produce genotype and phenotype change. The 14 year old editing their reconception can make use of existing gamete technology.

Noting the math and computer science of gamete groupings, branches, and sources; There is a possible beneficial effect, sort of the opposite of externalities, that are system tendencies towards benefit even without, or prior to gamete specification at reconception. If you use the Scandinavian population to draw the 10,000 sperm/gamete sample from then the reconception adjustable genomes come preloaded with benefits that occur that precede optimizing specification at the databese/selectable pool of DCQE editable gametes. If you use Swedish people blondeness is likely to be spontaneous without an DCQE reconception effort. Danish genomes favor tallness, again a beneficial background effect that, although also choosable at DQCE sperm sortation, is like a spontaneously produced environmental good.

So, even absent knowing, or prior to knowing what the actual phenotype expressed human genome does, it is possible to take the gamete samples from groups that have measurable individual and social or even societal beneficial or more optimal trends compared with a global median person. Although it is possible to imagine various measures of: above the global median at optimality, could vary,: it is possible that the genetics of the 99th percentile of human well being, regardless of the society that human is located at could be combined with 99th percentile of societal well being to produce a physical location to gather gamete as well as stem cell culture samples at.

(Although there is more to it, it is possible to think of society as groups of persons having phenotypes with a bulk measurable effect) Combining the genetics of 99th percentile of an individual doing well regardless of culture, with, and also finding the 99th percentile of beneficial optimal exsiting culture to give a geographic region, could be combined to create a beneficial background good trend and metanalytic trend; a good stock base that supports particular benefits from specified gene or gamete eugenics. It is possible the Scandinavian nations, notably the measured as happiest-in-the-world like Denmark, or the world leader in educational effectiveness, Finland, combine 99th percentile of individual success with 99th percentile of society-wide beneficial function. At 99th percentile in both individual well being and effective functioning of a society noting that is at least partially the result of a mass of phenotypically and genotypically similar individuals, Scandinavian sperm, egg and tissue culture stem cell donors have numeric support as an optimal eugenics base.

Notably: thinking on societies as groups of interacting phenotypes, such society-wide things as qunatitatively measured subjective well being (happiness), prosperity and longevity might be causally linked to things like having a minimum as well as maximum measured percentage of humans phenotypically exist at some measured value of the Big five personality test like conscientiousness. So some quantity of people, at some numerical distribution of measured conscientiousness, is correlatable, and possibly linkable as an actual cause, to societal well being. Notably there might be a different, less optimal amount of well being at higher than the optimal quantities-of-persons-having or amplitude of conscientiousness while that phenotypic group causes human experience as a society.

Scientific research on the optimized and optimizable genotype and phenotype of an individual that is the optimized individual, while simultaneously optimizing the phenotypic group of persons effect that society might be considered as, increases opportunities for beneficial optimization. This also creates additional ways of viewing eugenic benefit, as well as the benefits of conception and reconception at a DQCE gamete sorter.

Math: local minima, curve landscape and topology, that combine and portray the optimization of individual genome, genotype, phenotype, and lived consciousness based in phenotype, while also noting awareness of societal bulk phenotype, from genotype, effects is possibly likely to have many, curves, pockets, as well as heights at a varied mathematical topological landscape. Awareness that that the landscape of optimization could be structurally and mathematically varied could reduce concerns, or a tendency to, social or cultural ideological themes. It is possible to say, “we can figure it out, and it is engineerable, and the math structures and possibly visualizations communicate that that’s different than saying or endorsing all tidiness and heightened intelligence with polite manners is a monocultural preference”.

Note: I perceive that from a pattern resonance IT/IL technology perspective that blonde people experience synchonized (similar to Jungian synchronicity) favor and benefit just from having hair that is light colored. Making people blonde, is, from what I might comprehend, beneficial to them paranormally while being absent risk of any personal paranormal influence or risk at their own lives. Having blonde children benefits those children and the people they grow up to be. Swedish sperm, eggs, and tissue culture provide this as a benefit when used as a provides-environmental-good resource of richness, where that richness is present even prior to specific study.

One way to make subject-specific, that is genotype and phenotype of physiological and mental well being DQCE specifiable gametes is to use stem cells to mass produce sperm or eggs with preferred genomes and characteristics. While it is possible during 2019 AD to get a sperm or egg or stem cell sample from a person that is measured as being and doing well, with various beneficial genetic, phenotypic, and personality characteristics, another way to do it is to composite an accumulation of eugenics beneficial genes.

Compositing and accumulating beneficial genes together to make new, sperm or eggs usable at conception, and available for DQCE reconception use that have a high benefit starting eugenic makeup: Find persons, with genotypes (genomes, SNPs) that are beneficial at eugenics. It is possible to make sperm as well as eggs from stem cells derived from those humans, that is persons. Clonal stem cells from persons with valued eugenics already have one or more beneficial genes or versions of genes. Differentiate the stem cells from different eugenic samples or persons into sperms and eggs. Combine the large volume of sperms and eggs derived from stem cells, that have two or more different eugenics beneficial genes, that are different from each other, to produce hundreds of thousands or millions of blastocycts at tissue culture. These bulk produced blastocysts will have varying genetics, giving an opportunity to note, characterize the genomes of, and gather the blastocysts that have the highest actual number, that is amount, of beneficial eugenics genes. This is a way to accumulate numerous eugenics beneficial genes at a tissue culture much faster than selective sequential breeding of humans could produce.

It is even possible that of 20,000 human genes that this bulk recombination and blastocyst generation, with sequencing to characterize genomes and make the preferred next generation of increased eugenics genes sperm, eggs or tissue culture, could optimize all 20,000 human genes. Notably software or artificial intelligence could be used to predict which versions of the 20,000 genes are optimal; then these entire-full-genome optimized genes could be combined and bulk produced making optimized sperms, eggs, as well as stem cell cultures to create humans that then benefit from having eugenics optimized genomes.
engineering, chemistry, computer ic, computer fab, longevity, longevity technology, treon, treon verdery, physics, lasers, laser, emiconductor, dimension, math, IT, IL, pattern resonance, time travel, chronotechnology, circile, eric the circle, cartoon, healthspan, youthspan, cpi, manufacturing, fiscal, money, software, petroleum, archive at deviantart com user treonsebastia

All technologies, ideas, and inventions of Treon Sebastian Verdery are public domain at JUly 8,2023AD and previously, as well as after that date