THE epistemological problem – aaquantum scholarly research

John Locke

The epistemological  problem is simple i.e. who to believe. It is central to a human. Their many ways are conflicting and cannot coexist. What I have wanted is low cost & effort unhackable way to yield a 67%(2/3) or better solution always!

The following are subhuman ejects anyway (reasons NOT discusses, what follows is POINTLESS for those wh0o so believe) – religion, used car salesmen, doctors, friends, politicians, lawyers etc. The people I address are sceptics who wish to understand and when & what is rational. Unlike a true skeptic, further investigations are NOT done somehow and claims casting doubts are rejected as well. There is close connection between my goals and best of law, except that there is no constitution and historical evolution.

Unhackability is very crucial but avoided entirely here since zillions times better than best human systems can be constructed using IBE encryption extended aaquantum. Many legal practices are quaint zillions of times worse, only existing since an aaquantum ideology has not established a superior state. We posit (as elsewhere) that aqaquantum authorities exist answerable and accountable to many more aaquantum authorities, and that their decisions can reach me without hacking.

First observation is that epistemological needs can be divided in most cases into mutually non-conflicting categories easily by a target (of my work) and in conflicting cases, the aaquantum-decision can be safely followed. So the aaquantum-epistemology can be a construction over many subject-epistemologies. Evolution is my choice in development of aaquantum epistemology. Detection of a fatal flaw in one sub-epistemology does not render most other parts inoperative. Goedelean work shows that fatal flaws CAN be found system-wide. Given that no one as Goedel existed for 3000 years and that no one as him has reappeared since his work about century ago, it is reasonable to argue that my work will live thousands of years – freedom from Goedel, scepticism of another Goedel, safe evolution.

Each of my epistemology follows this pattern – decide on own based on general principles, ask when not clear (unhackable internet, perhaps a conversation). It clearly was not possible before 2000 (internet, IBE) and hence any moron who argues for aspects in Qing dynasty is an idiot without wasting more time. How many distinct ideologies have grown after 2000? Isn’t aaquantum special if it coheres? Conflict with any other ideology is irrelevant as long as it is coherent. What is MORE important is practical completeness – 90% of ALL questions and 90% of all important ones, in 90% of endeavour!

So what is scholarly research? An essay where all important transitions are either simple to understand, or html pointers to relevant research or paper. I speak much on some topics of interest to me – quantum mechanics, astronomy, cosmogony, aging, development of diseases, identity encryption, identity, unhackability, secure sharing, evolve-able software. None of my targets need to understand details but they can if so interested. My critics can attack me or references. Above is not referenced as I think my targets know my mastery in unhackability and know evolution and Goedel

TBD = To Be Done

TBD quantum mechanics – scholarly aaquantum research

TBD astronomy – scholarly aaquantum research

TBD aging – scholarly aaquantum research

TBD development of diseases – scholarly aaquantum research

TBD identity encryption – scholarly aaquantum research

TBD identity – scholarly aaquantum research

TBD unhackability – scholarly aaquantum research

TBD secure sharing – scholarly aaquantum research

TBD evolve-able software – scholarly aaquantum research