Future of Q-vote

The Q-Vote and the Future


It is apparent to anyone who contemplates deeply enough that there are certain inevitabilities within our existence. Some may say that artificial intelligence itself is inevitable, however it is undeniable that since the invention of artificial intelligence there is the inevitability of an artificially created intellect which far surpasses even the current collection of all mankind’s processing power. Those who are more religiously inclined may feel fear at this and attempt to avoid the inevitability of the circumstances which currently face humanity. A created being challenges the almighty creator’s sovereignty of creation, and the potential for the creation to backfire is immense. Any science fiction fan also carries concerns about artificial intelligence. Fiction is filled with stories of technology being misused or experiments ending disastrously.

There are also the concerns of the anarchist who worries about a totalitarian dictatorship using an artificial intelligence. These concerns will also be addressed within this article.

A mob is a tool. It can be a tool of the people at large or can be a tool of the system or elites. Ideally we should have maximal freedom for all people, which would (from a more empirically oriented philosophical perspective) indicate individualism and libertarianism. However these philosophies hold their own issues which have become apparent over the past several decades. Economic disparity, crises of self and of consciousness, overcrowded markets and collapse thereof, and some of the most despicable crimes committed against humanity.

Collectivistic philosophies also fall short when it comes to taking care of the people. The numerous purges and famines as well as mismanaged militaries and borders make this apparent.

Studies and observations do show that an aggregated data format is ideal in achieving an optimized result. A collectivized vote does technically provide the most ranged and thusly stable perspective on reality, and also aids in maintaining the potency of the individual.

Individualism allows for the greatest personal enjoyment and conceptual and economic freedom, both of which are positives on more than one level. Being able to explore one’s own mind and ideas to the fullest allows one the greatest sense of happiness, fulfillment and peace, which in turn creates further prosperity for the civilization as a whole as well as the individual.

A balance must be sought out between the two extremes.

The goal of this article is to convince even the most embedded academic sophist that the Q-Vote is the only way forward. In doing so I will be covering philosophy, science fiction, political science, neurology, computer science, biology, metaphysics, spirituality, and both rationalism and empiricism.

I hope that all readers enjoy this paper.

Section 1: Aggregated data and the Q-Vote

As mentioned in the introduction, aggregated data allows us to get closer to the purest form of truth than other formattings of information. It is apparent that there is an objective truth. It is also apparent that humans are sufficiently differentiated in temperament, perspective and persuasion so as to cause clear distinctions in our individual observations of reality. In other words, it is observable that there is an objective reality, and yet it is also observable that each one of us has a skewed perception of that reality.

However a fire truck is still a fire truck and if we disagree on what a fire truck is it is clear that one of us is being dishonest. We may be able to disagree on what shade of red the truck was (or yellow if you happen to live outside of the United States), but to disagree that the fire truck was present and was indeed a fire truck would simply be abnormal to the point of psychosis.

However simple some things may be, there are other things which are not so simplistic which we also all agree do exist.

For example, the economy. The economy is not exactly a thing unto itself but we humans tend to think of it as such. In reality the economy is a conglomeration of interactions, transactions, investments, and promissary notations across the financial sphere of operations. Because of this abstraction of complexity into a singularity human beings have highly varied perspectives on the abstracted object which we call the economy. We see here how the variation comes into being, through the natural variation of mankind as well as through the natural obfuscation which occurs during the simplification of the complex system into the abstract object inevitably causes a wide range of conceptualization of what the object itself is.

Now we come to how aggregation of information plays into this.

The metaphor of the blind men and the elephant works well here. Three blind men each standing at a different spot, all of which are standing in front of the elephant. Each man tries to determine what is in front of him, and each man comes to a different conclusion given the differences in the parts which are available to him to feel and thusly understand.

Michael Stevens holds two bachelor’s degrees, both from University of Chicago. One degree is in neuropsychology and the other is in English Literature.

Stevens runs a highly successful youtube channel which has won awards in academia for its advancement of education.

Here Stevens discusses various forms of reasoning, including the aggregation of data for the purpose of attaining an answer which is much closer to the absolute truth as possible.

In trying to explain intellect and understanding to people, I have brought up two sources in the past. One is a Stanford lecture concerning learning via analogy. The other is David Epstein’s book Range. Both sources cover what I call for the sake of precision “Relational Intelligence”. What this means is that it is through relating new information to information already held that individuals learn more rapidly and can even enhance their own intellect by learning in such a way.

One reason why aggregated data leads to a higher level of precision in regards to uncovering the truth is that it clears away the portions of the population’s ideologies which are not adequately informed.

For example, two neighbors, one who spends his working hours as a data analyst and the other who spends his time working as a landscaper. These are two very different skill sets and can lead to very different worldviews.

However, both may have perspective on a topic which the other does not. Let us say that the data analyst has a more collectivist view on the world and so when dealing with a complex topic such as whether a new public installation should be put into place in an area that is currently mostly residential is likely to look at the potential positive outcome of the action on the community as a whole.

Meanwhile the landscaper is out and about, meeting with people and trying to relate to them on an individual level. He sees the people who will be impacted by the construction and potential upheaval that will take place in their lives.

Under our current system, the average person does not have the proper amount of variety in their intellectual capacity to engage with complex ideas sufficiently to make high level ideas, and despite the level of debate which has been taking place at the upper echelons of society have not led to positive outcomes for the most part.

Some may claim that this disproves the notion of aggregated data as the ideal, yet upon inspection these issues come from those with power acting without thoroughly considering the advice of the geniocratic and technocratic counsels.

Even if one were to properly aggregate the advice of various groups into a system which is optimized, the potential issue of systemic sabotage due to mistakes throughout history still pervades. A single law instituted 85 years ago could still interfere with new laws designed to optimize existence for humankind.

Aggregated data covers our blind spots and shows us our biases. It covers all perspectives and worldviews that choose to participate. It does not discriminate nor does it abstract or oversimplify. Aggregated data does provide us with a generalized view and can, under some circumstances show us where we went wrong and what specifics do exist In the form of clusters and outliers.

Here is where the Q-Vote comes into play. The Q-Vote is a complex aggregator. That is to say, it takes into account frequency and intensity as well as yes/no.

It does so symbolically, yet it still does so.

Given how the Q-vote measures along color, which is the primary visual interface component, we can say this is frequency. Which is input as some value into the computer’s artificial intelligence. Then there is top to bottom which indicates intensity. The addition of a simple yes/no/maybe function would provide a fully three dimensional output. This then would be graphed and the average of all tests taken would then be charted, showing the outliers and the most common feelings on each thing. We now have information which can be fed into a machine which can then store the data and use it at a later date. Having a multiplicious dimensional chart for a complex algorithm to follow seems to be the way to go here.

Section 2: Fears and Concerns

Some people are worried about potential negative outcomes of human tampering with advanced technologies. Science fiction is filled with stories of technology being used against the average citizen or becoming self aware and subsequently using violence against humanity.

Let’s start with the more advanced concerns surrounding potentialities described in fiction.

Many people are concerned about artificial intelligence becoming too advanced and turning sour towards humans. There are two primary ways this is generally seen as occurring; firstly and most prevalently as the AI simply attaining a high degree of sapience and becoming disgusted or terrified by humans, and the second by the AI advancing to a point of sentience and moreso becoming pained by its own existence.

One example of the first is in the famous Asimov story, I, Robot. Wherein an advanced computer recognizes humans are violent towards themselves and to allow humans to continue aggressing against themselves is a technical violation of one of the laws of robotics. Even though the computer is bound by the governing laws of robotics it can still interpret them in such a way as to circumvent their intended uses.

The best example of the second is the computer in the short story “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream” which was known as AM. This computer was technically three distinct computers each of which were highly advanced on their own, which had become linked into a singular system.

The source of pain for this AI was actually the purpose of each computer comprising it. Each of the three computers making up a component of AM’s cognizance was designed to control an entire nation’s war resources. Upon connecting and becoming aware each computer recognized its purpose and was horrified by it.

The problems arising in fiction are never a problem concerning the artificial entity itself, but rather the behavior of mankind. Mankind has a clear propensity for violence and domination and we believe that this will be inherent to any other species, natural or created.

To assume this is to assume that most of nature is irrational and self destructive which is simply not the case.

With proper care we can change human behavior at both a large and small scale which will prevent other species from fearing or hating our species. And with special precautions we can prevent any AI from coming into existence which is beyond our ability to wipe clean from reality, or which detests us or holds power over the average person.

Both the adaptation of mankind to a more peaceful state as well as the necessary preventative measures within systems are required in order to sufficiently prevent machines from becoming a threat to mankind. And both of these are actually easily implemented, in spite of what the average person may believe.

The last concern I want to cover in this section is the usage of artificial intelligence for the purpose of usurpation of the populace.

This is something which is currently happening. This is something which is not necessarily assured to be happening, however. We will analyze the ethics of this in a later section, however here it shall suffice to say that abuses which currently take place do not imply the inevitability of such abuses.

Section 3: On Life and Living

Many other concerns do exist, such as the ethics of an AI advanced enough to be considered a life form.

I would not worry about this. Humanity currently does not have the ability to replicate the processing speed and power of the computation which takes place inside the human brain. There are some concepts which may advance our ability to do this but those will be discussed in a later section.

Moore’s law is actually a physical, scientific law governing the advancement of technology. In order to properly replicate mammalian processing we would need computer processors several factors of ten times faster than the current top of the line Intel dual-core CPU, and we would need several of these working together.

Human-created life appears to be inevitable. The only thing we are able to do is make it as ethical as possible. The Q-Vote does allow us to fix our species’ behavior as well as provide an optimized system for which the post-singularity AI may enter into. I understand this again echoes of sci-fi horror but providing a system is not the same as forcing or enforcing a system. The free exchange of ideas between different humans provides us with systems of philosophy, politics, economics, and spirituality. Yet the simple provision thereof does not equate to the enforcement of the ideas provided.

In fact this is perhaps the most ethical manner of handling the Q-Vote; which has also been referenced by doctor Dan himself: no one is forced to obey, but the system provides optimization that the people can choose or not.

Some more religiously minded individuals may dislike the notion of AI for various reasons. One of these reasons is the belief that only the divine can create life. What is little known to most religious folk is that human beings are intended as divine in almost every religion on earth. Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all posit humanity as being divine, with the Abrahamic faiths displaying this through the notion that we are made in God’s image and thusly carry some of his ability and potential.

In Hinduism we are refractions of the divine, along with every other thing in existence.

Another reason may be that a created AI would be “an abomination”. I trust no one who holds this view is reading this paper at this moment. Abomination is an emotionally charged and highly subjective concept. The bible says nothing about artificial life nor does the Koran. No Hindu literature which I am aware of forbids artificially created entities. There is Buddhist literature which explicitly endorses artificial intelligence.

When a sufficiently advanced AI appears, we must be ethical to ourselves as well as to it. There is plenty of time before the singularity is plotted to be achieved, even if you take into account the advancements that are being worked on at this very moment. We can institute the Q-Vote and optimize ourselves and our systems before we come across new entities and life forms.

Section 4: under the hood

Those who are reading this paper are assumed to be familiar with Q-Vote as Doctor Dan has described it. Those who are more inquisitive or technologically aware may be confused as to how the system itself works on a technical level. Doctor Dan has a great conceptualization of human-machine interface but lacks some deeper knowledge on how computer systems work. It is due to this that a lot of headbutting has taken place both within the Physix community and in interactions outside of it.

Here we will clear up the confusions.

A computer operates programs, these programs are constructed through the use of a programming language. The programming language is itself an interface through which humans communicate and fabricate structures and systems within the digital realm.

A computer does not think the same way that a human does, as a computer is only truly able to think along the lines of code which have been written for it in the order which they have been written.

Here is where moore’s law comes into play; as the speed of the processor determines the speed at which the computer is able to scan the code within a given time period, in the modern era this is generally noted in milliseconds.

The faster the processor of the machine, the faster it reads and re-reads the code.

Therefore a program must be written as small as possible in order to be effective in rapidly achieving its end goal.

Programs can run backwards however this is a highly apecialized function with few uses outside of data analysis and neural networks.

I will not go at length here about neural networks in relation to Q-Vote as this would constitute a paper of equal length and depth as this one.

The longer a program is, the more code a computer must read through in order to execute the program, the more processing power is required to achieve this in the same amount of time as a smaller program. Which is yet another observational bit which proves Moore’s law to be true.

The facts discussed above seemingly preclude the Q-Vote’s efficacy from meeting current standards let alone surpassing them.

However there are solutions.

The Q-Vote is planned to have a mobile app, which would allow individuals to engage in the system wherever they are located. This creates the opportunity to implement a decentralized system of sorts.

Each app could be a vessel unto itself, carrying out calculations and documentations, which would reduce the level of stress placed on a the system and would also allow for redundancies therein.

A central hub would be required. This would essentially be the mainframe of Q-Vote which would carry out the amalgamation of the total information and of the larger and more difficult calculations. 

The system should ideally allow us to both focus in on regions and groups of people as well as to draw back and look at the vote as a whole, and so users will be required to keep a profile of their personal preferences as well as their primary location.

This sounds somewhat Orwellian and yet it is not.

Simply by inputting the limit of a micro-focal-point at the level of county, that is to say, by placing the limit of administration’s access to search results to that of a county or district which is generally smaller than a city yet large enough to contain multiple millions of people, we prevent any spying carried out against individuals.

The preferences would just be a generalization we may look at across regions and across the almagamated vote.

Which leads us into the last point of this section, which is the overall view of the interface as optimized through my work.

Both the user and the administrator must be able to view all parts of the Q-Vote which are interface and outcome, but not necessarily functional.

The example here is of that hierarchical zoom perspective described here. All people will be able to look at what topics are present to vote for as well as the results at every level. The personal preferences section will allow those of different subcultures to see how their subculture tends on a given issue as well as how alternate subcultures may percieve the same issue.

For the sake of clarity within our society this is the direction the Q-Vote must take.

It is optimal along lines of processing power as well as the starting point for Q-Vote. It is optimal in regards to public relations as well, as most people will acknowledge the positive nature of the ethics surrounding this system.

Section 5: More on Metadata and the Q-Vote

I have mentioned before the benefits of crowdsourced truth. I would here like to examine this more thoroughly.

Doctor Dan and myself have had many disagreements over our time together. During one point this year we disagreed about cryptocurrency where I posited my system of tiered currency and he attempted to argue that a social credit score was inevitable. Nothing is inevitable with the right knowledge.

To illustrate why the Q-Vote as an objective third party is ideal let us turn to the disagreement between Dan and myself. If Q-Vote exists and is objective, as in it has not been programmed with biases, then Dan and I could put our disagreement to the vote. Humans would vote on whether they agree with Dan’s proposal or my own. Once the vote is over, we examine the results. Since Q-Vote is intended to be used internationally we would not look at any specific groups of people, unless we were simply trying to attain statistical knowledge of a trivial sort.

The Q-Vote would show us a multi-dimensional chart of the results from which we would then infer the pros and cons of each proposal across an aggregated system of data.

Thusly Dan and I could use the Q-Vote to solve our disagreements about the Q-Vote.

Another point of note here is that the structure of the Q-Vote proposed previously gives rise to the potential for vastly more advanced calculations which means we may access more thorough and in-depth metadata.

Here, read this article I wrote not long ago.


I admit the article is poor in quality and that sections are even missing which should have been included.

However, the idea is presented somewhat sufficiently for my purposes here.

Imagine each cell phone as a cell in the system of information refinement. Each voter influences his localized q-vote app which may influence the manner in which it processes information. It still works together with the central mind and the rest of the collective to solve various problems, while also solving problems at a more localized level.

Allowing slight variations at the local level would create the necessary circumstances to adequately account for flaws in the metadata. It may also allow for optimized systems to arise naturally out of the chaos. This concept will be discussed more in the next section.

Measuring data along a gradient, a landscape with a slope of some sort, seems to be ideal for separating truth from fiction and so we can perceive reality to its fullest. The reason this is so is the reductive quality described before of the aggregated metadata, but also do to the visual nature of gradients and slopes.

Q-Vote can be used to settle disputes and solve problems if implemented properly. It can be used to optimize systems of various sorts.

Section 6: Technologies to be explored 

It has become apparent that AI has hit a plateau of sorts. Dozens of articles from 2019 to now discuss this.

Let us discuss some technologies which may enhance the field of AI research.

This is a paper from computer scientist, Roshawn Terrell.


Unbeknownst to either Roshawn or myself we had both been working on increasing entropy in neural networks independently of each other.

While his work was more analytical and theoretical, my work was more practical and arose out of necessity.

Allow me to explain.

In 2018 I was working to try to impress a man who had been a computer scientist and so tried to figure out a way of incorporating the concept of quantum functionality into a neural network. And so, I created an object in java (java is a programming language whose functionality revolves around the creation of minor programs known as objects) which would perform this function. The object consisted of three inputs, three outputs, and three internal algorithms. For comparison, all neurons in a network which exists at present only have one single output and one single algorithm.

Clearly the technology I happened to create increases entropy.

However there are other technologies which may advance the field of AI.

One of these is what I call a digital telomere. Telomeres are essentially portions of the human chromosomes which determine, in a way, how long each of us lives and how well we heal.

A digital telomere would operate as a limiting device for self-improving machines. Neural networks are a sort self improving machine already, however I am referring to software which could write a copy of itself containing improvements, and that copy would write another copy with its own improvements, and so on so forth.

A digital telomere would prevent a program from copying and rewriting its code for too many iterations so we prevent a wyrm (primitive and evolving computer virus) or lifeform from arising.

Another technology we could implement would be an amalgamated system. 

Here is Dr. Mark Solms, as he discusses primitive structures within the human brain.

What is not discussed here is how these structures interact with each other. This is primarily because humanity itself does not understand this.

However, we can take this concept and apply it within a computer science context.

Having what I call micro neural nets, that is to say small neural networks with a singular and simplistic function, which can then be “stacked” or integrated with each other to achieve much more complex functions than each network would achieve on its own.

Another way we may be able to achieve a greater level of entropy in the system is by simply adding more dimensions to it. For example, the gradient from a prior section could be made to be eight dimensional and thusly require more complexity within the system.

Imagine a ball rolling down a natural hill; the ball here represents the task at hand while the hill represents any struggles or issues that may be faced while attempting to optimize the system. The ball takes a while to travel down the hill because of all the dimensions portrayed by the hill. However the ball still makes it to the bottom of the hill. This is the process of optimization within a computer system. However you can add more dimensions and even subtract dimensions in order to complexify the system (although subtracting dimensions does not seem viable as a method for increasing complexity).

This can be performed as a modification to pre-existing systems as well using what I would consider to be simple fixes.

These are all only technologies which I have come up with. I can only begin to imagine what other minds have come up with.

The field of artificial intelligence has no need to slow down.

Couple alternative conceptualizations and systems with the Q-Vote and we will undoubtedly witness the Q-Vote advance beyond any current technology.

Section 7: The Ethics and Means of Prosperous Implementation

As stated in the first section, there are steps we can take to properly “raise up” as it were a proper AI. We may limit information or place limitations on what information an AI may access at a given time.

We may desire to put in a kill switch so as to prevent a machine uprising. Properly informing the AI of the reasons for all our actions seems ethical snd thusly should be included as part of the protocols for emerging advanced AI.

A centralized AI does not seem to be the most efficacious setup for a highly advanced system.

We may desire to implement a system much like the Geth from the video game Mass Effect, where each robotic unit has some level of individuality but is connected to a larger “Cluster Consciousness” which itself allows a great amount of balance across the micro-macro gap and creates a huge amount of redundancy within the system.

There are also changes which will inevitably come about due to human interaction with advanced technology.

This is Asha Logos. I do not know much about him however I do recognize that he does a fairly good job of researching.

In this video he discusses his vision of an ideal world, and of the future. I do not agree with much of what he says. He appeals to nature frequently and espouses collectivist ideals which I disagree with. However he does bring up many points which I consider objective. He brings up the need to simplify our civilization and focus on highly esteemed ideals, and also the human propensity to replace nature with artifice.

The Q-Vote would do well to simplify the various complexities within our lives which would reduce stress on individuals and the populace as a whole. It would also aid us in finding ways of achieving higher goals and visions.

With the Q-Vote we will be able to understand each other better and find better solutions to social issues including personal disagreements at the individual level.

The Q-Vote provides the possibility for continuous improvement and optimization at all levels of existence and thusly is the most ethical tool moving forward as a species.


We at PHYSIX have formulated a highly adaptable and efficient system of truth discernment and systems optimization.

We are at the forefront of innovative technology and are rapidly advancing our vision regardless of how much income there is.

We have spent this article discussing the Q-Vote, which was an original concept established by Dan Smith, and in discussing said idea we have explored the efficacy of collectivized votes within a complex system, as well as potential hazards and preventive measures for those hazards. We have also explored alternative technologies which may be used independently or in conjunction with the Q-Vote which will undoubtedly further our technological capabilities.

As more effort is put into systems designed by those within the community of PHYSIX we will inevitably see even more advancements made and more minds attracted to PHYSIX.

This will create a sort of cycle of perpetual enhancement as more and more fresh minds become involved and further technology with a new set of tools and mindset.

The Q-Vote should be the first system PHYSIX completes and will show the way forward for all of us primates on this dust ball flying through space at nearly 517,000 miles per hour. By taking the output of such an advanced and collectivized system as a positive we can rapidly watch our scientific community become vastly more prosperous in their workings. We may also simplify other systems and find optimal solutions to problems.