Why should the concept of Imperatively Hidden Elements (IHE) become common knowledge, especially in machine learning and feature selection? Did everyone, except for me, knew all along that our scientific progress-rate limiting bottlenecking factor is proper feature selection but not the lack of advances in improving our machine learning algorithms? I assumed that this could not be the case because most publications present improvements in machine learning algorithms, but neglect to even mention that lack of progress in better feature selection is preventing us from making any significant progress but not poorly performing machine learning algorithms. I thought that if I did not know that until my defense, then most others, especially those who don’t know much about machine learning yet, i.e. most of our wet-lab biologists, who need to design their experiments accordingly, are not aware of this problem either. Then I thought I must tell them or else they keep mistakenly misinterpreting unpredictable outcomes as unavoidable noise instead of correctly realizing that still imperatively hidden elements (IHE) affect our predicted outcome in manner, which we cannot yet explain, unless we start observing the last temporal visible object/observation/event, after which we can no longer correctly predict the chain of subsequent events or observations, from many different perspectives and angles in order to really scrutinize it legitimacy, because most likely, it is composed of more than a single visible object (VO), of which we are already aware, because an undetermined number of distinctly different, but yet still imperatively hidden; thus inevitably for us still imperceptible, but nevertheless fully legitimate and truly existing yet invisible objects look too similar to our only visible object, which tricks us into the illusion of erroneously believing that it’s only a single object. But the truth is that it is actually 2 or more objects, between which we cannot yet distinguish. Nevertheless, the number of possible outcomes depends on the number of truly existing objects, regardless whether or not we can distinguish them from their background. For example, until this morning, I was not aware of the difference between Python and Cython. Cython was for me in imperatively hidden object, which to me looked exactly like Python, because Cython is almost identical to Python, except for, that its variables must be of a specified type, e.g. string, vector, list, numeric, data frame, etc., which is not the case in Python. This led to my observation that some Python packages run fine on Windows whereas other never worked. Since the PyAffy.py library must have been written in Cython, it tricked me into the illusion that the only way to use a Python package, which fails to run under Windows, is to use Linux. It took us 3 months to set up a Linux laptop I could see. Now I discovered that we could have copied the Cython code and save it as a Python file by omitting specifying the variable type and run it just like a Python file. If we had used machine learning to discover the reason for some Python packages, specifically the PyAffy-package not running under Windows, could machine learning figure out that the feature “variable type selection”, which is a Boolean of present or absent, can be used to distinguish between Python and Cython? If we just gave the programming code of Python libraries and the outcome of running and not running as training data for supervised machine learning, could it figure out without any prior knowledge about Cython, that a programming language other than Python is causing problems under Windows? Can machine learning learn programming? Can it learn to conceptually understand the differences between variable types, classes, functions, objects, loops, methods, parameters, etc.? If the concept of IHE is true, then most graduates are not well prepared to deal with imperatively hidden elements (IHE), because they appear to be totally left in the dark about this dangerously unnecessarily very time-consuming temporary progress-preventing nettlesome barrier, which can halt progress for many years, because nobody ever shared with them (i.e. our future wet-lab scientists, who must choose wisely, which data they collect for the computational analysts, to reach valid conclusions) the concept that the risk for misinterpreting poor outcome predictability as unavoidable background noise instead of getting alerted that a still imperatively hidden element (IHE), which we cannot perceive yet, creates a much bigger and more dangerous obstacle, than any visible element, which has at least one feature that causes it to stand out from what we often mistakenly refer to as background noise in the system, until this imperatively hidden element (IHE) has been fully uncovered and understood. Now my biggest question is who can help me to get this published, especially as long as no numbers and mathematical calculations are involved. Therefore, we must generate a numerical example as proof-of-principle that there can be instances, where my description fully applies, because I am afraid that a bioinformatics dissertation lacking any numerical calculations may not b considered as a dissertation despite its potentially much further reaching impact if people seriously trying to understand its meanings and apply it according to its implications. For example, only 500 years ago, people dreamed of immortality like we are dreaming of it today. Unfortunately, they had no concept of a cell yet. But exactly this lack of concept about the cell being the atomic indivisible and smallest element of life, made everything inside the cell imperatively hidden elements (IHEs), which could not be uncovered before we succeeded in conceptualizing a cell as the smallest independently functioning unit of life. But how many of such kind of fundamental cell concepts discoveries are we still away from correctly understanding and reversing aging? The reason, which gave me the confidence to seriously claim that all I have stated above must be truer than what I view as the mainstream perception about the mode of action, which is driving our scientific discovery process and its direction, is a detailed clear and easy to understand reply by a bioinformatics director on ResearchGate.net, where I had posted the attached question for verification, because at first I could not believe that my logical conclusion from my own writing is a much better way to reflect reality because the evolution of life has not been limited to our narrow perceptual spectrum, its few features and dimensions, which many of us subconsciously seem to consider the boundaries of the world. No phenomenon will ever stop being a fully legitimate phenomenon just because we are not aware of it! But who can tell now, what we are not aware of yet until we are aware of it? Many bats, bacteria, ants and spiders, are so blind that they cannot even sense any light. But who, while still mentally sane would ever dare to claim that their lives are not affected by visible light? If nothing else, life makes a difference in how well their predators can see and find their blind pray. Who can know in advance today how many imperatively hidden elements (IHE) (e.g. objects (IHO), or factors (IHF), or concepts (IHC), or relationships (IHR), or variables (IHV), or reasons (IHR), or interactions (IHI), or dependencies (IHd), or dimensions (IHD), or ID-etc., which are clearly defined by their inherent innate features), still await our timely discovery? However, we can only significantly accelerate the rate, by which we will uncover the still remaining IHEs, if we stop denying or ignoring the no longer IHC of IHE, but instead, embrace it as an unexpected shortcut to immortality. A widely shared better understanding and first-hand personal experiences of the inherently synergistically acting dynamics of selecting the most promising methods for the soonest uncovering for most of the IHE needs to become the implicitly universally shared accepted scientific foundation, because it maximizes our chances for individual survival. Since we are all defined by our experiences and the way we react to them we all have a dynamically changing unique and irreplaceable self-identity. If we lose it by losing our lives our experiences are lost forever because they can never be retrieved again. From the individual perspective of any deceased person the situation after death = that before death. This inevitably causes the long-term total loss of the value of life as long as it remains finite. From the perspective of any time point after death the lifespan of the deceased becomes irrelevant because – like before birth – self-identity and self-perception are lacking at any time before birth or after death. Therefore, life can only make sense if it never ends or else it will be in vain from the very beginning. The fact that most humans refuse to admit this fact does not change it in any way no matter how much we hate and deny it. Since every one of us can only choose between living an eventually worthless life, because over time everyone will inevitably forgotten, or immortality as the only other possible alternative, since it is the only way to retain and expand the subjective meaning of life over time permanently by retaining all otherwise irreproducible personality-forming past memories and experiences based on which everyone’s unique self-identity and self-perceptions keeps gradually changing over time with every new experience, impression, idea, concept or any other change in perception. This makes everyone’s self-perception and self-identity as indefinitely valuable because it cannot be restored after death. Similar to evolution, everyone’s self-identity constitutes the best adaptation to the challenges and opportunities experienced between birth and presence. Therefore, like in evolution, there must exist a set of environmental conditions, which could potentially make everyone, no matter how severely disabled, sick, dependent and maladapted even the most sorriest individual may appear to the current set of environmental condition, there is most likely a situation – no matter how unlikely it may seem – to which even the currently most struggling person can respond better than anyone else. This gives everyone – including any animal – which perceives itself as being something other than its environment the inherently intrinsic role of a tool, which works very well, i.e. better than any other tool, for some tasks, while being completely useless for others. However, the decisive factor for the survival of the entire group of very diverse and heterogeneous unique instances of never-resting; hence, irreplaceable and irreproducible self-identities and subjective self-perceptions, who can perceive their environment as something other than themselves, depends on having only a single population member, who can deal with any particular problem or challenge, when nobody else can. Even animals like dogs, horses, cats, snakes, donkeys, monkeys, hawks, doves, marsupials, dolphins, whales, reptiles, birds, rodents, foxes, rabbits, elephants, etc. then contribute to the survival of their owners during emotional, medical or confrontational crises. This even gives such kind of animal a status of a group survival tool. Nobody can predict in advance future changes and hence nobody can predict which survival tools will be most beneficial for all of us tomorrow. Where the energy to power eternal life can comes from? Almost all of our sun’s radiation, which supports all life on Earth because it can get converted into lipids, carbohydrates and proteins, goes unused every single second. It is sufficient to provide enough energy to power the life of billions of planets like Earths simultaneously. This renders any fear about overpopulation absurd. Regardless, whether we succeed in giving our lives permanent meanings by reversing all adverse aspects of aging, the birth rate keeps exceeding its supposedly counterbalancing death rate by several percent. This will inevitably cause our mother-planet to become too small for sustaining all instances of life, which deserve every imaginable support to stay alive as long as they feel not to be the same as their surroundings because this allows them to perceive and respond. Killing them would be the same as taking away an irreplaceable uniquely responding option, which deserves its own opportunity to adapt to its experiences by actively striving to find the best subjectively best situation on its own. Every form of consciousness, which can distinguish itself as not being the same as its surroundings is like an imperatively visible element (IVE), which would be demoted to an IHE, if killed. It would lose out on opportunities to improve its self-perception. It would lose its irreplaceable unique self-identity and perception; hence, causing its memories to become inevitably lost forever. It may take long until people start defining the value of life based on the same criteria by which we distinguish between IHEs and IVEs. As long as any form of life is forced to go backwards from an IVE to an IHE, it is losing its most valuable feature, i.e. irreplaceable self-identity and self-perception. Humans may never know which animals would be deprived of their most valuable features as soon as they are getting prevented from making a difference between themselves and their surroundings. But this is all just intellectual theory because as soon as we start reaching for eternal life, we must define what it is to minimize the risk that it will be taken away from anyone, who deserves to keep it. That is why I applied the same criteria I use to distinguish between IHE and IVE. The new rule of thumb for deserving to live is: any critter, who subjectively perceives itself as not exactly the same as its surrounding background noise, i.e. who possesses at least one feature by which it differs from its surroundings, should be allowed to keep living in its environment, because it has passed the critical threshold, above which a uniquely irreplaceable instance of constantly adapting self-identity and self-perception must be assumed. Depriving any critter from its opportunities and benefits to remain active within its environment would be morally wrong because if we did this to humans, it would be considered murder. But then, any animals navigating in similar levels of consciousness would lose the same as their aging human counterparts and would suffer the same kind of loss, which humans would feel when gradually losing their ability to subjectively perceive themselves as something other than their surroundings. All this hypothetical writing above, which may never reach any practical significance because homo Sapiens tends to care less for other species, is only necessary because of the huge overlap between the declining self-perception and self-identity capabilities of dying humans, especially when dying of Alzheimer, dementia or any other age-related disease interfering with memory formation and retrieval, without which no unique self-identity and self-perception can be maintained any longer. Once lost, it can never be restored again. This is the sad about humans gradually losing the very feature, which has given them the inherently innate features of an IVE all their lives. Unfortunately, after having lost their subjective perception of their most defining IVE feature, i.e. to perceive themselves as something other than their surrounding background living environment, they can no longer maintain any form of self-identity and self-perception, not even a completely static one, because it imperatively depends on memory formation, retrieval, responses and adaptations. This demotes their mental and cognitive status from an IVE to and IHE; hence, causing them to disappear from their own subjective perception. This implies that their subjective perception can no longer be brought back to what it was between birth and loss of the capabilities associated with any IVE. Note that no living IVE (i.e. visible subject) will ever stay the same as time goes on. It is in constant flax of gradually transitioning with every new impression and every change it notices. No IVE resembling critter can ever return to exactly any of its It past self-perception and self-identity. This makes it imperatively irreproducible and thus, guarantees its indefinitely high value, which cannot be compensated for in any way by any currency. Seriously considering immortality requires us to break away from many of our long overdue obsolete concepts. Although we are not even close to accomplishing immortality yet by rejuvenating and then remain forever young, healthy, energetic, curious, adventurous, flexible, adaptive, ambitious, innovative, creative, passionate and full of love for all aspects of life, we would benefit a lot from replacing our old mortal with immortal concepts of life because this is a precondition for succeeding in transitioning faster from mortal to immortal beings. For our generation, this will make the difference between life and death. Why do most people oppose the concept of aging as a disease? Once thing, which I am glad not to be all alone, which must change immediately, is that we, i.e. the WHO, the NIH, the FDA, our medical coding, das Deutsche Gesundheitsamts and every healthcare provider worldwide must stop stubbornly refusing to declare aging as a disease, because it’s the worst disease ever! Aging is the master disease of all diseases because it’s causing us to gradually become more and more susceptible of developing them and inevitably subsequently die from any combination of them. If our medical providers, who we patients must trust our lives even though most of them don’t seem to feel neither the need nor moral obligation to save our lives if we’d be fortunate to live beyond 100 years, who else can we trust? Who’ll take the initiative to protect our lives when we have aged too much for actively protecting ourselves? Who honestly deserves from being demoted from IVE to an IHE simply because it happened to so many of his/her fellows in the same age range? That is what I am expecting of my doctors. I am an enthusiastic member of the German Party, which promotes health and longevity research. I perceive myself as a very strong and convincing communicator. Yet I failed in convincing a medical doctor to support our party by signing our partition with her full name and address and thus to become one out of the about 3,000 voters, who are registered in the state of Berlin, to express their support to the state election officials to allow our still very young lifespan and health-span extension party to participate in the state election for representation in the Berlin Senate during our first election campaign I was actively involved during the spring of 2016. We had a heated discussion for two hours while riding the subway from Potsdam to Erkner. By the time our subway commuter train, i.e. the Berlin S-Bahn, had reached its final destination she apologized for refusing to sign our petition to be allowed to participate in our first statewide election because she felt that it is wrong to keep old people alive beyond their natural lifetime. Who then would fight for my life if I am no longer strong enough to fend for myself? Unfortunately, these are the kind of doctors, on whom my life would depend, if US Immigration forces me to leave America because my disabilities prevent me from finding a job within only 90 days. What triggered the understanding that immortality is absolutely essential? – A personal experience When I was only 6 years old, I went through an emotional trauma, from which I am still suffering today and that has led me to come here and be the only one working in the EIT building during Christmas break. On October 2nd, 1980, only one day before my daddy’s birthday, my aunt Frida, who I liked a lot because she paid lots of attention to my long stories and actually took them serious, suffered from a sudden heart attack. My daddy succeeded to bring her back to life with CPR and my mom called the emergency doctor in the mean time. The doctor was a quiet man from Rumania. He had short back hear and looked like being around 30 years old. His voice was very quiet and emotionally detached when he asked my grandma about the age of my aunt. My grandma replied, she is 83 years old. And then something happened, which I never expected, i.e. the doctor went on in his empathy-lacking quiet voice to say the few German words, which I still remember as if my aunt had died yesterday. He said “Ich denke, wir hoeren auf.” In English this means, “I think, we are going to quit.” He meant going to quit any efforts and even medical interventions at our disposal to bring my aunt Frida back to live and to make sure she’ll stay alive. When the doctor said this, it was spooky quiet, as if a ghost would kill my aunt. I felt like screaming into the face of the doctor, YOU MUST DO YOUR JOB AS EMERGANCY DOCTOR, TO DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO MINIMIZE MY AUNT’S RISK TO DIE FROM THIS PARTIAL HEART ATTACK REGARDLESS OF HER AGE!!!! But I was only six. I was scared and confused. It was my first real encounter with death. I helplessly looked at my parents and looked at my grandma. I wanted them to demand from the doctor not to use my aunt Frida’s advanced age against her. Although I was only six years old I strongly felt that no medical provider has the moral right and should be punished harshly when using his patient’s age as a shallow absolutely unjustified excuse for refusing to save their lives. But it was so quiet this time, which I recall must have been around 7.30 p.m. on October the 2nd, 1980, when my aunt laid diagonally across the carpet on the floor of the children’s room. Neither my mom nor my daddy nor my grandma nor my 2 younger siblings opened their mouth. Although I was furious beyond anyone’s imagination, the fact that my otherwise very confident parents and even my grandma, who was best friends with my dying aunt, i.e. all three adults in the room, who’d I expect to fight for my life if I ever needed urgent medical care, and who’d otherwise readily expressed their opposition to anything they did not agree with or considered unfair, did not even attempt to pressure the doctor on a mental, emotional empathic, moral, medical or legal level, to take his job seriously regardless how he personally felt about my aunt’s advanced age. When something totally unexpected like this happens, i.e. in case of such kind of second degree murder due to medical neglect and intentionally withholding readily available medical interventions without any apparent rational reason for not even trying to save my aunts life, when we still had a chance, I became speechless. I felt like screaming to my parents to not allow the doctor to let my aunt die, after my daddy had brought her back to life already. My daddy is very good in CPR. He’ll fight for everyone’s life as if it was his own. My daddy waited for the doctor’s instructions on how to proceed after restoring my aunts consciousness to the point where she had her eyes opened and could hear every single word, which was spoken by anyone in the children’s room. When all this happened I stood about 4 feet away from my aunt. I was afraid to move any closer because I was worried of accidentally bump into something I could not see but which would kill here. Now something happened that I can never forget. My daddy got up from the carpet and stopped CPR! I felt like screaming “NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!” “WHYYYYYYYYYY???” “DON’T!!!!!!” “KEEP BREATHING MORE AIR IN HER MOUTH!!!!! Don’t listen to this evil doctor! He has no respect for life! He does not deserve to be an emergency doctor!!! What if she were his aunt???? She is conscious and will most likely fully come back to life if you’ll just give her enough time to get over this medical crisis!!!! Actually, she was already over the hump because apparently her heart was beeping already independently and all my daddy was still doing, was breathing air in my aunt’s mouth. I wanted my mom to call another doctor. I wanted him to be a German doctor, who treats our aunt as if she was his aunt. I felt that this Rumanian doctor had no empathy for Germans because when my entire family looked up to him for help, he indirectly killed by neglect. Even if is negative medical intuition should turn out to be true and all of our medical interventions were doomed to fail this evening, I felt he should at least try anyways or else there would have been no point in the doctor making the trip to our home. Then he could have stayed in his hospital. At least that way he would not have had the opportunity to discourage my daddy from reviving my aunt with CPR. When I was six, my daddy was still very powerful. He would have kept performing CPR for hours to save my aunt’s life, if this disguised killer-doctor, would not have instructed him to stop and let her die, just because he felt no old people deserve resources intensive medical care, unless they are his own relatives. Would he let his aunt or grandmother die like that if he had good chances to prevent or at least postpone death? This I felt would have certainly give my aunt enough time to get over the fear, which is an inherent feature of anyone surviving a heart attack, especially when the doctor is instructing my daddy to stop saving her alive. I felt like being in a madhouse. I could not speak. My otherwise very attentive parents and grandmother did not seem to be aware that I felt so much emotional pain with such a mental intensity that I almost felt as if I was the one dying instead of my aunt. This god dam Rumanian doctor! Why did he have to be on duty when my aunt needed dedicated professional medical help to get over her heart attack? Why did the hospital not send a German doctor with a strong voice, who’d be much more assertive in his speech and actions to instruct my parents to do everything in their power to save my aunt’s life? Why did my aunt deserve such an indecisive foreign doctor, who lacks the kind of strong loud confidence inducing voice, patients and their relatives need in their struggle of succeeding in overcoming any medical crisis? Why did this stupid hospital send us this absolutely useless and even counterproductive foreign physician, who refused to even say a single word when my parents and grandma looked up to him and expected rational life-saving medical advice? What was he thinking when he condemned my aunt with the only very ambiguous sentence, I still remember verbatim from this cursed Rumanian doctor, “I think, we are going to quit.”? Was he asking my parents, whether they’d approve his proposal to quit saving my aunt’s life? Was he order my daddy to quit CPR and let my aunt die? This doctor showed lack of leadership when everyone is expecting him to take charge of the medical crisis at hand and to maximize the odds for the best possible medical outcome. I remember not being able to feel anything that evening. My aunt laid dead diagonally across the carpet in the children’s room when I started to understand that everyone expects me to go to sleep as usual. I hid under my blanket. I cried so hard. What if I had a heart attack? Would my parents and grandma follow the medical advice of the doctor, if he told them that he thinks, we should quit saving my life? Luckily, I only was 6 and no doctor would even dream about using my age as an excuse for letting me die. I suffered from many potentially very serious medical conditions, such as cleft pallet and frequent infections because my tonsils had to be removed in a risky surgery when I was hospitalized for over half a year until the doctors considered me to be healthy and physiologically strong enough to have at least a 60% chances of surviving the immanent cleft pallet surgery in 1977 in the children’s hospital located in the small town of Thalwitz in northern rural Saxony, which was so poorly connected to the generally otherwise relatively good public transportation gird of East Germany in 1977, that my parents could not come and visit me often during the six months I was hospitalized there. In the late 1970s owning a car was still the exception rather than the norm. The average waiting time for the opportunity to buy a car was 12 years. We considered ourselves as a very lucky family because our waiting time to buy a car was cut in half from 12 to only 6 years because two out of my parents’ three children were severely disabled and especially I, despite being the oldest, required most medical care. I was considered to be too weak and sick for even attending regular Kindergarten until I turned five. From then onwards things started to slowly but gradually improve. I remember my parents and any medical provider to dedicate a lot of their efforts in teaching me to speak properly because I was unable to speak before I had cleft pallet surgery. How do humans develop their Personal Identity and self-perception? – A personal experience Hence, when I was still very young I had to deal with lots of medical providers. My life depended on them. Fortunately, I cannot remember a single instance for any medical provider to treat me badly. I blindly trusted any doctor, nurse or other caretakers, because all of them where always there for me whenever I felt I needed then, especially when my parents could not visit me for extended times. And I was a very demanding child. I screamed and cried and threw temper tantrums until most of my caretakers gave into my demands and let me have what I demanded, which actual was not much. While in the hospital I refused to sleep unless I could take a red toy bus with a white roof with to bed. I remember having to sleep next to a fridge, which made lots of humming sounds at night that I had a hard time falling asleep at night in the hospital. I remember looking for many hours at a stretch nonstop out of the hospital’s window counting the lights of the cars, which drove buy, hoping that eventually one of these cars would bring my parents back to me to the hospital because I remembered that I came with them in a taxi to the hospital. Since I remember my parents leaving the hospital in a taxi, I had no doubt that eventually another taxi would bring my parents back to me to the hospital. But back then I only was 3 years old and did not get a chance yet to gradually develop any concept of time. Back then, every evening, which I started to count the lights of the cars driving by my hospital’s window, I was certain that this evening one of these cars had to bring my parents back to me that night simply because I decided to count the lights of the cars driving by that evening. Back then even causal relationships were still an IHC to me. I still remember employing very strange ways of reasoning because I still lacked any concept about the difference between cause and effect and their temporal unidirectional relationship between them. I was so confident that if I spent lots of time and efforts in counting the lights of the by driving cars, my counting and track keeping efforts would pay off eventually because I remembered from past hospital visits of my parents that their arrival was always preceded by a car driving by my hospital window and then turning into the hospital parking lot have - oh joy - my parents inside it. Since they left exactly the same way they came, I seriously assumed that - since my parents only came after the lights of their taxi glanced by my hospital window - then looking at the lights of cars glancing their lights by my hospital window, and making a concerted effort to keep counting any new car correctly, would inevitably and imperatively cause another taxi to inevitably and imperatively return my parents to visit me in the hospital if I only was persistent enough not to stop counting any new car driving by my hospital window, until one of these cars, which I counted, would bring my parents back to me to the hospital eventually. The problem with my way of reversing cause and effect was that it kept reinforcing its backwards way of reasoning by reversing the temporal direction, which normally causes the reason to precede its consequences, because if I kept counting the cars over many days and weeks, then eventually one of the cars, which I counted meticulously, would be the taxi cab returning my parents to visit me in the hospital. I remember attributing the return of my parents to my car counting efforts. This inadvertently reinforced my misconception that counting cars long enough would eventually bring back my parents. Hence, whenever I missed them I confidently started counting cars and refused to stop counting until one car brought my parents back. This gave me the illusion of being in control to see my parents whenever I like simply by stubbornly insisting on carrying on counting cars and refusing to stop counting under any circumstances, until eventually one of the cars, which I counted, eventually had to be the taxicab, which my parents eventually took, to visit me for a second time. Maybe this is similar to how some animals perceive their surroundings. The reason for me to share my very first memories of my experiences about slowly yet gradually perceiving myself transitioning into something, which keeps becoming increasingly distinctly different from his/her surrounding and how keeps gradually advancing in manipulating his surroundings according to his constantly evolving and increasingly distinctly personal preferences, e.g. insisting to only sleep with the red toy bus, which had a white roof; to dislike the humming sound of the freezer next to my hospital bed and for insisting to meticulously keep counting every single car, which drove by my hospital window until eventually, given enough time, one of the cars, which I must inevitably end up counting, must be the taxicab, which my parents took to visit me for the next time. These hospital memories above were formed from my very first experiences, which allowed me to start to subjectively perceive myself – fist still imperceptibly slowly and initially still subconsciously – transitioning from an still completely IHE to an eventually fully IVE, because the number of features, based on which I could clearly tell that I must differ from my surroundings, keeps rising with every new impression and with every - no matter how minor and initially still very instinctively controlled responses to any small changes in external stimuli might have been – e.g. feeling a cold, smelling food, getting tired, searching for my red toy bus with a white roof, smelling the postcards my parents sent me, dropping my pillow from my hospital bed, spilling tomato soup everywhere, losing my hospital house shoes or starting to gradually develop Synesthesia (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia) by inadvertently associating a very specific shape and its exact color of any imperatively visible object (IVO), at which I happen to look either by random chance or by intentionally implicitly guided, yet still very broadly and none-directionally acting inspirational conveniences cleverly stimulating the very first steps of the initial formation of new mental imaginations, which will gradually evolve over time into a storage place for adjusting still rudimentary incomplete fragmented precursors of randomly scattered pieces of initially inadvertently acquired external information, which keeps getting subconsciously rearranged and related to one another to reflect any additional observation from the surroundings by subconsciously rearranging all the pieces to avoid any kind of contradiction between any of the increasingly many IVE by combining their features until they form the first still very primitive yet coherent and internally consistent concepts explaining the observations made about the gradually rising number of distinct features by which each of the IVE can be defined as being imperatively different from its surroundings. This, in turn, aids the very exciting continuously progressing playful discovery process typically observed in very curious Kindergartners, who tend to view their surroundings as a gigantic all-encompassing and continuously producing toy-factory, which is capable of magically creating any combination of fancy toys, adventure worlds, villains, allies, heroes, challenges, games or missions, which they could possibly imagine and which can only be very loosely defined by their features, which inherently describe their innate IVOs, from which they cannot be separated because they are unique in that they exclusively refer to one particular but no other IVOs and must therefore be always associated with their very specific IVO without which they immediately cease to exist. This still very naïve, exciting, playful worry free times of childhood development, during which the parents, grandparents and other adult relatives and family friends easily seem to carry the burden to fix perfectly, fix everything and anything, which could potentially go wrong, is the ideal breeding ground for developing any absolutely unique, irreplaceable and irreproducible self-perception and self-identity, which gives our lives their intrinsically indefinitely high values; hence, making them subject of deserving our upmost protection from any risk to ever get lost due to any reason. Unfortunately, most of us are still trapped by the very counterproductive and misleading concept to inadvertently but nevertheless erroneously equate life with a Boolean variable, which can only take two values, e.g. true or false, on or off, zero or one, yes or no, etc. For those poor people any individual can either be alive or dead, but nothing in between. Generally, as long as they have reason to believe that an individual has good chances of resuming all its essential functions of life in the near future they keep referring to it as being alive. However, this long obsolete misconception completely contradicts my evidences above proving that – instead of being either all or nothing - our lives more or less take place and evolve on a gradual continuum ranging from 0% to up to more than 100,000% of the life intensity most of us tend to experience when graduating from high school. From birth until high school graduation we all experience a rapid, exciting and stimulating rise of IVEs, which are characterized by a rising number of their defining imperatively visible features (IVFs), which – by definition – must always differ from their background. Every additional IVF, which – by its definition – can never take on any value, which would prevent the subjective observer from distinguishing it from its background at any possible observation time point and its respective background conditions, increases the sharpness of any IVE, which can be unambiguously and uniquely defined by its defining IVFs, since it provides an additional opportunity for the subjective observer to distinguish it even better from its background noise, i.e. an actually misleading term, because it almost always refers to a bunch of still indistinguishable and undetectable IHEs. The absolute number of IHEs, which most of us tend to mislabel as background noise without ever being aware of it, tends to exceed the absolute number of IVEs, which even the most skilled and well trained professional observer can subjectively distinguish from their background noises throughout the course of his/her life, by a factor exceeding at least 1,000 - and possibly even much more - because there are many more opportunities to define absolutely legitimate - but nevertheless completely imperceptible - IHE by features, which most likely nobody will have a chance to know about unless he/she had figured out much better ways of succeeding in taking extremely clever, creative and innovative actions specifically aimed to actively and intentionally uncover almost any intended IHE as long as the professional IHE hunter is at least aware of at least one indirect consequence of his/her IHE of interest. There are so many new cool mindboggling and exciting new opportunities for penetrating into the realm of completely unheard of dimensions entailing the complexity of entire universes, which are governed by scientific laws, which not even remotely resemble any of the natural laws, which govern the physics, chemistry, biology, nuclear, radiation, penetration, attraction, repulsion and interaction, of our universe. I hope I’ll get a chance to explain them in detail before my intended audience can discourage me from trying to complete the unifying and universally applicable theory about IHEs because without it we won’t even have an itty bitty remote chance for ever becoming immortal within the next 4.5 Billion years our mother star, i.e. our sun, can provide us with the solar energy to power all instances of life striving for immortality. Then there is an unexpectedly huge popular group comprised of people, who openly oppose any lifespan extending interventions. They don’t seem to get tired of erroneously claiming that they finally came to terms by accepting the constraints, by which their collectively subjectively misperceived reality has already irrevocably devastated their otherwise still totally healthy way of intuitively, gradually and almost effortlessly updating their hopelessly outdated and dangerously obsolete concepts by more realistic ones. They keep emphasizing to volunteer to leave this Earth before even turning 115 to make room for younger generations with whom they don’t want to compete for scares resources, such as food, clothing, housing, medical care, infrastructure, jobs, long-term elderly care facilities and presumably even for the oxygen all of us still need for our breathing. The makes me feel so very sad because despite considering myself as an aspiring mastermind of persuasive communication, I still must admit with shame that I unfortunately have utterly failed in all of my multifaceted attempts to break any of my friends away from the mutually reinforced, self-defeating objectively irrational illusionary misconception that we, i.e. the species of Homo Sapiens, lack access to the scares resources required for sustaining the life of everyone, who is serious about maintaining it indefinitely after having rejuvenated back to where he/she was when graduating from high school. Despite the widespread paranoid opposition to take any serious action for preserving everyone’s lives without ever even getting close to facing any kind of risk for running low on essential scares resources, which could possibly prevent us from effectively preserving the lives of each and every critter, who has ever lived on this Earth. Even when adding all initially Earth-bound critters, who could potentially ever be born on this Earth within the time interval starting today and ending in about 4.5 Billion years when our sun is expected to collapse into a small white dwarf star. This will effectively postpone any adverse effects, which could potentially threaten anyone’s survival as a consequence of lacking access to sufficient solar energy for easily maintaining the lives of at least 100 times as many critters, who could have ever lived on our mother planet even when combining all critters, who could possibly subsequently have ever lived here into a single total sum accounting for each and every instance of life, backdating its ancestry to the most prehistoric species, who has already evolved into a much different species since it began its evolutionary journey from a completely Earth-bound ancient form o very primitive biological form of life to adapt to the much more adjustable, predictable and less fluctuating new interstellar environment, capable of easily providing at least one billion times more solar energy than would have ever been available on this itty bitty Earth, by 4.5 billion years. Our holy mother planet, i.e. the nostalgic Crete of the very beginnings of human civilization, is nothing more than an IHE, because it is too tiny for standing out from its hot, bright, blinding, glowing, huge, yellow, sunny background, even for the most sensitive, best trained professional focusing on hunting specifically to uncover Earth from remaining an IHE by deliberately searching and probing for Earth within the dimensions by which Earth’s IVFs – by their intrinsic definition – must always look differently from any possibly disguising background noise. This sets the stage for uncovering Earth from an initially IHE to an IVE, based on its intrinsic innate features, which cannot exist in isolation but instead only when referring exclusively to very specific and unique properties, which the now IVE named Earth, does not share with any other entity, mostly objects, in any of the parallel or hierarchically structured sub-universes, which together form our super-universe. Our universe is only a very small component of the entire super-universe (i.e. super-multi-verse). Each dimension could potentially host a very complex sub-universe. From a moral viewpoint, what criteria must be met, to preserve it? The vary obvious – but nevertheless still mostly overlooked reason – which keeps preventing us from understanding and reproducing the biological version of continues memory, which allows any humanoid to develop a very unique, irreproducible and irreplaceable form of self-identity and self-perception, which is the most important biologically based mental property, which everyone of us possesses and which therefore, must be given an indefinitely high value because it corresponds to the life, which we get born with and which must be preserved at all cost, because losing a life is equivalent with losing information, which can never be retrieved again in any way, is our lack of a better concept about life. If a life or any information associated with it, or formed during its temporal progression, is lost, we face exactly the same situation and circumstances, which we would have encountered, if this particular life or information, which has become an intrinsic part of it because it could only emerge as a consequence of its intrinsic temporal progression and which therefore, can neither be retrieved, changed or referred to, independent of the life, which caused any particular information, property, memory, variable, method or value to come into being.  Could the full answer to reverse aging lie outside the dimensions of our universe? The unique self-identity, which must be different from any other entity within the namespace of our universe and all possible parallel existing universes, regardless how similar or different they may be in their physical laws, which are governing the gravitational interactions between its bodies of masses, the number of dimensions, properties, parameters, imperatively hidden and obvious objects and factors, which unambiguously define their behaviors and impact on one another in a clearly defined universally applicable, reproducible causal relationship, which allows to clearly distinguish between cause and effect within each of the parallel and hierarchically organized universes. Each universe/dimension must be uniquely unambiguously and clearly defined in non-overlapping manner to be very specific and indicative of each of the single universes, which together form the super-multi-verse, in which each of the single universes, of which the resulting overall all encompassing super multi-verse is composed of, takes a role and function of a single dimension, which – in tern – consist of sub-dimensions, which are defined by their sub-properties, sub-parameters, sub-values and sub-relationships to one another, which are specific to each dimension, which can take the complexity of a universe since it is composed of sufficiently many sub-dimensions, which allows for all needed complex interactions between its defining relationships and interactions between all of its specific objects, factors, variables between any of its components, which cannot be transferred between any of the different single universes, which together form the very complex and interconnected super-multi-verse, which we can use to define the same object using the different sub-dimensions and all properties, which define them, and which make them specific to each single universe; thus, allowing to clearly define the same object, factor or dimension, regardless whether it is still imperatively hidden or already fully discovered and understood sufficiently well to allow us to fully control any of its aspects, properties, parameters, factors, variables, features and values by which they are defined for being fully controlled by our desires, which allow us to fully accomplish any and all of our objectives, which we may choose to pursue within the constrains and limitations, which define each single universe, which, like single dimensions, define a multi-verse within which we strive to use supervised machine learning to accomplish exactly the same objective using the defining components of each single universe to refer to exactly the same phenomenon or observations but defining it by the laws, which specifically govern the behaviors, interactions, causal directional relationships, interdependencies, inferences and conclusions, which are valid in only a single universe and, which are so specific that they allow to unambiguously refer to exactly one and only one specific universe, in which they exclusively apply because they must not be found to be exactly the same in any other universe.  Each of these universes can be compared to a dimension by which the cell can adapt to environmental stimuli.  It can be compared to the many different partially or completely overlapping methods, which may or may not be partially or completely redundant and, which could or could not be completely substituted for one another, respectively.  Each dimension refers to any of the many dimensions, which are at the cell’s disposal, to ensure that each of its life-essential functions, properties, adaptations and regulatory mechanisms are taking place properly; ideally and initially without showing any sign of physical aging, decay or decline, which would pose a threat to the cell’s survival. For example, the length of the poly-AAA-tail at the end of the mRNA, the concentration, specificity, aggressiveness and speed by which the RNAses in the cytoplasm chew up the poly-AAA-tail, the ribosomal composition, which affect the bias, i.e. the specificity and binding coefficient by which each ribosome, which is defined by the composition of all of its components and their interactions with each, bind and translate certain subclasses of mRNAs, the distribution of RNA nucleotide triplets, which have been loaded with their respective amino acid; thus, making it to be available to be added to the growing nascent polypeptide chain; thus, determining the speed of its assembly, which – in turn – determines protein folding.  This allows the cell to perform different functions with exactly the same primary sequence of each poly-peptide chain between which we still cannot yet clearly distinguish because we still cannot clearly and uniquely define and refer to them. My research shows that sometimes lots of mRNA is needed to code for only a little or even non-detectible protein concentration, whereas as other time, undetectable amounts of mRNA can get translated into more than 1,000 times higher protein concentrations.  Experimental data for both extremes between mRNA and protein abundances have been demonstrated by O’Shea et al.  From analyzing O’Shea’s measurements of ratios between mRNA and protein concentrations, we can conclude that for the genes with a high mRNA to protein ratio, the approximately 49 aging suppressor genes, are overrepresented much more than could be explained by random chance alone yielding a p-value smaller than 0.05.  Based on this we can conclude that lots of mRNA but only little protein, is good for long lifespan.  This is consistent with our conceptual understanding, that rising protein concentrations, especially later in life, can be associated with age-stress due to the rising toxicity, which is inevitably caused, when toxic protein degradation cannot keep up with toxic protein synthesis, especially during the end of life, when the overall chaperon aided proper protein folding capacity of a yeast cell becomes insufficient to keep up with the speed, by which nascent polypeptide chains are getting translated into mature proteins, which inevitably induce aging stress on the yeast cell because every misfolded protein, which has escaped it proper folding by its respective chaperons, can potentially shorten lifespan by raising toxicity, which is inherently an intrinsic property of every misfolded dysfunctional protein because – in most cases - it can still bind its substrate in its active cleft, but it can no longer catalyze its native reactions.  This will inevitably cause the misfolded and dysfunctional proteins to compete for the same substrates with the fewer and fewer still properly folded proteins, which are still capable of completing their native wild type (WT) catalytic reactions.  This has the same effect as sequestering substrates from their respective catalytic enzyme.  This inevitably interferes with any life-essential function, process, regulation, signaling cascade or adaptation, which can only be maintained as long as the rate of overall substrate processing does not fall below a critical threshold, below which any of its life-essential properties, ratios, functions, regulations, reactions, adaptations, active transport, electron and proton gradients across membranes or cell walls can no longer be maintained and sustained. What is the risk of using 0 as our absolute reference frame to which we compare our observations?  We must let go of our intuitive temptation to use absolute 0, i.e. no detectable levels of mRNA and protein concentration, as our preferred reference frame to which we humanoids are at disproportionally high risk to erroneously compare all our measurements because – generally – the overall concentration of any metabolite, enzymatic function, speed of signally cascade, electron and protein concentration gradients across the membranes, which are separating the lumen of the organelles from their surrounding cytoplasm and across the cell wall, are much more determined by the ratio between each other directionally opposing and thus balancing forces of processes and functions, which are mutually exclusive and hence inherently counteract one another, e.g. synthesis and degradation or bidirectional active transporter competing for the same substrates, e.g. cytoplasmic proton concentration, for which vacuolar proton pumps called v-ATPases because they require ATP (adenosine-tri-phosphate to pump protons from the cytoplasm into the lumen of the vacuole, which can only perform its recycling function as long as its acidity, i.e. the proton concentration remains sufficiently high resulting in a sufficiently low intra-lumen pH value for its enzymes to break apart and reuse misfolded and no longer needed peptides and other toxic cargo, which gets actively and directionally transported by vesicles, which are moved by the unidirectional walking motor proteins, primarily dynine and kinisine, along the tracks, which are defined by the cytoskeleton, which allow to selectively move metabolites, building blocks, amino acids, lipids, carbohydrates, glucose, galactose, phosphates, structural components, membrane spanning proteins forming the skeleton for signaling cascades to transmit signals across the cell wall, via trimeric G-protein binding legend or receptor mediated endocytois from the extra-cellular space into the cell across the cell wall to allow for extracting needed nutrients, coenzymes, glucose, metabolites and ions from the extra-cellular space to drive intra-cellular synthetic processes, which must be balanced by their opposing yet each other perfectly complementing processes, e.g. ATP synthesis via glycolosis, TCA (tri-carboxyl or Krebs or citric acid) cycle and the electron transport chain (ETC) of the oxidative respiration , which must supply sufficiently many ATP molecules to drive the active transport of the vacuolar membrane spanning v-ATPases and the cell wall spanning proton pumps, both of which pump protons from the cytoplasm into the vacuolar lumen and the extracellular space respectively.  Tang et al (2008) provided convincing experimental evidence that already after only the fourth of the 25 yeast wild type (WT) replications the lipid rafts, which serve as anchoring sites for the v-ATPases, within the vacuolar membrane start declining; thus, providing less options for the v-ATPases to bind, which reduces the total number of protons, which can be pumped from the cytoplasm into the vacuole per unit time.  This, in turn, causes the intra-vacuolar pH to rise until the vacuole’s ability to properly recycle and reuse building blocks is getting severely compromised.  This decay can be counteracted and delayed by over-expressing Osh6, but unfortunately not indefinitely.  However, in order to delay to total collapse of all life essential vacuolar recycling processes, the total number of protons, which the proton pumps spanning the cell wall are pumping from the cytoplasm into the extra-cellular space, is getting actively down-regulated.  This results in less competition for the limited number of cytoplasmic protons.  This causes the cytoplasmic pH to decline.  This allows the much fewer remaining v-ATPases spanning the vacuolar membrane to pump more protons from the cytoplasm into the vacuolar lumen; hence, partially restoring vacuolar functions despite progressively declining overall capacity, which the dwindling number of v-ATPases are maximally capable to pump into the vacuole, as the yeast ages.  This example clearly shows the net-effects of intra-vacuolar proton concentration, which is determined by the ratio between overall v-ATPase proton pumping capacity and the total number of protons, which get actively transported by the proton pumps across the yeast’s cell wall from the cytoplasm into the extracellular space.  As the yeast ages, its mitochondria can produce fewer ATP molecules because their membranes are getting leaky; thus, causing the electron gradient, which is driving ATP synthesis, to decline with age.  However, as the yeast can generate fewer ATP molecules per unit time its entire physiology is slowing down as well; thus, requiring fewer ATP molecules to maintain and sustain its life-essential processes. Like humans, the yeast has mutually exclusive processes, which must never take place at the same time.  E.g. in the presence of oxygen, the yeast respires because it can generate many more ATP molecules from a single glucose molecule.  I believe it can generate 26 ATP molecules from a single glucose with respiration, TCA (tri-carbon-acid) cycle and Electron Transport Chain (ETC) as compared to only 2 ATP molecules when oxygen is no longer available as final electron acceptor.  In this case all respiration genes get turned off and all fermentation genes get turn on.  If both ways of ATP synthesis would remain active at the same time, none of them could perform optimally because they would interfere with one another. The same applies to any of the each other opposing and thus balancing processes and functions, which are separated from one another temporally by the circadian rhythm, which effectively prevents them from interfering with one another.  If we can show that the temporal separation of mutually exclusive and each other counteracting and canceling processes and function is getting lost as the yeast ages, the we have discovered a third mechanism of aging due to loss of temporal separation between processes and functions, which must never occur at the same time because of their adverse effects they have on one another because it causes a net decline of the overall remaining effective rate, which remains after getting partially canceled out by simultaneously occurring and each other inhibiting reactions, whose effectively remaining overall net effect keeps declining as more as such kind of each other inhibiting processes, functions, reactions or rates cancel each other out because they tend to temporally overlap more and more as the yeast gets older.  This hypothesis must still be experimentally validated.  However, it remains valid and plausible until ruled out by measuring mRNA, protein, metabolome and other –omic rates, concentrations, balancing rate of synthesis with rate of decay.  mRNA, proteome, metabolome, ribosomal profiling and other measures to quantify as many features of life as we possibly can, intervals between adjacent observational quantifications must not exceed 5 minutes spanning all 25 WT yeast cell cycles and which must be taken through the entire time the yeast is alive.  I strongly lobby and support anybody in generating such kind of extremely highly temporal resolution across the entire life of the yeast and other species because this is the one way for us to discover whether any periodicity features or parameters, such as temporal phase shift, period length or amplitude change as the yeast ages and which could therefore be used as markers for biological aging, which would have remained imperatively hidden objects/factors for anyone, who refuses to consider changes in periodicity parameters to possibly be a function of age. ################################################################# Draft from my dissertation conclusion ############################################################ How can the inherent challenges posed by hidden objects be adequately addressed and eventually overcome? Challenges in predicting relevant features? - Logic or obscure? - If logic, are scientists already aware of it? - But if they were, they would let a computer select the features in a much less bias and much more systematic way than people are capable of. - But since I have not seen anybody doing that, I believe, we could drastically accelerate our discovery process by making researchers aware of the advantages to hand feature selection from observation bias people to much less bias and much more systematic artificial intelligence (AI) Long Title: Is proper, correct and exhaustive feature selection for training machine learning algorithms already possible even before all imperatively hidden objects/factors/dimensions, which are required for correctly conceptualizing aging and many other complex phenomena, are fully discovered? Short Title: Is proper feature selection possible before all imperatively hidden objects, which are required for conceptualizing aging adequately, are fully discovered? Topic: About imperatively hidden objects and the need for new concept discoveries to select all necessary features required to fully understand aging, immigration and other phenomena. Beginning of Writing: Humans are very bias in choosing their method of conducting experimental measurements or make observations without being aware of it. What percentage of the entire electromagnetic wave spectrum can we perceive? No more than 5% for sure. But the changes, of which we must be aware, before we can understand aging, are most likely much more distinct outside our narrow sensory window because our sensory limitations did not affect the evolution of aging in any way. For example, humans can only hear part of the sound an elephant makes because humans cannot hear such low frequencies as the elephant can. This tends to prevent the full understanding of the elephant’s communication options. Humans cannot distinguish such low sound frequencies from background noise, i.e. environment, because they cannot perceive the low elephant sound frequencies from being different from the background environment. But without considering those imperatively hidden factors we cannot fully understand elephant communication. Therefore, humans tend to miss cellular processes, which can only be distinguished from background noise outside the electromagnetic wavelength interval, for which humans have evolved sensory organs, i.e. eyes, ears and skin. The mechanism by which the tongue and nose operate is of an entirely different dimension because they cannot sense any wavelength. For example, before magnets were discovered, they remained for us an imperatively hidden object because we could not even suspect them in any way. But still, just because we lack any senses for perceiving any kind of magnetism does not stop it from affecting our lives. Only after we discovered the consequences of the forces, which the magnetic field has on some metals, prompted us to search outside the limited window, within which we can sense differences in wave length. Magnetic fields could affect life in many positive ways because they are used to treat major depressive disorder and cause involuntary muscle contraction. But has anybody even thought of measuring the magnetic field of a cell or brain, which I expect to be strong enough for us to measure with sensitive devices? Since any electric current causes a perpendicular radiating magnetic field, it can be hypothesized that the weak magnetic field is pulse-like and depends on the temporal pattern by which neurons fire action potentials. The changes in the magnetic field of a cell is expected to be enriched for the cellular component membrane because they have proton pumps and maintain an electric gradient to produce ATP. But what if changes in this magnetic field are causing us to age? Then we could stop the aging process by any intervention, which sets our cellular magnetic field pattern back to its youthful benchmark. I suspect that the reason for our only rudimentary understanding of the aging process is caused by us missing such kind of imperatively hidden objects, which are required for making the essential key observations without which aging cannot be fully explained. I view a magnetic field as a concept, which exists, regardless weather we are aware of it. There may be many more other hidden concepts, which we must develop correctly, before we can reverse aging. Analogies to aid in the understanding of the concept of Imperatively Hidden Objects (IHO) Let’s say that an immortal interstellar alien highly intelligent out-of-space critter has landed on Earth. Let’s imagine that he can only perceive wave lengths within the limits of the magnetic field. Then we humans would not even notice this out of space interstellar visitor because he/she remains an imperatively hidden object (IHO) that we cannot even suspect. Let’s say this interstellar species has not evolved a body or anything to which our senses are sensitive. Let’s say that this life can be fully defined by irregularities within the magnetic field. But this interstellar critter can perceive us humans because our magnetic field disrupt the homogeneity of the background environment and must therefore be something other than background noise. Let’s say that this immortal interstellar critter can perceive and process all the magnetic fields on Earth. Could he maybe develop the concept of siblings or parents on its own? Is the magnetic field of relatives more similar to each other than expected by chance? It is very likely because humans vary a lot in their neuronal wiring architecture. Hence, each human could be defined by the pattern of his/her action potentials. This inevitably causes a very weak unique perpendicularly acting electromagnetic field that cannot be detected by our instruments. Therefore, instead of humans, we should use the giant squid as model organism to understand the relationships between life, aging and changes in magnetic field because it has the thickest neuron. Therefore, it must fire stronger action potentials than our human neurons. This will inevitably cause a stronger perpendicularly acting electromagnetic field, which may be strong enough to be detected by our instruments. Let’s say that this interstellar critter wants to use machine learning to predict the risk of any particular university student in the USA for having to return home after graduation because they lost their immigration status and could not find a job, which would have made them eligible for one year OPT (Optional Practical Training) work permit. Let’s say that this interstellar critter has no concept of aging and that his most important goal is to develop a classifier by developing a new machine learning algorithm, which can predict in advance the risk that any particular student is facing to no longer been allowed to reside in the United States. Let’s say that accomplishing this objective has the same meaning and importance to this critter as for us the cure of aging and elimination of death. What should he do? He cannot talk. No human even suspects him. He could start using supervised machine learning by observing thousands of students to find out what those students share, who are forced to leave, or what they lack compared to citizens, who are always welcome here. I hypothesize that no matter how clever and sensitive to irregular interruption of the homogenous electromagnetic field, which is the only dimension, in which he can sense the presence of humans and any other form of life, he has no chance to understand the risk factors for being forced to leave America after graduation, because they are an imperatively hidden concepts (IHC) to this critter, because he cannot even suspect them in any way. However, without developing the right concepts in advance, this critter can never the discover risk factors for having to leave the USA after graduation. The same applies to aging. We are still missing essential concepts without which we cannot fully understand it. But even if somebody by chance could detect the magnetic irregularities caused by this foreign interstellar critter, he/she could never suspect that it is highly intelligent. This means that even if we measured a cell across the entire wavelength spectrum and could clearly detect its presence we would never suspect it to have any kind of intelligence because we would consider the anomalies in the magnetic field as background noise. Our visiting interstellar critter has a similar problem. He cannot develop the essential concepts without which he could never develop a machine learning algorithm to predict all the correct risk factors, which impair the chances for somebody to be allowed to keep residing in the US while not full time enrolled. As long as this critter has no concept of “country”, e.g. the USA, he has absolutely no chance to discover nationalities because even if he could figure out the nationality of everyone, it would make no sense to him. But words like “American” “German”, “French” or “Indian” cannot make any sense to this critter as long as the concept of “country” remains an imperatively hidden object for him. How can somebody be considered “German” or “American” as long as the concept of Germany or USA are still lacking? One can only be German if Germany exists. Without at least suspecting the concept of a country, e.g. Germany, there is absolutely no way to discover the required concept of citizenship. But without determining the feature “citizenship” no machine learning algorithm could learn to make correct predictions. .The same applies to aging. We are still lacking so many essential concepts without which aging can never be understood For example, as long as the concept of a ribosome is lacking, we have no way of understanding the changes in the relative abundance ratio of mRNA and proteins. We may have some initially success with building a model to predict protein abundance and concentration because it is about 70% similar to the transcriptome. However, according to Janssens et al (2015) [1], this similarity declines with age and is a driver of replicative aging in yeast. But no matter how many training samples we use to train our predictor, it must fail, unless we have developed a mental concept of a ribosome. I believe we face a similar predicament with understanding the causes and regulation of epigenetic changes over time with advancing age, despite being able to measuring them so clearly that we can use them to determine the biological age. But unfortunately, as long as we lack any concept, by which epigenetic changes could be connected to other cellular processes, we cannot understand how epigenetic changes are regulated. Before we could correctly conceptualize the role and scope of the ribosome we had no way to explain the mechanisms by which mRNA and protein abundance are linked. But even after we conceptualized the role of the ribosome correctly any machine learning algorithm to predict protein concentration would inevitably fail as long as we lack the correct concept of the poly-AAA-tail. Similarly, there are still lots of imperatively hidden concepts, factors, dimensions or objects, which we cannot suspect because we cannot perceive them, which prevent us from fully understanding aging. However, the fact that our current observations fail to fully explain aging, indicate the presence of imperatively hidden factors of which we can see the consequences without being able to detect them. But since every consequence must have a cause, any unexplained consequence indicates the presence of imperatively hidden imperceptible factors (IHIF) without which we cannot succeed to improve our feature selection. As I have explained in my immigration example, only when selecting the correct feature, e.g. citizenship, the risk for being asked to leave America by the federal government can be fully understood and hence, can be predicted much better. Could I convince anybody of the high likelihood of the presence of imperatively hidden factors, which we cannot perceive yet as being distinctly different from their environment? Conclusions and proposed responses/adaptations of our study design What is the rate-limiting bottleneck, which limits our research progression and why? The current bottleneck in defeating aging is not addressed by further improving our machine learning algorithms and increasing the training samples, but instead, we must focus on improving proper feature selection first. My main contribution towards defeating aging is to predict features, measurement types and intervals between measurements, which could show the actions of aging much clearer than the features, which we have currently selected to stop aging and defeat death.  Now it is up to wet-lab scientists to test my hypotheses. But even if all of them can be ruled out, the possibilities, by which the mechanism of aging could function, would be reduced. This would leave us with fewer hypotheses left to test. Since the options we have for fully understanding the aging process are large - but yet finite - any crazy appearing – no matter high unlikely seeming - hypothesis, which can be ruled out, brings us a tiny step closer to immortality. The reason why I claim that correct feature selection, but not the gradually improving performance of our machine learning algorithms, is the current bottleneck, which is holding us back from improving our understanding of the aging process, is that our machine learning algorithms have been improving gradually over time, but our feature selection methods have not. The fact that I cannot find any data for measuring the yeast transcriptome in five-minute intervals for more than 3 out of the average 25 replications, which is considered the average wild type (WT) yeast replicative lifespan, indicates that nobody has seriously suspected that we could at least observe the effects of the aging mechanism by selecting new periodic features, such as period length, temporal phase shift or amplitude, which only make sense if we replace our linear with a periodic concept of life. However, this requires us to change our concepts about life to be driven by linearly acting trends to cyclical periodically acting trends in order to expand our feature selection options to periodic quantities, such as period length, temporal phase shift, amplitude or oscillation pattern, which would have been impossible to imagine when holding on to the old linear concept. In this case – although we could clearly measure the period length - we could not detect it as a feature affected by aging until we explicitly define, select and measure this new feature, e.g. the period length, temporal phase shift, amplitude or oscillation pattern. Please let me know if this writing makes sense to you, because so far, almost nobody, except for me, seems to worry about this problem.  Thanks a lot for your time to read and think through this.  I welcome your feedback because my conclusions are logical but surprising to me because nobody else appears to have been aware of this because our study designs don’t reflect this insight yet.  =============================================================== End of my proposal above; Beginning of transition to my next writing below ================================================================ I worry about that there could be many still hidden dimensions, which are very similar to the magnetic field that we cannot yet anticipate.  But we must first associate information from these kind of magnetic-field-resembling still imperatively hidden dimensions with aging before we can understand aging. Since we humans have observational tunnel vision, which is mostly limited to the dimensions of our sensations, which must use artificial intelligence because for it all the different dimensions and the features, which define them, are more equal. Only if we can make people understand this, we will have a chance to collectively survive.  I need help to get this published because only then experts will take it seriously. For that, I must provide proof-of-principle that we still very naive and observation bias humans would have missed important relevant information if we would not have let artificial intelligence (AI) define possibly aging-relevant features for us in a much more systematic and less bias manner.  For us bias humans to create a much less bias artificial intelligence (AI), we must be able to look at life from many different ridiculous-seeming perspectives because that is what we expect our aging-features-selecting AI to accomplish for us.  I am really good at that but the problem is that nobody seems to have time to listen to me.  But if I write it, almost nobody has time to read my writings either.  We need to create AI to systematically search for relations between our observational measurements, which we humans cannot suspect. Here is another writing of mine, in which I have described a partial solution, even before I had defined the problem.  We must reword it in such a way that people can understand it much easier.  We must show one example, in which it has worked, as proof-of-principal that it will work in similar ways if we succeed in expanding its scope . The most important thing is that I don't feel alone because otherwise I may start believing that I must be wrong since nobody else seems to be thinking my way.  Below is my partial remedy.  ############################################################################# Continuously Ongoing Emergency Random Evolution mimicking procedure "Unpredictable Survival" ############################################################################# A major threat is that we are aging much faster than we can reverse it. We are still very far away from inferring, which information is most likely relevant for reversing aging that we MUST take an undirected method to counteract this problem because we don’t have any better alternative. Every day lots of new pairs of information is added to the web. Anything, which define at least two indivisible pieces of information as a value pair indicating a specific instance can be evaluated be vsboost. Therefore, we should start developing an independently working software, which keeps crawling the internet for any instance defined by at least to informational units as input data. Then, even though this software cannot infer the meaning of any of the event-defining information pair, it can use their values in predicting pretty much any other combination of paired information and try to predict any pair with any other pair. This would allow identifying even weak correlations and dependencies much sooner than when exclusively selecting features manually in our traditional way based on logic reasoning. Although logic reasoning and highly directed and targeted manipulations are good to have, it takes us way too much time until our understanding and concepts of new correlations has developed far enough to contribute to logically driven data feature selection and data manipulation. This continuously web-crawling software keeps adding anything, which could either serve as input our output value for any kind of supervised machine learning process. When this software can predict any random feature by whatever means it can possibly think of, it will let us know so we can check whether this could possibly make sense. We need to improve the NLP (Natural Language Processing) and semantic recognizing ability of this randomly feature adding software so that it can combine the same informational components into a single unit feature. But nevertheless, just like evolution randomly mistakes in grouping the same information component into a single indivisible feature, variations in the groupings of informational components, which must be predicted all at once, could turn out to be a good thing. For example, considering all Transcription Factor Binding Site (TFBS)-associated information into a single informational group may allow for the most accurate prediction rate but only when our random model contains all input features we need to define any possible informational dimension needed to sufficiently define all the parameters, which could belong to the TFBS dimension. For example if our feature hungry crawler has not yet discovered that TFBS binding is a cooperative rate rather than a Boolean process, it would fail. But if it could learn to predict time series plots only based on the Boolean value indicating whether a particular Transcription Factor (TF) could possibly bind to a promoter but disregarding the number and order of the TFBS for the same TF in the promoter of one gene it could still predict time series plots well enough to raise its prediction power far above the current threshold. Although this old model is still imperfect it has value to get it as soon as possible instead of waiting until our crawler has found all input parameters (features) to assign a value to all possible dimension of the TFBS domain. This would actually speak in favor of allowing our prediction crawler to randomly vary any specific dimension of any domain suited for training supervised machine learning because the fewer the number of dimensions making up any domain the fewer and smaller information input domain are required for building a model based on randomly considering and randomly grouped information domains. Currently, most of us are not aware of the artificial imperative limitations resulting from letting humans have the monopoly on deciding, which dimensions can be grouped together to form a meaningful instance for input or output to train a supervised model. It is likely that smaller domains consisting of fewer dimensions or larger domain combining more dimensions could be more. But - although there are so many humans on this planet - our thinking, understanding, conceptualizing, imagining and applying our intuitive preferences for intuitively tending to include very specific dimensions into an indivisible input or output instance without even worrying about possible alternatives, is still too similar. The way in which our senses, perceptions, imaginations, concepts and partial understanding of any phenomenon intuitively selects the dimensions to a larger domain, which most of us would never even consider to predict in parts or as a very small dimension of a much larger super-domain, is only one out of very many possible option for combining any number of specific dimensions into a domain from which any number of input or output instances can be formed. One could imagine a domain as a row like a gene, which can have any number of column i.e. its dimensions, which must be considered like a single instance in their combination because it is lacking the option to consider only a few of its columns or combining some of with columns from an entirely different and unrelated table. A good example are time series plots. Human tend to be bias and prefer to define the gene expression time series curves by mRNA measured at each time point. This sounds so obvious but is this the best way for conceptualizing the temporal expression signature for each gene? I felt my colorful time series plots have much more meaning and can carry much more informational value as well as a more meaningful concept for imaging, comparing and analyzing gene specific temporal signatures. But although they look very pretty and are a good way to get a first impression about the similarities between two curves, they are not well suited to find out whether the plots for the gene, which belong to the same GO term, are indeed more correlated to each other than to the rest. Since I felt that a vector can never be the same as a curve I tried many ways to account for the slopes connecting each time point. But since I could think of so many different ways to achieve this but I could not decide on any way that I consider as the best possible option I am still not sure how to convert time series plots into numerical dimensions, which possess the very obvious advantage to allow for easy comparing, ranking and quantifying. I am not sure how to account for differences between plots from the Y axis. Maybe we should add another dimension to our concepts of our understanding of a time series curve. If we added to its time points also the total area under the curve to each plot, maybe we could quantify them in a much better and more intuitive way. But how much numerical value should we give each time point and the area under the curve. I am stuck with this problem ever since I tried to quantify time series plots. But imagine how many more option you'd had if you were not a human because then you would not limit your dimensions for defining your domain to only those you can easily imagine. A computer can randomly extract and try out any combination, subset or superset of dimensions without tending to be limited to those dimensions that can easily be conceptualized as a picture. Extreme gradient boosting (xgboost), which never gets tired to randomly define an indivisible domain by any combination of dimensions, might have much more luck. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Here is a positive response to my posting at ResearchGate.net, which gave me the confidence to share this. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Hello Thomas In general, we describe a machine learning system as the sequence of three fundamental stages: preprocessing, processing and post-processing. The preprocessing has been concentrated, fundamentally, on the selection of attributes (editing), on the selection of objects (condensation) or on the mixture of both, but always starting from a previous database. The processing has followed strategies guided by symbolic learning, regression, connectionism, evolutionary-genetic algorithms, probabilities or analogy. And more recently, by the classifiers combination schemes and deep learning. While post-processing has focused on improving the quality of the prediction and/or trying to explain it. However, despite of many efforts made in each of these stages, over more than 60 years, don't exist the master algorithm capable of solving all the learning problems. This means that machine learning systems have improved over time, but our selection of features has not. So where is the error? Hence, I believe that yes, your writing can make a lot of sense!!! The imperatively hidden features could be the key to make essential observations that allow us to understand processes or phenomena that we have not yet been able to explain. If we start from the fact that the success of our experimental design is subject not only to the objectives we pursue, but also to the nature of the data we have and to their capacity to explain (model) the phenomenon or process itself . Then, our lack of capacity to understand a phenomenon becomes the limiting factor when it comes to explaining it, or what is the same, it prevents us from describing it according to its features and, therefore, to model it. Hence, the importance of knowing those essential concepts that allow us to understand what is happening. To subsequently, be able to make an adequate selection of features that leads to the development of that algorithm capable of modeling the process. This means that, even when we have a large number of characteristics on a process or phenomenon and the combination thereof, if we do not have those features that truly describe it and still remain imperatively hidden, then it will not be possible to understand it. I work in the field of Computational Biology, precisely developing algorithms for the prediction of protein structures. And after hundreds and hundreds of algorithms and approximations described by the literature, the prediction does not exceed 30% of accuracy. This could be due to our inability to adequately model the proteins folding process. To our inability to discover what are the concepts, factors or sub-process that we cannot perceive and that prevent us from fully understanding the process from a holistic point of view. It is true that if we assume that each consequence must have a cause, then any unexplained consequence indicates the presence of imperatively hidden factors without which we cannot improve our selection of traits. This, warns us that no matter how much we focus on improving our machine learning algorithms and increase the training samples, if not we focus on an appropriate selection of traits. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Thanks a lot for your time to read until here. I would like your fatback. Best regards, Thomas Hahn       Office Phone (landline):  +1 (501) 682 1440       Smart Phone:                    +1 (501) 303 6595       Flip Phone:                        +1 (318) 243 3940       Google Voice Phone:      +1 (501) 301-4890       Office Location:                Engineering and Information Technology (EIT) Building, Room 535       Mailing Address:              2811 Fair Park Blvd., Little Rock, AR, 72204, USA       Skype ID:                           tfh002       Work Email:                      TFHahn@UALR.edu       Private Email:                   Hahn5Thomas@gmail.com       Twitter:                              @Thomas_F_Hahn       Facebook:                         https://www.facebook.com/Thomas.F.Hahn       LinkedIn:                           https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomas-hahn-042b2942/       ResearchGate:                 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Hahn10       Academia.edu:                  https://ualr.academia.edu/ThomasHahn 22