Ruben Garcia Pedraza

While the introduction of certain policies by a government may be seen as politics rather than quasi-experimentation—for example, the introduction of specific economic policies—in reality governments continually experiment with and manipulate socio-economic variables, often with no real guarantee of success. This is one reason our technology has reached its current situation of stand-by in the UK: a lack of perspective, a lack of planning, and the repeated trial of new formulas and experiments without any clear idea of what to do next. This lack of planning by the British government regarding our technology can be cited as a downside of quasi-experimentation undertaken without a long-term plan. My experience in London—during trips under Gordon Brown in 2009, David Cameron in 2012 and 2016, and, from 2017, under Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, and Keir Starmer—is that UK Prime Ministers generally lack a clear vision of our technology and do not appreciate its importance. Since 2017, UK governments have attempted to experiment in real-world contexts without legal guarantees and without providing the appropriate support or frameworks. The situation we now face in London stems from insufficient legal advice and inadequate safety policies regarding our technology.

Even if my work in London were to be cancelled — a possibility I do not fear — it would not alter the course of history. I would simply join the long lineage of thinkers whose ideas were initially silenced but ultimately reshaped the world. We have no doubt that our research, initiated in Madrid and continued in London, will redefine the future. Impossible Probability will stand as the first hybrid experiment between the human brain and Artificial Intelligence, establishing the foundation for future human hybridization with superintelligence, and ultimately, with the Global Artificial Intelligence. This is precisely what we are building in London. And this is why it is imperative to establish a legal framework — under the International Court of Justice, the World Health Organization, and the Security Council of the United Nations — to protect and regulate the ethical and scientific implications of our work, ensuring its continuity and safeguarding its revolutionary potential for humanity. In any case, the transformation of the workforce from human capital to automatic capital — that is, to machines — does not imply that global governance should abandon its responsibility to promote equality. Even if humanity fully embraces the Cyborg Revolution, it remains essential to ensure equal conditions of access to these emerging technologies, as well as to guarantee equality in access to fundamental resources such as food, healthcare, and education. The educational system, in particular, must evolve to adapt to the new technological paradigm, preparing future generations not only to coexist with intelligent machines but to participate actively in the development and ethical management of this new hybrid civilization. It is necessary the adaptation of all those policies oriented to social equity to the new technological conditions.

Artificial Intelligence reproduces the same epistemological architecture that Kant attributed to human reason: a synthesis between the pure forms of understanding (the analytical categories or algorithms) and the sensory content of experience (the data or empirical input). Thus, GAI operates as a transcendental system, where intelligence emerges not from data alone, but from the active organization of data through pure reasons—the very conditions that make knowledge, understanding, and intelligent behavior possible.

In our research, we applied a stochastic approach, which means we studied the probability of event B occurring after the introduction of event A. In other words, we introduced variable A as a condition within a given context in order to study the behavior of B and analyze the probabilities associated with each possible outcome of B under the same condition, across repeated trials. Later, we extended this by introducing the same condition A in different contexts to analyze the behavior of B and the probability associated with each variation. In each situation, psychological research does not interpret A as a deterministic cause of B, but rather as a possible cause of B, depending on the variables present in each different scenario. From our point of view, this methodology is not deterministic but stochastic. Even with our current technological development, we do not have the capacity to establish absolute deterministic causal relationships; reality itself remains the realm of chance.

Facing the emergence of Superintelligence and global AI, our position in relation to the ideal of humanity—a very Spanish question since Krausism was a very important philosophy in Spain (Krause was even more important than Hegel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, or Marx together)—is very clear: our ideal of humanity is not only an ideal but also a radical necessity, a radical redefinition of humankind, the absolute necessity of embracing the Cyborg Revolution. Right now in London, and I would even say in the whole world, people are not really aware of what is coming. The AI Revolution is huge, and humans are not ready for it, which could become a problem very soon. If humans do not understand our revolution, humanity is going to face a radical contradiction. And this time it is not just an academic debate like postmodernism; this is a question of survival. The AI Revolution is not about whether you support or oppose Foucault, Marx, or Nietzsche—this time is different, it is about survival.

The first formulations of Impossible Probability date from 11 September 2001. My first formula would be the Impact of the Defect; then on 16 October 2002 the Second Method would appear, laying the foundations of the distinction between empirical and theoretical probability. I worked intensely until 2004. Between 2004 and 19 December 2009, I paused my mathematical frenzy, and it was not until 19 December 2009 when I returned, this time with the intention of publishing Introduction to Impossible Probability, Statistics of Probability or Statistical Probability, whose publication materialized just a few months after the death of José Rodríguez Delgado, although Delgado was able to see the first works published online in this Impossible Probability blog, which makes this blog a fundamental piece for understanding our work, our legacy, and most importantly—independently of our names, which matter little—the truly essential: our seed of the future, our eternal gratitude, a work of intelligence that will lay the foundations of the future technological society.

The first formulations of Impossible Probability date from 11 September 2001. My first formula would be the Impact of the Defect. Later, on 16 October 2002, the Second Method would appear, laying the foundations of the distinction between empirical and theoretical probability. I worked intensely until 2004. Between 2004 and 19 December 2009 I would pause my mathematical frenzy, and it was not until 19 December 2009 that I returned, this time with the intention of publishing Introduction to Impossible Probability, Statistics of Probability or Statistical Probability, whose publication materialized only a few months after the death of José Rodríguez Delgado, although Delgado did have the opportunity to see the first works published online in this Impossible Probability blog. This makes this blog a fundamental piece for understanding our work, our legacy and, most importantly, regardless of our names—which matter little—the truly essential: our seed of the future, our eternal gratitude, a work of intelligence that will lay the foundations of the future technological society. The documents presented here express the evolution of a work, Impossible Probability, and the spirit of survival of its author, indomitable and rebellious like a five-pointed star.

The first formulations of Impossible Probability date from 11 September 2001. My first formula would be the Impact of the Defect. Later, on 16 October 2002, the Second Method would appear, laying the foundations of the distinction between empirical and theoretical probability. I worked intensely until 2004. Between 2004 and 19 December 2009 I would pause my mathematical frenzy, and it was not until 19 December 2009 that I returned, this time with the intention of publishing Introduction to Impossible Probability, Statistics of Probability or Statistical Probability, whose publication materialized only a few months after the death of José Rodríguez Delgado, although Delgado did have the opportunity to see the first works published online in this Impossible Probability blog. This makes this blog a fundamental piece for understanding our work, our legacy and, most importantly, regardless of our names—which matter little—the truly essential: our seed of the future, our eternal gratitude, a work of intelligence that will lay the foundations of the future technological society. The documents presented here express the evolution of a work, Impossible Probability, and the spirit of survival of its author, indomitable and rebellious like a five-pointed star.

The first formulations of Impossible Probability date from 11 September 2001. My first formula would be the Impact of the Defect. Later, on 16 October 2002, the Second Method would appear, laying the foundations of the distinction between empirical and theoretical probability. I worked intensely until 2004. Between 2004 and 19 December 2009 I would pause my mathematical frenzy, and it was not until 19 December 2009 that I returned, this time with the intention of publishing Introduction to Impossible Probability, Statistics of Probability or Statistical Probability, whose publication materialized only a few months after the death of José Rodríguez Delgado, although Delgado did have the opportunity to see the first works published online in this Impossible Probability blog. This makes this blog a fundamental piece for understanding our work, our legacy and, most importantly, regardless of our names—which matter little—the truly essential: our seed of the future, our eternal gratitude, a work of intelligence that will lay the foundations of the future technological society. The documents presented here express the evolution of a work, Impossible Probability, and the spirit of survival of its author, indomitable and rebellious like a five-pointed star.

With this Volume number 10 we complete the series of books dedicated to the English translation of Introduction to Impossible Probability. Due to the circumstances in which I am writing, I had to do it as quickly as possible, facing the uncertainty of future events. It is difficult to predict what the future holds; the only thing we can do is grasp an idea with our power of data analysis, a special superpower nowadays hidden in satellite imagery and complex data centers where the truth is hidden in plain sight.

Introduction to Impossible Probability, Statistics of Probability or Probabilistic Statistics is one of those works in which a deep bond between mathematics and philosophy can be found. It always asks about the ultimate purpose of science, wrapped in a veil of uncertainty and relativity. There is always a halo of indeterminism, since in the end it is chance itself—the random variations of what we call reality, although we do not quite know what it is—that becomes the cause of causes. From an interpretation not devoid of a certain nihilism.

Introduction to Impossible Probability, Statistics of Probability or Probabilistic Statistics is one of those works in which a deep bond between mathematics and philosophy can be found. It always asks about the ultimate purpose of science, wrapped in a veil of uncertainty and relativity. There is always a halo of indeterminism, since in the end it is chance itself—the random variations of what we call reality, although we do not quite know what it is—that becomes the cause of causes. From an interpretation not devoid of a certain nihilism

Introduction to Impossible Probability, Statistics of Probability or Probabilistic Statistics is one of those works in which a deep bond between mathematics and philosophy can be found. It always asks about the ultimate purpose of science, wrapped in a veil of uncertainty and relativity. There is always a halo of indeterminism, since in the end it is chance itself—the random variations of what we call reality, although we do not quite know what it is—that becomes the cause of causes. From an interpretation not devoid of a certain nihilism.

Introduction to Impossible Probability, Statistics of Probability or Probabilistic Statistics is one of those works in which a deep bond between mathematics and philosophy can be found. It always asks about the ultimate purpose of science, wrapped in a veil of uncertainty and relativity. There is always a halo of indeterminism, since in the end it is chance itself—the random variations of what we call reality, although we do not quite know what it is—that becomes the cause of causes. From an interpretation not devoid of a certain nihilism.

Understanding the original meaning of the Global Artificial Intelligence. Its origins can be traced back to my writings in 2002 on Astro-ecology, the science that understands the cosmos as a single environment that must be studied from a unified, single science. In essence, this is what the Global Artificial Intelligence seeks to achieve. At the same time, in 2002 I developed the formulations of Impossible Probability, beginning in the early hours of September 11, 2001 with the Impact of the Defect, which was later expanded into the Second Method on October 16, 2002.

The work presented here, Introduction to Impossible Probability, is essential for understanding the original meaning of the Global Artificial Intelligence. Its origins can be traced back to my writings in 2002 on Astro-ecology, the science that understands the cosmos as a single environment that must be studied from a unified, single science. In essence, this is what the Global Artificial Intelligence seeks to achieve. At the same time, in 2002 I developed the formulations of Impossible Probability, beginning in the early hours of September 11, 2001 with the Impact of the Defect, which was later expanded into the Second Method on October 16, 2002.

Probabilidad Imposible reúne los fundamentos de una investigación desarrollada entre 2001 y 2018, cuyo propósito es replantear las bases del conocimiento racional y su relación con la probabilidad empírica y teórica. La obra introduce conceptos como el Impacto del Defecto y el Segundo Método, proponiendo un marco alternativo frente a la epistemología de Karl Popper y orientado hacia la búsqueda del conocimiento puro. Este proyecto, originado en el cruce entre matemáticas, inteligencia artificial y psicología, constituye una semilla teórica para el desarrollo de la Inteligencia Artificial Global y para la construcción de una sociedad tecnológica basada en un nuevo paradigma del saber.

Probabilidad Imposible reúne los fundamentos de una investigación desarrollada entre 2001 y 2018, cuyo propósito es replantear las bases del conocimiento racional y su relación con la probabilidad empírica y teórica. La obra introduce conceptos como el Impacto del Defecto y el Segundo Método, proponiendo un marco Alternativo frente a la epistemología de Karl Popper y orientado hacia la búsqueda del conocimiento puro. Este proyecto, originado en el cruce entre matemáticas, inteligencia artificial y psicología, constituye una Semilla teórica para el desarrollo de la Inteligencia Artificial Global y para la construcción de una sociedad Tecnológica basada en un nuevo paradigma del saber.