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.

��^���f