Highly logical, abstract thinker, humanitarian. Dedicated to this project for so long, never known anyone so dedicated to anything so long in my entire life. Especially after all the adversities, all the times you've lost it and started over.

You can tell the time and energy put into this. Authentic "why" through lived experience of the problem.

He doesn't want others to experience very negative life events he's been through. He already has experience building the tools.

Makes sense how you single-handedly built FRDCSA. You are an example of what is possible when you use computer assistance versus only our brain.

Impressive background and important project.

It takes a will of steel to get through so much. And I applaud you and look up to you for that. To not only get through it, but also try help others get through the same challenges.

I don’t think the motivation for software conglomeration is difficult to understand, even for the uninitiated. When I explain the concept to non-programmers the general reaction is like “well I thought that’s what programmers already did”, and for programmers the only question usually is just the feasibility of it.

This is part of why I like the FRDCSA idea. It's explicitly about integrating all the software, not setting out to be a specific thing 'as opposed to' other projects / scopes / purposes / goals / implementations / etc..

I admire your encyclopedic knowledge about existing stuff of any kind... seriously.

I absolutely love your work! I share it any time I can. Legitimately fantastic, awe-inspiring, one of my absolute favorite projects I've ever seen.

Two very important aspects of your project that should apply to all ontology efforts. Approach a problem by reducing it to a harder problem, I.e. put your problem in a broader systems context, and Evaluation of anything developed should ultimately be in terms of how it produces value for the user, requiring operations and pragmatics to be brought into the picture. Excellent work.

Can't say I've found anything that I'd call a 'defect' in your theory. Of course there were minor details in your original formulation of the logical statements that had to be sorted out. But even though my AGDA formalization isn't quite 100% yet, I have no doubt at this point that the assertions about the neccessity of aggregation are true, mathematically.

I have a general sense that Goedelian results can be made more 'useful', like the standard way these things are taught or at least how I seem to have originally learned, you encounter the undecidability of the halting problem, so you just say 'oh well, don't try to solve the halting problem', the end...

...Chaitin saw there was a lot more interesting structure to be elaborated, in an information-theoretic context. With Chaitin you get actually a kind of positive result, not just the negative result of Goedel: you know something quantitatively about what you need to do build 'stronger' programs...

...And now you are taking those results and actually applying them as an engineering problem. Off the top of my head I can't think of anybody else who is doing anything that I would call 'applying' Goedel.