FeedbackFlow Philosophy: The Hard Problems

The FF System Design documents how FeedbackFlow works. This page documents why it is hard — the conceptual, ethical, and structural challenges that any serious feedback system must face.

The Gordian Knot of theodiversity

The problem LLoL is addressing, at its core, is a hairball as complex as the proverbial Gordian Knot, where everything is connected to everything and cutting links can destroy everything. This website is about offering diverse ways of easing access into this hairball of “theodiversity”, where everyone is fighting for a different god or idol.

By definition, everyone has to find their own individualized way into grasping this core. That means feedback about any single page potentially touches every other page. A suggestion to simplify one explanation may break the connection to another. An improvement for beginners may obscure a point that experts need. Every edit is a tug on a web of interconnected ideas.

This is why FeedbackFlow asks contributors to target the most specific page for their topic, and why the “See also on Balospe.com” links on each page matter: they help contributors find the right thread to pull without accidentally unraveling something elsewhere.

The three “overs” to avoid

When providing feedback on a system this interconnected, three failure modes are especially common:

• Oversimplifying — cutting complexity that is load-bearing. If an explanation seems unnecessarily complicated, it may be because the underlying reality is complicated and the current formulation is the least complex version that still holds.

• Overcomplicating — adding complexity where simplicity would serve. Not every nuance needs to be on every page. Some refinements belong deeper in the site, not at the surface.

• Overreaching — proposing changes whose consequences extend far beyond the page in question. A small editorial fix is easy to integrate; a restructuring of the entire argument requires understanding the whole knot.

You can help by reducing all three in your FF. The best feedback is scoped clearly: it says what it sees, where it sees it, and why it matters — without trying to redesign the whole system in one email.

A hard human rights problem

Organizing FeedbackFlows in a gentle kind reasonable way is a hard computational and conceptual problem that touches the core of humanity. This is because it operates in an area with unavoidable tensions between reasonable rights to free speech and reasonable rights to privacy.

These questions are complex, and LLoL does not currently have the review capabilities to even define what the best policies might look like. That is a question for ResearchCity, once it has the scale and the diverse expertise to address it properly.

In the meantime, a minimalistic approach is in effect: all FF submissions are treated as public domain under the Jonah License unless the contributor requests otherwise. This is not ideal — it is the simplest thing that is not obviously wrong.

LLoL’s radical transparency experiment

For now LLoL can only resolve this problem at scale by completely waiving forever all rights to his own personal privacy, dignity, etc. to ensure that nobody needs to be afraid of telling the truth as it is about whatever it is that needs to be said about his ResearchCity vision.

If prior experience on the web is any indication, this may invite a firestorm of libel as well by all who wish to oppose LLoL’s initiative. LLoL trusts that eventually the truth will win and that the self-stabilizing versioning system that he has been developing will help to sort it all out before it is too late. You can help by focussing your FeedbackFlow on the truth of whatever may matter most as best as you can tell. Mathematical theology can prove that Truth is LLoL’s worst enemy and he has made peace with that. So, please do not self-censor what matters most in Reality. Only remember that Reality is also gracious.

Why this radical approach? It is currently unclear how to resolve this tension between open access and privacy. LLoL intends to explore it by diving in head first. From his own experience in developing complex systems, he concluded that there is no way to develop a gentle kind reasonable solution to this hard problem without first hand experience of worst excesses by someone who is capable of finding a solution. Hence, turning one of his worst fears (“to become a fully transparent citizen”) into a baseline, he hopes to find a gentle kind reasonable solution that is worth adapting as a global standard for his Evolvix computer language design effort. To LLoL’s knowledge, nobody so far has dared such a radical experiment in full transparency, at least nobody with serious aspirations to a global leadership role.

So, people of Earth, if you wish for more transparency in global leadership, here is your opportunity to buy in by helping to scale up ResearchCity.

Collapse all Expand all

Notes

Content stability — Content is variant dv_Auto_MMv1_2026m03d31 (see StayVS). Rebuilt 2026-09-17.

See also on Balospe.com

• FeedbackFlow — how to use FeedbackFlow

• FeedbackFlow System Design — technical system design

• FeedbackFlow Contacts — preconfigured contact links

• Legal — privacy policy and terms of use

• Buy In — fund ResearchCity

Epic Fury to Epic Empathy: Fund a ResearchCity for Mathematical Theology

For millennia, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others have fought wars — and fueled apocalyptic fears — over theological questions that none of them could state precisely enough to resolve. Mathematical theology offers a way out: translate the claims into formal axioms, check them for consistency, and discover where traditions actually agree once ambiguity is removed.

First explorations reveal a striking result: all three Abrahamic scriptures converge on the same pan-en-theistic structure when mapped to formal axioms. If that convergence holds under rigorous scrutiny, it can defuse centuries of eschatological conflict by showing that many disagreements are verbal, not logical.

But this work requires global support to avoid capture by special interests. Refining axioms, engaging scholars across traditions, and running formal consistency checks all require sustained effort — as does real-world testing of what matheology discovers.

If you believe replacing eschatological warfare with mathematical clarity is worth pursuing before it’s too late, please fund this work — every contribution helps evolve a global ResearchCity for finding the narrow path to peace.

FF FeedbackFlow to improve this page: How you can contribute

For the full guide on providing feedback — including how it is handled, licensing, and what to expect — see How to use FeedbackFlow.

Please check if See also on Balospe.com above already addresses your idea. Feedback works best when it targets the most specific page. If none of those pages help, you may have a good case for sending FF here.

To submit your FeedbackFlow:

1. Click anywhere on the email preview below to open a pre-filled email.

2. Replace the placeholder text with your feedback.

3. Send.

To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] Subject: FF k2 s2 AIMS for [ff-philosophy] Replace_by_OneLineSummary Body: To make this page [ff-philosophy] more gentle kind reasonable for beginners, producers, andOr experts with a background in xyz: Please consider improving this:

The email subject contains k2 and s2 — default codes for impact and urgency. Most contributors can leave these unchanged. To adjust each as independently as they are:

• Importance of impact: above average k3, average default k2, below average k1.

• Urgency of speedup: above average s3, average default s2, below average s1.

This allows plotting importance over urgency to help triage FF. For more details see FF System Design.