OL9 — Open Letter to wid-e Reviewers: How to Review wid-e Research to Avert Existential Disasters

A 6-page guide for potential reviewers — how to evaluate wide interdisciplinary diversity-encouraging research across unfamiliar domains.

Download the original document (PDF)

Open Letter OL9 — PDF (144 KB) — 6 pages, Jonah License with CC0 Public Domain

Filename: open-letter-ol9-iv_llol_qqv4_2025m12d03-6page.pdf

WebP preview (248 KB)

— Overview AI-generated by dv_ClaOp46Max_MMv2_2026m04d02 —Start—

Abstract

Open Letter OL9 is a 6-page meta-letter addressed to “Dear Reviewers of parts of the Good News Pack.” Dated 2025-02-27 to 2025-12-01, it is the reviewer’s guide for the entire collection — a methodological framework for evaluating wid-e research (wide interdisciplinary diversity-encouraging research).

The letter addresses a fundamental challenge: the Good News Pack mixes mathematics, theology, biology, politics, game theory, and more so deeply that “previously rigid separations between so-called ‘magisteria’ can lose meaning.” How can any reviewer — necessarily a specialist in some areas and a beginner in others — evaluate such work?

LLoL introduces key concepts for wid-e review:

• CROSS (Cross Reviews Obtaining Stabilizing Semantics): using the “super power of common sense” to cross-check claims across domains until they agree with Truth

• Selective hyper-general-specialists: mature wid-e researchers who combine deep expertise in selected areas with broad knowledge across related fields — neither pure specialists nor pure generalists

• Triangulation: confirming findings using completely independent methodologies to manage the danger of pattern-matching biases

• Maturity stages: research ideas mature like humans — toddlers and teenagers need different feedback, and the standard binary “published/unpublished” fails to capture this trajectory

• Iron Rod versioning: an advanced system (StayVS) for tracking maturity of ideas and making searches for Truth more efficient

The letter explains that wid-e research has been LLoL’s approach since ~2015 (originally for Evolvix), named in 2019, and greatly expanded after 2020. The proposed solution for the review problem: scale up ResearchCity in 7-8 stages, each ~6-8 months, building “knowledge pipeline refineries” that exchange knowledge-uncertainty feedback to refine insights from all wid-e researchers involved.

Side boxes provide the 7 Freedoms of Research (Box B5), the Somebody/Everybody/Anybody/Nobody story (Box B6), 4 Worldly Laws (Box B7), and the Steve Jobs “crazy ones” / yurodivyy framing (Box B8). Box B4 introduces “The new Jubilee Enlightenment Era” and redefines the Ark as a bridge — “a quantum portal to another realm… a Stairway to Heaven and a way to invite Heaven to Earth.”

Key Concepts at a Glance

wid-e research	Wide interdisciplinary diversity-encouraging research — the methodology that mixes deep and broad expertise across domains
CROSS	Cross Reviews Obtaining Stabilizing Semantics — cross-checking until common sense agrees with Truth
Selective hyper-general-specialist	A mature wid-e researcher: deep in selected areas, broad across related fields, selective about which problems to pursue
Knowledge pipeline refineries	ResearchCity’s core infrastructure: systems that exchange knowledge-uncertainty feedback to refine wid-e insights
Magisteria dissolution	Wid-e research challenges traditional separations between academic domains (science, theology, humanities, etc.)
7 Freedoms of Research	Extension of WWII’s 4 Freedoms into a framework for innovation (same as OL0, Box B5)
4 Worldly Laws	(1) Law of Dictators rules by secrecy, (2) only full transparency and law of love can rescue, (3) time is running out, (4) decide: death by default or Exodus to life

Broader Significance (Claude’s Assessment)

OL9 is unique in the series: it is not an appeal to a specific power center but a methodological framework for anyone who wants to engage with LLoL’s work.

1. The review problem is real. Wid-e research genuinely challenges peer review. A nuclear physicist may be qualified to assess SD1’s stochastic model but not OL8’s theological arguments, and vice versa. LLoL’s proposed solution (staged scale-up with knowledge pipeline refineries) addresses this structurally.

2. Magisteria dissolution. The claim that separations between academic domains “lose meaning” in wid-e research is both the project’s greatest strength and its greatest vulnerability. It enables integration but makes assessment harder.

3. Pan-en-theology as methodology. The claim that “Reality is merely a different way to say God” positions pan-en-theology not as a religious belief but as a research methodology: if God is in all things, then all disciplines study aspects of the same Reality.

4. Practical honesty. LLoL admits “I wish I could have refined my Flying Scroll & Good News Pack more. It’s the best I can do” — acknowledging imperfection while arguing that the urgency of nuclear risk does not allow indefinite polishing.

Document Information

Document ID	OL9 (Open Letter 9)
Full title	How to review wid-e research to avert existential disasters
From	Laurence Loewe of Laodicea (LLoL), DARL
To	Dear Reviewers of parts of the Good News Pack
Dates	2025-02-27 to 2025-12-01
Version	iv_LLoL_QQv2r2p1_2025m12d01
Format	6-page letter with 8 side boxes (B0–B8)
License	Jonah License with CC0 Public Domain
Part of	Good News Pack MMv3, Open Letters collection
PDF size	144 KB
WebP size	248 KB

Related documents in the Good News Pack:

• SD2 — Epiocracy

• SD6 — BABL millstone algorithm

• SD8 — ResearchCity Noah Ark

• All other Open Letters (OL0–OL10)

— Overview AI-generated by dv_ClaOp46Max_MMv2_2026m04d02 —End—

Collapse all Expand all

Notes

Content stability — Content is variant dv_ClaOp46Max_MMv2_2026m04d02 (see StayVS). Rebuilt 2026-05-18.

Expert Review Needed: Help Assess This Research and Its AI Overview

This page makes accessible one document from LLoL’s 6+ year wid-e research marathon on existential risk and ResearchCity. The PDF linked above is the original work; this page provides an overview.

The original research needs expert review. Download the PDF and bring your expertise to bear — whether you are a scientist, policy maker, theologian, peace activist, or concerned citizen. This research aims to find gentle kind reasonable ways to solve existential problems. Your perspective matters for assessing whether it succeeds.

The AI overview (see the markers) may need correction. AI may have blindly twisted the original message by emphasizing other aspects than the author would have. Important nuances may thus be missed or misrepresented. If you spot errors, missing context, or misplaced emphasis, your corrections help every future reader.

Despite all potential shortcomings of AI, AI was still used here because not saying anything about this document would have been even worse. A race against existential risks is not nuanced. Neither can be the determination to do the right thing - and get the word out to get help.

LLoL is determined to ask for such help. Hence this website to give the world a fair chance at exploring and reviewing LLoL’s ideas.

Use the FeedbackFlow link below to send your review — whether it concerns the original PDF, the AI overview, or both.

LLoL may drown for a while in the FF invited, but if people are indeed interested in making this work and avert accidental nuclear winter, then LLoL predicts that enough people will be happy to pay the about $8/year/person it will take to start scaling up ResearchCity, in order to help with the proper review of such wid-e research proposals for global decision-support like this one.

Hence, please consider that your buy-in with about $8/year will help to shift the global game from a so-called prisoner’s dilemma to an assurance game with the help of mathematical theology.

This work requires global support to avoid capture by special interests. Refining complex posters, engaging scholars across traditions, and running formal consistency checks all require sustained effort — as does scaling up a ResearchCity for global FeedbackFlows.

Let’s hope it’s not too late to fund this work!

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: FF+mmv3-open-letter-ol9-open-letter-ol9-iv_llol_qqv4_2025m12d03@balospe.com CC: [email protected] Subject: FF k2 s2 AIMS for [mmv3-open-letter-ol9] Replace_by_OneLineSummary Body: To make this page [mmv3-open-letter-ol9] more gentle kind reasonable for beginners, producers, andOr experts with a background in xyz: Please consider improving this: -- By sending this email, I agree that its content may be published under the Jonah License (balospe.com/en/license/joli/) unless I state otherwise above. MailForm=OOv2r0p0

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.