Because: (a) The power of moral influence on the decision-maker (especially with respect to F∑Ei) is subjective, self-evaluated physical and psychological character [and in the virtuous field, it has been established that science does not have the means to deduce a strict relationship between FE and FM, having obtained a function FE = f(FM); and (b) because of the utopianism of creating a “physical metrological standard” in the moral sub-environment, we do not have any objective spot of reference for comparing the strength of one Lesson calculated on the basis of the equality of (4) or (5), let’s say, 100 points, with the strength of another Lesson of, say, 700 points (as difficult as it was to do this without knowing the conditions of comparison, and in the Examples of the Annex 4)], it is therefore a logical conclusion that both the force itself, detailing, FE(I ∨ P) and all the other components of the GTM equations, used to describe any “ethical” facts from the life of people and various circumstances accompanying the former, have comparable, modulo-comparable taxing characteristics. Where the final indicators of such calculations are always important, but, in fact, they are only an approximate guideline, and not an absolute algebraic value of the general bitterness experienced by a person, for e.g., F∑Ei from the Lesson (since it is still technically impossible to measure the calculated force FE, the short-term “random” force FR and the long-term “depressive” force FD of such bitterness with devices). Therefore it is stated that an attempt to use the methods of classical scientific cognition (for a sample, differential methods of calculus) outside the material world – in the investigated, energy environment of the universe [in this situation, in relation to formulas (1)–(7) and their variables] – is a priori futile.
In addition, as the consequential virtuous blunders the participants of the List No. 2 demonstrate, the connection between ethical transgresssions XE and their outcomes LE for people is extremely a complex non-linear picture. As a result, this does not allow us to establish clear correlations in the moral field of human activity. And, again, due to the impossibility of using the differential calculus in the communication environment, in a given research that operates only with specific qualitative characteristics [no more than for the sake of clarity digitized], there are no tools for verifying the comparable equations of the GTM (1)–(7) and their components by the usual mathematical methods (with the task, for instance, of determining the average by FE between, let’s say, a person’s acquired notoriety and a personal “reason” for laying hands on himself that suddenly arose in his head [implying the appearance of the latter extremes only because of a person’s immoral behavior in the past, and not because of other circumstances, such as mental disorders]). And on the basis of the fact that such a sight – a comprehensive check of the GTM formulas according to the existing generally accepted statistical methods – is not solvable, therefore, the assessment of the collected results of the experiment in quantitative terms is objectively reduced to the analysis of the components of the sample n and the general population N (which, nevertheless, made it possible to obtain very interesting figures, given below).
And since, in order to study as much as possible all the causes of people’s collisions with obstacles in fate, to probe the nature of most of their failures and to extract the levers of forecasting in this area, the present examination confronted the in order to find out how the fact of ignoring moral Norms affects a person, it is important to know how many earthlings have ever lived in the world in order to make final decisions here.
Answering the last question, according to the calculations of the Population Reference Bureau, USA, from 2022, over the entire history of our planet [for about the last 52 thousand years], it is estimated that about 117 billion people have lived and are living (as sought N).
Within the framework of the voiced problem, 315 famous persons (including persons from the List No. 3, p. 285 in e-book) were involved in the consideration. And finally, according to the rule of paragraph (A) of the “Prerequisites”, out of 315 persons subjected to the initial study, 238 were found to meet the requirements of the test [remember that two men appear at No. 79 on the second List: Brothers Wilbur and Orville Wright]. Of these, 35 representatives (or ≈ 14.71%) were finally classified as people who are blameless in the virtuous sense – see the List No. 1. At the same time, the number of decision makers included in the second List was 203 people (or ≈ 85.29%), thereby indicating the size of the modal group identified during the research. (Hence, the model under discussion has a dichotomous scale with a final [quantitatively large1]] sample size n = 238.)
_______
1 The sample is conventionally considered small at ≤ 30, medium at 30 ≤ ≤ 200, and large at > 200 (Titkova 2002).
The proportion of representatives of the sample with the presence of the studied trait (where such a trait is any kind of immoral behavior), or p, is determined from the ratio 203 ÷ 238 = 0.852,941,176,47. And the proportion of representatives in whom the studied trait is absent, or q, is derived as 35 ÷ 238 = 0.147,058,823,52. This makes it possible to establish the value of the margin of error [when the general population is significantly larger than the sample], which is calculated using the formula:
where
Z is the coefficient depending on the selected confidence interval: 1.96 for a confidence interval of 0.95.
At this stage, it can already be noted that in the presented model, the [statistical] error of the first kind1] – or the probability of finding relationships or differences that in fact cannot exist in principle – is minimal.
_______
1 As is well known, an error of the first kind describes a situation in which a correct null hypothesis – in this case that a person’s violation of moral Norms does not affect his or her future – is rejected.
In addition to the above, in view of the fact that in the List No. 2 the modal number of people studied, who to varying degrees ignored the directives of ethics, turned out to be 203 people, or n1, out of 238 (which made it possible to identify global and far-reaching trends in the moral sphere of life of Homo sapiens), the estimated number of all people NM from the general population N, ever at all (and at least once in a lifetime – noticeably [i.e., it is proposed to consider above two points for the “approach” according to the first Table]), having allowed a slack, trampling on the virtuous side of existence, is
While among the 7 billion 870 million people “huddled” on the planet – accepted – at the time of the publication [first edition] of this book (May 2022), there were 6,712,646,596 such people, denoted by NMt1] [7,870,000,000 × 0.852,941,117,647 = 6,712,646,595.88].
_______
1 Where the lower case “t ” is short for “today”.
And, therefore, relatively impeccable earthlings (someone’s “golden” fathers, wives, children, grandchildren) since the time of primitive fires have accumulated N – NM = 17,205,889,235 those who deserve the highest praise – conscientious persons. And at the “beginning of the 21st century” there are at least 1,157,353,404 living inhabitants of the world, of whom we and science can be proud.
However, due to the fact that, with a high degree of certainty, as already noted, it is possible to “probe” the biographies of only celebrities (which the model took advantage of), plus the fact that, as established and reflected in the Principle 49, on the social ladder, for the reason stated in the Conclusion II-III, those above are much better protected than those below, then, firstly, the logical conclusion is made that there is even less insurance against misfortune, caused by the personal and collective immoral behavior of the most ordinary people. And secondly, when summing up the main results – and objectively transferring the sample to the rank of highly representative – the estimated percentage of such celebrities in the circle of both existing and all people who have ever been born are considered. Which, based on the calculations of the American mathematician Arbesman (2013), is 0.0086%. (As in figures, at the time of its calculation in 2013, there were N2 = 604,174 eminent people out of, according to the specialist’s methodology, for that year, 7,059,837,187 of the world’s population [and in practice, if you look into it, – in parallel and from the whole of humanity N, for which then the estimated percentage of celebrity-“newsmakers”, denoted by the letter C, among people who have ever lived and are now living in the world, accumulates a total of 0.0005%, because
It is taken as a given: In the model under study, the Arbesman’s calculation is important only for two phenomena in the GTM – scales the spread of Rockefeller’s Luck and Fellini’s Fortune (saving the chosen among the “stumbled” or even the “fallen”). The rest – Planck’s Paradox, Rutherford’s Force Majeure, and Fabergé’s Collapse turned out to be common to all mankind, characterized by a 100% coverage of the human population and independence from the ethical characteristics of the individual (that is, the last three phenomena do not care whether their ward is deeply moral or only occasionally [or infinitely] immoral).
This means that the variables of equations (4)–(5) from the second Appendix will not distort the percentage of big names among all people, if the kRL and kFF probability of the occurrence of “unique” quantities is known for the factors of these equations kRL and kFF .
According to the results obtained in the study, the percentage probability of an individual acquaintance of any person – as long as it doesn’t matter whether it’s moral or immoral – with Planck’s Paradox (which was recorded in the fate of 103 people out of 238) – however, adjusted for the level of medicine in the past centuries – amounted to 43.28% [that is, in the proportion, roughly, 1:2]; with Rutherford’s Force Majeure (7 people out of 238 [or 1:34]) – approx. 2.94%; with the Fabergé Collapse (3 people out of 238 [or 1:79]) – approx. 1.26% [and then P(kFC ) = 0.0126]; and not a sufficiently moral person – with the Rockefeller’s Luck, or P(kRL ) [63 people out of 203 {or a similarly rounded ratio of 1:3, but only for the eminent ones, since here Arbesman’s calculation comes into force, and no longer for N1, but for the value NM}] – and then, rounding up, in percentages it will be 19 × 10-5 % (or 19 × 10-7 in fractions):
at the same time, Fellini’s Fortune smile with her P(kFF ) – again, for morally deficient people – has the following statistics: 12 people out of 203 people [in the ratio of 1:17 – again only for the elite], and taking into account Arbesman’s data, and also for NM, and also rounding, the percentage probability was 36 × 10-6 % (or 36 × 10-8 in fractions):
And with these initial, summarize, for equations (4)–(5) the desired unique – smallest kRL and kFF – values occur with probability [in fractions], respectively:
Switching for a while, the statistics on the frequency of fixation of mirror consequences in the authors of immoral behavior look like this. In total, in there were 64 such people. That is, accordingly, the probability for everyone naïve [in terms of the reality of payback] to face at least once in their life the mirror denouements of their own vicious steps are ≈ 0.32 in fractions and ≈ 31.53% (or ≈ 1:3). At that time [of course, roughly], there were 31,465,083,124 risk-takers in the annals of humanity; and those of the latter, now alive [i.e. from NMt = 6 712 646 596], who may not yet have waited and are awaiting their fate as of May 2022 [roughly, too] 2,116,497,472 people. At the same time, the blitz data for those from the List No. 2, who at least once forced their relatives to answer for their transgressions, are as follows: 23 people out of and – rounded up it turns out – 11,306,672,750 people out of NM (and the rounded probability of becoming such is 0.1/1:9/11.33%).
At the same time, for ordinary people, the chance that after trampling on virtuous imperatives, they will always be able to get away with it, and their fate will eventually follow the protective laws of Fellini’s Fortune (or, in the terms of the Principle 43, that the average person, following an immoral act, will have a “secondary” physical component LE(Ph) of force F2(Ph) in the denouement of his future event Xnew will be equal to zero), soberingly produced by the layout:
That is, the desired proportions for each “normal” immoral, but at the same time ordinary, not standing out from the general mass of individuals in relation to the people who have lived in total in all times – 1:2,794,201. Whereas with respect to the “morally wavering” 6,712,646,596 people alive as of May 2022, such proportion determines: Not counting some “stars”, rounding, there are only 2,402 such super-privileged people, or, as shown above, a paltry 0.000,035,783,2% of “then” NMt].
And someone’s bet that it is his personal life that will “suddenly” appeal to Rockefeller’s Luck, respectively:
or approximately 1:532,229. And then, for those who are now “active”, the reporting on this financial phenomenon is as follows: Again, not counting the chosen “stars”, there are only 12 612 materially protected inhabitants on the planet in May 2022 [or ≈ 0.000,187,884,16% of “then” NMt].
Based on which it is stated (proving the First Rule of Virtue and at the same time fulfilling the obligation of the book’s annotation to transfer the concept of “morality” from the category of philosophy to the exact one): Unethical behavior to man – this beneficiary in quotation marks of his own shortsightedness – is indeed highly disadvantageous. For it is leading him, an ordinary decision-maker, to an unequivocal clash with problems of varying degrees1] – in view of what is said in the Conclusion II-III, from notoriety to death (because of murder or suicide) or “inherited” by the next of kin [with a probability of 0.1] – in 99.999,964,211,6% of cases2], and to losses – in 99.999,812,110,89% of caseloads3].
_______
1 With a positive left-sided asymmetric distribution of the trait [in the GTM, such a trait is a specific appearance of the consequence L for a person in a comparable mathematical correspondence of such an appearance to, say, the size F2(Ph) from the notation (1) of the “secondary” physical component LE(Ph) estimated through the strength FE(I ∨ P) of the formulas (4) or (5) {where the computational appearance of the decoupling of L is the pattern of occurrence of L values, when the distribution of a discrete value L in a sequence of n independent trials – due to the dominance of small misdemeanors in people over large ones – is expected to have a predominance of values below the mean with an uncertain position of the mean itself}].
2 As a result of the following procedure: 100% – P(kFF) = 100% – 0.000,035,788,4 = 99.999,964,211,6%.
3 As a result of the following procedure: 100% – P(kRL) = 100% – 0.000,187,889,11% = 99.999,812,110,89%.