Your entire premise is the absolute definition of "not even wrong"

Firstly 'your hypothesis' is simply trying to make a claim using papers as your foundations that are not scientific laws and very much in their infancy.

The Matos Et Al paper we have discovered is not peer reviewed, has minimal test subjects, isn't statistically analysed and its co-author last publically stated it shouldn't be call entropy and far more testing is required.

The paper by Jeremy England is disputed, Including his very own professor, Eugene Shakhnovich. Who acknowledging Englands talent in the field, but adds regarding his paper, "Any claims that it has to do with biology or the origins of life, are pure and shameless speculations.”

Professor Rahul Sarpeshkar also comments on it, "It would be nice to have some concrete physical instantiation of these abstract constructs" He hopes to see the simulations re-created in real experiments, perhaps using biologically relevant chemicals and energy sources such as glucose that are necessary but not sufficient.

Other experts have said, an important next step for England and his collaborators would be to scale up their chemical reaction network and to see if it still dynamically evolves to rare fixed points of extreme forcing.

So again, Another pillar to your 'hypothesis' that is not proven and disputed among the community.

So moving away from the sources that you cite which are far from being scientifically concrete, You make the bold claim that your precious paper is scientifically objective, if this was true you ought to eliminate personal biases, a priori commitments, emotional involvement.

Also there would be scientific measurement, as the accuracy of a measurement can be tested independent from the individual scientist.

To be properly considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person,
and then demonstrated for third parties.

You offer absolutely no results of measurements, data or tests that you have done, to causally link all these papers, to show that every human in existence, from babies that don't make it to day one, to humans who hit the century mark, are purposefully working toward the goal of AGI.

Furthermore, as recently touched on with you requiring supersymmetry to play a role in your hypothesis, This theory has still to this day never shown any positive results. It is completely without evidence to support it.
It has failed every single test that its put in for, including at the LHC.

Also there would be scientific measurement, as the accuracy of a measurement can be tested independent from the individual scientist.

To be properly considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person,
and then demonstrated for third parties.

You offer absolutely no results of measurements, data or tests that you have done, to causally link all these papers, to show that every human in existence, from babies that don't make it to day one, to humans who hit the century mark, are purposefully working toward the goal of AGI.

1.) What benefit do you derive from ignoring evidence? Why ignore the evidence that contrasts your claim above, in my prior response (See source)?

2.) Furthermore, a majority of your argument has occured while ignoring the reality that purpose need not be subjective. Until you admit your error, where you reasonably confused the "teleological argument" (an argument for supposed creators of our universe), with "teleology in biology/teleonomy (purpose in the scope of biology/evolution etc)", you won't be able to process my hypothesis!

Again, we could only have a purpose if we were created. But since we are only hear by completely random chance, their is no purpose, except any purpose we place on ourselves.

Science works by producing testable, measureable results to support the hypothesis made, of which, you have done no such thing.

Ignoring evidence, I'm the one actually producing evidence! lol

Your ignorance is quaint.

Furthermore, in reply to your last paragraph of utter nonsense, do not Straw-man my position, I have made no argument that purpose IS subjective! The only claim I have made on the topic was:

"i'm drawn to a quote by Nobel prize winning physiologist Albert Szent Gyorgyi who said, "Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest".

So please don't be stupid enough to think people cannot process your 'hypothesis' because it is fairly straight forward but it is unsubstantiated.

Let us go over some more points, in this thread alone you have called your paper a 'hypothesis', a 'scientific hypothesis' and referred to it as a 'hypothesis' in the sense of a 'what if' situation.

So essentially you don't appear to know what your paper actually is! In reality it comes across more as a thought experiment or a logical argument, and if it is the later then i would say that your 'hypothesis' requirement for supersymmetry allows one to dismiss your entire argument.

If you have a premise that is propped up by the theory of supersymmetry, then we can dismiss it, as it has no evidence as theory to support it.

Scientific claims can sometimes be made to be reasonable, for example when people claim the position of an electron.
It may appear reasonable but the claim is unsupported and not true.

1.) Many here like you, had already started on the wrong foot; they posited that purpose could merely be subjective or ignored that purpose may be objective.

2.) Reference: Telology in biology/teleonomy

3.) Your words: "Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest".

3.b) My response: It sounds like the electron is exercising some purpose. As Wikipedia/Teleology in biology or teleonomy expressses, organisms may undergo purpose or goal-directed paradigms.

3.c) Why is it supposedly infeasble for the human species to compound some purpose as well?

4.) Have you worked on any hypotheses or theories of your own?

Sapporo - [PGJ's conjecture] isn't even something which can be derived from observation.

That simple statement is the most damning criticism of this nonsense offered to date, imo.

TheBlindwatchmaker said:

So essentially you don't appear to know what your paper actually is! In reality it comes across more as a thought experiment or a logical argument, and if it is the later then i would say that your 'hypothesis' requirement for supersymmetry allows one to dismiss your entire argument.

1.) If you actually take the time to read Wikipedia/Hypothesis, you would perhaps come to find that my hypothesis is sufficiently so.

2.) Persons on this forum tend to criticize their memory of what a word or concept may narrowly concern, which may not encompass other portions of said word/concept.

@LucyAustralopithecus Said - "We have no purpose."

You have made a category error. "Us" or "We" as in people, and "Life." It is not the same thing. If you do not have a purpose, it is not my problem. If the rest of humanity does not have a purpose, too bad for them.

Life's purpose is self evident. Life exists to perpetuate life. Life feeds on life. Life creates more life. Life is the Ouroboros. Life exists for life. If you live, you serve life's purpose. If you die, you serve life's purpose. If you refuse to serve life's purpose you still serve life's purpose. There is no escaping.

The real question is this. Now that humans have life, what is their purpose. You are a human and you will give yourself purpose. Now your purpose seems to be looking for a purpose or imagining that you do not have one. At any rate, your purpose in this life will be your own. Sit and refuse to have a purpose, in which case your purpose will be to sit and pretend you do not have a purpose, or create a purpose for yourself. You are what you do. You steal and your purpose is to be a thief. You complain and your purpose is to complain. You make pseudo intellectual statements like Breezy and your purpose is to be a pseudo intellectual. You make your own purpose.