On Whether or Not Non-Gravitational Interaction Can Occur in the Absence of Gravity by Shawn Halayka

P.P.S. So when I see physicists saying on one hand "I love Shannon, because he rules, and Jung was sooooo cool" and on the other hand saying "you don't do physics very well because you don't know the system", I just have to shake my head in total digust -- my tax dollars pay for this ridiculous self-flagellation/self-congratulation, which amounts to something that's as close-minded as say, ultra-conservative religion. I see your system for exactly what it is, and you don't have a clue.

hello dude,

How are you this day ?

Have you encoded correctly about the categorification of essentials?

Regards

could you develop the work of Shannon please in begining with the 0 and the 1 please the turn on and the turn off ....

Regards

Hi Steve,

I appreciate the offer, but I'm going to have to pass on it. Sorry. I can tell you though that it's not just about zeroes and ones -- it's about the classification of all kinds of symbols and signs, in an optimal way that attempts to suffer minimally from error.

My main concern is that the conversion of "physics" from a set of symbols (mysterious) to a set of signs currently relies on direct human (read: inherently prejudicial) interpretation of the portion of the collective unconscious pertaining to "physics" -- namely, professors/writers are human, and that's not optimal.

Would you, personally, love to have an artificially intelligent machine to teach you physics -- and to monitor / advance the current progress in physics -- so that you don't have to dig around for this knowledge via books and google and, well, human professors? It sounds far-fetched at first, but all of the technology basically already exists -- and how bad could it really be to turn this portion of the collective unconscious from a semi-incoherent babble of a million voices into a single coherent voice?

The current physics suffers hardcore from multiple personality disorder.

- Shawn

(I guess you could say that prejudice is personality)

It really, really is like they're saying "I'm building the tower of Babel", but they're only really building the shed of Babel because they're afraid that God will strike them dumb if they really stop toeing the line. You can tell just by looking at the sorry, shabby state of their portion of the collective unconscious -- it's still in the exact same relational format as it was when the printing press had been just invented, with a snazzy search feature that is effectively strapped on with duct tape and sweet but hopeless intentions.

- Shawn

I shouldn't have to rely on other humans to ensure I am upholding type safety and the known-good results from unit tests when I start monkeying around with the physics. It should be automagic, it should be standardized.

Until the physics gets ISO standards certification -- so that its outline can be pinned down enough to be automated -- it is just a higgly-piggly 15th century-esque hack job.

- Shawn

I'll end by quoting directly from the ISO website:

"What are the benefits of ISO International Standards?

ISO International Standards ensure that products and services are safe, reliable and of good quality. For business, they are strategic tools that reduce costs by minimizing waste and errors and increasing productivity. They help companies to access new markets, level the playing field for developing countries and facilitate free and fair global trade."

This is not just nonsense corporate PR yuppie babble. This is pretty much exactly what physics could be -- and pretends to be -- but most certainly is not.

And meanwhile, Anonymous poses with its finger up its nose, doing and saying nothing particularly useful about how the progression of humanity might take place... oh, you're so epic.

Not to sound like a fascist pig or anything, but perhaps it's not obvious that the collective unconscious is like a shared mind.

Once you eliminate the `problems' of

1) plagiarism

2) hunting for references

3) errors due to type safety infractions, and general design bugs which do not pass standardized testing

all in one fell swoop due to automated, electronic methods, then you'll be doing the collective unconscious in the way that Shannon, Jung, and I suppose Russell, meant for it to actually be.

Basically, the entire Chaos, Solitons & Fractals episode would not have occurred if there was any kind of beyond-minimal standardization and global participation in place in modern physics. And no wonder why it's such a pain to learn decent physics in school -- it's all practically medieval.

Given the discordance between the actual solution and the attempted pseudo-implementation (the all-but-total annihilation of CS&F and a few papers talking about nothing particularly important), only a slime mold would be dumb enough to be tricked into thinking that you had a clue about what the actual state of things are. So yep, you just keep writing copious amounts of blog posts about "crackpots" and pretend like you were all about being part of the solution -- I'm absolutely not sorry that I "stole" your idea (well, Shannon and Jung and Russell's idea, actually) and made it into something that is actually useful and coherent.

Is that not the definition of professional ruin?

+1 crackpot point for not seeing the forest for the trees because you're too busy chasing after phantom squirrels!

-1 crackpot point for setting the whole thing on fire because it's not worth saving!

+1 crackpot point for pretending that your critique of CS&F wasn't a self-indictment.

10^10 crackpot points for pretending that dishonest, sassy facetiousness is civility.

What a bunch of posers.

Come to think of it, I doubt that Mathematica is really on the right path to the future. Functionality-wise, it's pretty impressive, but altogether it's really just about collecting money from academia, and so it would not be in Mathematica's best interest for the future to arrive. It's like Microsoft, but without the actual philanthropy and progression of humanity.

What a bunch of posers.

I like Sage (sagemath.org), because you can tell that they're not total corporate pigs.

Not posers.

Oh yeah, running some DNA sequences through a Perl regular expression parser is NOT an example of biology-centric type safety, sorry.

Apparently no one's impressed with my corporate/academic viper impersonation. :(