Where ?I classed all the things and so I have found.It is simply a general truth, it is simply a gneral theory of aeverything, the real one.

It exists things which are not to sell Mr Halayka.

My Theory of spherization is a gneral work Mr Halayka and my equations are foundamentals and imrpove the general and special relativity. Like said Feynmann,..."one we shall see all the truth, and we shall say all, oh my god, but how is it possible that we have not seen this evidence before." :)

The quantum spheres, fermionic and bosonic build the cosmological spheres inside a beautiful 3D sphere(without s of course :). .....Eureka so Mr Halayka. :)

Yes I have seen these firlms, I agree, I laugh laugh also. Avatar ,....indeed you are right but it is very well made. The story can be better still.Mr Cameron can imrpove still with other planets even.

The ecology and the universalism are so important.But it exists always people loving monney and opulences and vanity. It is sad simply. The Universe is not to sell at my knowledge. My Theory also is not to sell, it is just a work permitting to imrpove this earth. I have just found an universal truth.

Lockout ,I have not seen it, I am going to see it this night.:)

Thanking you for this discussion, it is nice :).

ps the universalism is the torch of the infinite light.....

Regards

Hi Steve,

I guarantee that you will enjoy the first 10 minutes of Lockout. :):):):) It gave me a new appreciation for black comedy and Guy Pierce.

I was meaning a kind of vixra or arxiv writing, not an ebook for sale or anything. Like, just some examples. This is my barrier to learning: I need to read many various examples of something before I have a chance to understand. Without examples, I am lost.

- Shawn

Hello,

No I have not published.

I can see all the copycats and the play of people. It is ironical no?

My aim is simply the sharing in a total transparence.That's why I have explained my theory everywhere on net on several platforms since more than 7 or 8 years. I can understand that it is an important discovery, so I understand the human comportments loving money. My theory is a lot of monney indeed but like I said you before, it exists things which are not to sell.

I d say to all the copycats , don't copy but simply work about my theory with universality and determinism.:)

Regards

Best Regards

Hello,

I absolutely cannot find a flaw in your reasoning -- what you say is true, whether or not the perpetrators are aware of it, or not.

Have a good day, man. I hope that we run into each other again some day on FQXi. Thanks for being understanding of my points of view -- you're a pretty decent fellow.

- Shawn

The well wins always because the universal love is our only one reality.

The infinite light builds the sphere !!!

We build the paradise, infinite ....

Have a good day also. and see in the stars the message of hope of spheres ....

Of course, there are two reasons to perform a "categorifaction" of something:

- To to turn the model of such a thing from a giant bundle of procedural spaghetti code, scattered all over the place into a model with clearly defined boundaries (and relationships that transcend those boundaries) -- to create a relational, object-oriented version of the model.

- To actually get around to instantiating those objects (to actually walk the walk, and not just talk the talk) -- programmers don't just write code and then sit there and stare at it; they compile it; they utilize it.

Right now, the state of the knowledge of physics is essentially a procedural mess. Eventually, when people like Ford achieve their goal, it will not be so.

So, what's the main stumbling block that's stopping humanity from achieving this goal? I'm suspecting that there is a real fear in people that they will lose their role as a special guide to this part of our collective unconscious. And so, the chaos is never tidied up by those with the insight to do so.

The goal is to create some kind of Mathematica / Hyperphysics (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html) hybrid that can not only help people explore what's known, but to also explore the possible connections in the collective unconscious that we simply ignore / forget about (learned machines are naive and can be non-prejudicial in terms of how they apply their paranoiac-critical skills, if trained right, and that's a bonus sometimes).

Academia will never pull this off, largely because it's effectively career suicide -- not that they'll all be jobless afterward, but just that their job will change into something optimal. Heaven forbid that would ever happen...

This is why I think that people who are interested in the categorification of physics should be invited to take part in the Physics of Information program. They're the only ones questioning humanity on this front -- the rest mostly seem to be stunned deer caught in the crosshairs. Sorry academia, but your time's up, whether you fight against it or just sit on your rear and ignore it. It'll hurt less if you don't struggle!

- Shawn

    P.S. So yeah, when I say that physicists have a huge ignorance of Shannon and Jung's work, it's largely because they're too afraid to face the demise of their current state -- they are too afraid to properly acknowledge the supremacy of the electronic component of the collective unconscious over the biological component. No, checking your email and reading I Can Haz Cheezburger doesn't count as facing up to it, sorry.

    - Shawn

    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.

    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

    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.

      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.