disgusting terrsts of foreign gypsies foreign terrorst grp/cult

 hey today passed with:

commutting mom to second endoscopy for some caution based check of doctor's  which doctor thinks there is no issue but for caution wished to.

then on return mom wished to commute places alike then came home. 

hey i hadnt rested last day :D

silly I -> first had been working on issues of hmm packaged project issues then i think thats going to fix. then i studied to that until 3 oclock then tried to fall asleep but couldnt. then listened space documentaries to learn astronomy basics (to learn contemporary astronomy /cosmology theories basics (or have idea of contemporary cosmology science whic i did not know about) 

yep then again i fixated again.

this time  to following idea ->

whilst documentary were playing i were instead thinking science ideas of how cosmology theories could been  different than mentioned of.

I had fixated this time to dimension concept. of topological dimension concept.

I fixated to integrate the dimension to poset (ordered mappings semi lattice struct) of multiverse. 

i mean dimension of time is -> if its caused by poset,  then i wondered, what about the spatial side?

what kind of category theory abstraction we could start for spatial dimensions. not time but spatial. 

i wondered if its less dimension than 3d?  or more? 

i mean what kind of spatial concept in category theory could be interchangebly used for defining dimension concept? 

as told we refute einstein's analogical idea of surface thingy. 

 

then i thought dimension defintions from topology science which i have to revisit. and thought  how many types of category theoretic definition sets we could generate some spatial/time thingy that is perceived like this linear time iteration (forward thrust of time) and 3d perceived spatial dimensions.

but what is the actual topological concept? and category theoretic definition sets it could be based that could have generated such a perceived universe perception?

so last time we told about these topics, we mentioned "shapes of infinity" concept right? 

i mean creating some new number concepts but not like numbers but with group units based category diagrams being the concepts.

so we by then investigated shapes of infinity concept. we agreed to the Cantor's idea that infinity is not something without specification.  infinity diverges/different infinities exists. but by Cantor's time there were not abstract maths alot that much that (actually such  maths concepts initial creation iniated by Cantor indeed)  but by then there were not that much concepts so that Cantor used some computer science method alike recursive definition there to define that infinity is not all the same.  

so we extended that discussion alike -> shapes of infinity.

so that were the last thinking session (alike online coding session) for such concept. 

so the new topic to discuss is ->

from the new number systems (which wont be numbers either but diagrams) based diagrams based conceptual maths by category theory --->

so the new topic to investigate is ->

how about spatialityy? so if we deciphered time thingy with poset, so what about spatiality? 

so this would require some topology rereading to do investigate this. of creating some basic topology ceoncepts of dimensions concepts being  grp units in category theory diagrams  to define various type of spatiality definitions from which this universe perception could have happen from.

so whilst listening last day cosmology theories -> my reaction -> no i dont think so this is exactly like this.  

e.g. inflation of post big bang universe theories. 

ok maybe measured perceived universe might seem like that.

but know why? why it mostly because like that? not that there is a inflating dimension there. its because the quantum prob function there of that direction is visibly what increases chances of more entropy and that happens due to that imho.

i mean its the perceived universe its like that. but not that there exists some thrust of universe like that. its rather probability of that inflation of universe is happening like that due to that it being the most probable (most sheaves count ) 

so why in a system where this is multi directional? 

considering that spatiality might not exist indeed. and cohesion even might be a perception indeed maybe. 

alike time might not be existing but being a perception of posets.

so what kind of concept could create the perceived 3d?

what we perceive as some 1km or 1million kms might indeed be a perception and again a poset topic. 

maybe there is no 3d spatiality there but some concept struct there which genereates the perceived spatiality. 

so when light of photon from pencil here is 1 meter distance and one is 4 meter distance. ok? 

so what makes us think that therre is indeed a void and such separation concept? i mean spatiality do not have to be a dimension any at all. 

maybe there is only time (posets) and some thing one thing more (e.g. some degrees/radians whatever) and that defines all these. 

that the void separation between 2 pencils actually does not exist. its rather a perception. 

whereas the underlyingly the universe actually, in its multiverse of its posets, some poset structure there exists that generates a voidness e.g. so that i can traverse a paper between? 

so what if spatiality does not exist any at all? 

is the starting point :) 

and all things we guarantee as if its like: e.g. from cohesion to spatial dimensions, is actually only  a perception? :)

what is perception? perception is the crystalization of multiverse to most probable poset structs. 

so to an observer universe gets ordered and some orderings has more hysteresis of interactions of QFT and some have less hysteresis and there we are at there.  querying what if alike time, what if spatiality is nothign like anyn dimensions indeed? but rather again posets? an ordering? a lattice crystallization lattice of multiverse ocean along most sheaves count.

so in our discussion today, we tackled the spatial dimensions concept. 

last time we tackled that infinity is not as a mysterious thing as it were now. (due to abstract maths ) it became some shapes patterns same like how numbers are to maths science. 

in this category theoretical maths world, numbers are now grps /shapes/diagrams.  there is no definite numbers concept. but might be approximations to. 

so with those in mind, 

today we continued our discussions with: 

this time asking the query: 

hey what if spatiality is a false perception :)  what if there is indeed 0 dimensions in multiverse :) 

and posets being the hysteresis of light whatever interaction of QFT there happening ordered behaviour giving false perception to spatial 3d concept? 

so whilst started thinking these, of whilst listening cosmology documentaries, I this time started to fixate to this query alike 2 weeks ago fixated to conceptualizations of time concept.

I understood that spatiality most possibly might not exist even at all in underlying universe and why its 3d might be caused by the poset patterns there which defines both perceived  time and spatial dimensions which in actual multiverse do not exist most possibly.

so this is the starting exciting idea of today's discussion ---> what if there is no spatial dimension in actual multiverse thingy? 

 is not it an exciting idea? i think so! think that there is no dimensions at all. but all poset crystallizations due to sheaves count of most probable (highest entropy sheaves/branches counts of connections of eigenstates or not that even QFT units ) creating these lattice directions which creates fake perception of 3d whilst there 0d in underlying multiverse maybe?

so string theorists has a slightly divergent idea in that.

I have a divergent idea compared to them. in this idea i think its 0 dimensions but the probability equations maybe  there of topologic and spatial perception creating concepts there its maths somehow creates 3d perception due to something. thats the key to decrypt this theorem. of what kind of abstractions probability wise generated lattices could create 3d universe perception?  I mean why not 4d? but 3d?  so thats the key to this theorem of the test method of the generated diagrams. if its maths would also generate 3d perception having lattices possibly then its a possibly possible theorem.

so we come up a new theorem.  that we think maybe spatiality (and even maybe cohesion) might not be the natural traits of actual multiverse but rather lattice shapes of what in perceived universe is.

  

yayyy see humanity we would invent warp and create neptune outpost as promised and galactic travel capable crafts :) 

and expand humanity to many galaxies :)  (I used key concept since i used decrupt and due to working with kubernetes keys recently) 

so returning back to topic of science discussion: 

 

actually crystallization is wrong metaphor.  i mean it does not get rigid but someflux it is. but most probable has a flux pattern of some most probable pattern.

so its not a crystalization metaphor exactly but what it means in that is not isomorphic but homomorphic. maybe some with non single  element kernel wise homomorphic. 

 the universe is a flux but a set fluxes of sets of universes.  but crystallization (but not a solid crystal how to depict that) of many universes to a set of. 

so i think the grp thry book is very important and hey come on come to new physics where even cohesion concept is theorized as possibly maybe not like that actually but perceived like that :) 

yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy :) lets create category diagrams where cohesion even is possibly  a perceived not basis multiverse concept :) we would start our theories with 0 dimensions (0 spatial dimensions of mulitverse and 0 time dimension either :) (where posets is the time :) ) and would create theorems which could create this perceived universe version we perceive like this but most possibly underlying multiverse is not any like how we perceive. 

yayyyyyyy the most fun puzzle to solve! 

what kind of category theory concepts conceptualizations of that posets could generate this weird 3d spatial +1d time dimensions? 

so much interesting to figure out with designign diagrams but first revisit the diagrams studies and grp and ctgry thry topics whilst also studying to ml algos. 

so beside ml algos project, i myself would try to create diagrams  of could indeed generate the dimensions and my initial idea that the actual dimensions is 0 dimensions but rather poset structs (semi-lattices /lattices and sheaves count of multiverse and aforementioned probability calculations to figure out how which topology and cateogry theory concept diagrams could generate the 4d dimension perception we have of universe which we physics side people think most possibly its not 4d alike)

some of physicsts thinks its 2d someof thinks more than 4d (string theorists)

my initial idea is why not start with 0d :) maybe some poset structs might still generate the 4d perception indeed? 

indeed dimension concept is very branched ontology layer.  i think befor ecoming to dimension is what we need to utilize instead maybe. 

i mean dimension and geometry concepts are brahced ontology layer but i think the concepts before them is the where these theories needs to be studied  to is my opinion.

i mean i find a logical fallacy in saying space time is some geometry thingy or analogies to that. -> so tell me with category theory of why its like that first is my idea. 

i mean what generates that? what generates dimensions? insted of defining our universe with dimensions i think we need to work with diagrams that generates dimensions and build physics on those ontology type indeed.

so the topic of today's blog:

lets not talk of dimension concept -> lets talk what generates dimension concept? what kind of lattice/poset struct there that generates it? 

yep so today's cosmology talsk and warp invention ideas talks proceeded like this :) 

I again reflected last night fixation moment of me to thse starting ideas i fixated again this time to how to define spatiality and figured out hey maybe there is no spaitality? or least start with poset structs with that idea first.