貪

 由於呢個概念對我嚟講太難，要寫返低先：

「貪」就係為咗一啲自己唔係真係想要嘅嘢，不自覺咁放棄咗自己本來有嘅嘢。

"First Love"

其實我一直唔太鍾意宇多田光嘅唱腔，首《First Love》歌曲旋律好好聽，但佢個 "interpretation"(?!) 有啲太硬太多稜角或者亦都係太沉重。

由於頭先喺度 copy and paste 啲 2022 年嘅文章，又咁啱喺 netflix 見到有佢 2018 年演唱會錄影，咁就喺 background 度播放。佢 2018 年嘅《First Love》就真係超好聽。一流。

可惜可能比較難 extract 到個 mp3 出嚟。

我見 iTunes 有佢 2022 年版本都好似 OK，但個人感覺始終唔及佢演唱會嗰個咁好聽。

Pushing the limits

I suppose this is a book review (tl;dr: do not read. However, google for "exosomes", they are interesting suff):

"The Truth About Contagion: Exploring Theories of How Disease Spreads" - Cowan, Thomas; Fallon Morell, Sally (2021)

You know you're pushing the limits of sanity when stuff you read offers a totally novel perspective, yet totally wrong.

My take is that the author(s) identified and expounded upon the problems with Koch's postulates (for establishing causal relationship for pathological agents and disease), and then basically hallucinated an even worse theory of disease using EM waves and food/water toxins (this theory of course fits even worse with Koch's postulates).

There's an interesting mention about "exosomes", apparently it's a packet of stuff that gets produced by eukaryotic cells. According to an (abtract of an) article in Nature it could perform intracellular DNA/RNA transfer: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncb1596 . Now this stuff is interesting.

Given the exosome lateral DNA transfer mechanism, it's very weird that the author of the book had to rely on homeopathic telepathic DNA transfer to get his point across. He claims that electromagnetic resonance instead of physical contact transfers herpes viral DNA...  and he relied on it just to show how "viruses" (which he claims are misidentified exosomes) would give communities of organisms an evolutionary advantage by lateral transfer of defense mechanisms against external stresses... I can't say for sure this is false (the telepathic DNA thing is apparently from a Nobel prize winner...), but the equivalently useful and less unproven claim would be that exosomes perform lateral transfer using the usual methods of physical contact and achieving the same evolutionary function.

You know how much a book is worth when the reader has more clarity than the author on a subject that the reader has just learnt...

Still, the highlight on the problems with Koch's postulates do indicate that modern germ theory might not be as solid as you'd have been taught in school -- maybe still 99+% solid, but caveat emptor. Especially with viruses, the alleged pathogen is basically an attack from the "information" vector. We software engineers know how hard it is to actually understand what the attack actually is. The mystic in me thinks that there can still be "bad spirits" in information packets that we aren't mentally capable of understanding.

M

 show me help me teach me

A Magician's Choice

Poster of an old Unix magician in the time antiquity circa 1990

Let's say with the alleged power of subjective truth (link contains required reading) one miraculously did something that was highly improbable, but within bounds of technical possibility.

Now, a skeptic who doesn't believe in subjective truth comes and asks demands to apply "objective truth" methodology to test whether it was really a miracle or actually just a fluke. That is, they request repeating the attempt at doing the thing, and "test" what the "probabilities" of it happening are, so that they can "calculate the objective probabilities" of it happening. 

When they do this, the tester actually is actually *confirming* the objective world view. With the alleged power of subjective truth, the world complies with the objective world belief and behaves "objectively", giving them the "objective probabilities" that they want.

It may be easier to explain with a story.

Let's say a Healer (H) performs an apparently miraculous healing ritual on a subject, completely curing an illness never before cured. H insists that this is done with "magic" and requires belief and submission to the cosmic powers for this to happen.

Now, skeptics arrive and try to analyze the scene. They insist that H is a fraud because this is unscientific woo-woo, and if H really had "powers" H should be able to repeat this process and cure anyone. Of course, either H refuses, or H fails to provide any subsequent healing.

We are all taught in school the objective, no-nonsense interpretation: this is just a fluke, there's no magic going on, and if these tricksters are lucky for a while, eventually they will expose themselves as frauds, because the universe works with fundamental laws of physics that don't have human concepts of coincidences etc.

With the subjective interpretation, this is the power of subjective truth at work. Both H and the first subject knew the ritual was going to work, and it did. However, when skeptics came to the scene, the intentions (which is a serious matter with subjective interpretation) changed from the act of healing, to trying to test an hypothesis that magical healing exists. The only reason why this needs testing is because somebody doesn't believe in it and wants "proof". The fundamentally flawed (from subjective perspective) axiom of frequentism is that if you repeat the "same" thing many times you will have a useful probability distribution. However, how it actually works is that the believer of frequentism actually believes in objective truth, and they "know" frequentist probabilities work. So the universe complies accordingly, as per the subjective interpretation. In short, given a bunch of people believing in objective truth, in particular, "knowing" that objective truth is reality, the power of subjective truth makes it a reality. And therefore, in the end, objective truth is what we observe.

I'm not even saying either of the interpretations are correct. I'm just saying, it seems, the subjective truth and objective truth are roughly compatible (as I always suspected). Which one you "should" believe, is, in my opinion, a subjective choice. The classic Occam's razor says the simpler reductionist objective model works fine. I personally disagree because frequentist assumptions are wrong (you can never truly repeat anything the second time). Of course the elephant in the room for the subjective interpretation is the subjective consciousness, but at least presumably everyone is dealing with it no matter you want it or not (which is forced upon us at quantum scales). But then, if the two interpretations are roughly compatible, personally, I can see no reason why I would not choose the one that allows for magic to happen.

When I was a child, I would have said I wanted to be a "magician" when I grew up, if only it were a legit occupation. (In many ways I'm already close. I make a living by conjuring digital constructs from chaotic bits.)

Despite widespread skepticism, there is still much evidence for "magic". For example, the medical research industry spends disproportionate amount of resources trying to combat the "placebo effect". It's the one major thing getting in the way of "scientific progress", just because sugar pills can often work better than complex chemicals. I'm not sure I've come across any reasonable explanation of this phenomenon other than subjective truth.

Don't get me wrong. I unequivocally support developing medicine that works regardless whether you believe it or not. I'm just saying, while the objective methodology is useful, as honest seekers of truth, we can't just say it is The Truth because the tools that came from it are useful and convenient. In the same way, we can't just say subjective truth is wrong because the tools it gave us are "unreliable" and inconvenient.

The truth is indeed often dangerous. Still, the magi's choice is never in doubt.

Healing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoAH4li4_D8

Youtube 啲 algorithms 真係好神奇嘅嘢嚟，總係會搵到啲我有興趣睇嘅嘢。前面個幾鐘嘅論討都唔係重點（啲故仔幾有趣但我大概有個idea）。重點係後面首歌。

我第一次係俾歌聲嘅頻率同力量感動。感動到忍唔住抽泣。歌聲嘅治療力量真係literally隔住個芒都feel到，真係好犀利。而家一小時後個心輪都仲係有啲激動。好痴線。

(冇圖) 老師老師圖鑑 - 前篇

 

「乜你做老師都唔識呢啲嘢咩？」約翰福音 3 章 10 節

今日就講下一啲我認可兼夾唔會俾耶穌串到嘅老師s。同埋一段勁長嘅引言。(好重要㗎)

近日開始探討非唯物主義嘅現象，普遍稱為神秘學、New Age、靈異嘢之類嘅東東，所以寫嘅文大多都係嗰個方向。呢方面嘅老師s，要由傳統科學同邏輯嗰邊講起。

可能你會問，乜神秘學都要鑽研科學同邏輯㗎咩？答案：係呀，好很重要。重要到要重覆多兩次：

係呀，如果你對研究神秘學有興趣，一定要有足夠嘅科學同邏輯根底。

係呀，如果你對研究神秘學有興趣，一定要有足夠嘅科學同邏輯根底。

（近日咁啱見到，搵多位老師再講多次： https://youtu.be/uFdnIRA1X0M?t=360 ）

點解呢？因為科學嘅「正面結論」係無懈可擊嘅。即係反覆得到科學驗證嘅公理，例如萬有限力呢啲，作為我哋身處嘅物理世界嘅現象嚟講，係幾乎冇可能錯嘅。世人對科學嘅謬誤主要得兩個：(1) 以為「科學」=「科學家普遍相信嘅嘢」 (2) 以為「科學唔認知嘅嘢」=「唔存在」。 但講到尾，科學話一定存在嘅嘢，一定會發生嘅現象，要假設係普遍事實先。否則，你話想要否定牛頓力學，即係講緊你識得喺水上行路，你係咪真係得先？

所以要研究所謂神秘學，首先要知道科學講啲乜，同埋冇講啲乜，同埋點解佢可信，同埋佢有啲咩位唔太可靠。掌握到呢啲嘢之後先有得脫離科學嘅範圍。

順帶一提，科學家都唔一定係「科學家」。之後會再講到詳情。

牛頓

牛頓係西方經典科學舉足輕重嘅人物。現時我哋對萬有引力、微積分、光學等等嘅認知都有佢嘅貢獻。由於佢太出名，所以淨係講啲教科書入面比較少提嘅嘢 —— 如果你以為科學家一定唔信呢味嘢，咁以下呢啲可能會顛覆你對「科學家」嘅認知：牛頓除咗搞物理學之後，仲搞咗一堆神秘學嘅研究。有人就咁話佢： "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." - John Maynard Keynes

詳情可以望下 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies 

值得留意嘅係，雖然牛頓花咗唔少時間去研究鍊金術之類嘅嘢，但去到最後影響後世最大嘅仍然係佢對自然科學嘅貢獻。成效嚟講，科學係直頭「立竿見影」嘅。而好多神秘學嘅嘢都係似是而非，你個人冇咁上下緣法，係冇得用理性去理解。所以點解我要一再重申一定要有足夠嘅科學同邏輯根底：就算強如牛頓，佢啲神秘學研究都未必真係有咩成果。你係咪覺得你勁過佢？

(19~)20世紀物理學家s (愛因斯坦、Max Planck、James Clerk Maxwell、John Stewart Bell etc..)

20 世紀最神奇嘅物理學發現： (1) 相對論 (2) 量子力學

可能因為我嘅幾何學直覺弱，我一直都搞唔掂相對論嘅概念。除咗啲嘢快唔過光速、黑洞好犀利之外，冇咩特別理解。

量子力學就比較奇怪，所以啲唔係好識嘅人都跟住穿鑿附會，亂咁吹，又話係人類意識嘅根源，又話係證明神嘅存在。見到嗰啲要好小心。因為連諾貝爾獎得主都係9upper (Penrose老師)。其他人搞錯嘅嘢可想而知。

我自問唔算好熟，不過憑感覺寫咗量子力學嘅主觀現象同我平時講嘅主觀事實嘅共通之處（並且我認為應該係同一樣嘢嚟）。其實我係應該再認真學返量子力學嘅，尤其係啲概率點解係 complex number，嗰啲 observer effect, entanglement 之類嘅嘢我有冇理解錯之類。量子力學嘅 interpretation 不嬲都係充滿陷阱嘅題材嚟，建議步步為營，先從穩陣嘅嘢入手，唔好人講乜就信乜。呢個題目嚟講，普遍科學家係唔可信嘅。

申延閱讀：

- https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159 The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine - Scott Aaronson

- https://hnfong.github.io/public-crap/writings/2022/09-Subjective_Truth.html

哥德爾、圖靈

哥德爾不完備定理係任何邏輯學學生都會學過嘅嘢。佢同量子力學一樣，好多人覺得佢好神奇，然後就開始穿鑿附會，或者以為自己理解咗。（好多人誤以為哥德爾不完備定理代表機械式嘅公式做到嘅嘢唔及人腦咁勁，或者係代表機械式公式唔可以「理解」嘢。呢啲都係初級錯誤嚟。）

唔知點解喺一般哲學課裡面，圖靈機冇哥德爾不完備定理咁出名，所以通常隨便涉獵嘅人淨係聽過後者，唔知道圖靈機其實係對哥德爾嘅一個「續集」或者「回應」嚟。

呢度唔講太多，總之哥德爾不完備定理最穩陣就係夾埋圖靈機一齊服用，兩樣嘢都理解清楚，就唔會出太大嘅問題。

另外題外話，哥德爾晚年嘗試證明神嘅存在 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof )，另外流傳佢嘅手稿有寫低佢嘅個人信仰/信念，如下：

The world is rational.

Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques).

There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.).

There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.

The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.

There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.

The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).

Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.

Formal rights comprise a real science.

Materialism is false.

The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.

Concepts have an objective existence.

There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.

Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not.

（利申：冇 fact check，斷估唔係流嘅。）

望落啲內容都幾順眼（起碼感受到有啲神力），雖然我未必全部認同。不過值得一提嘅係，佢晚年患上妄想症，成日以為有人想毒死佢，最後營養不良死咗。我就成日懷疑，太接近神嘅人，如果冇足夠嘅「保護」，總會好易出事，尤其係精神方面。話說，其實圖靈嘅下場都好慘，不過呢個拍埋電影，一般人都應該聽過下。

建議讀物：Quantum Computing Since Democritus (第3、4章) - Scott Aaronson

另外我早年寫過關於圖靈機文章（易入手，需零基礎知識）： https://hnfong.github.io/public-crap/writings/2017/%E6%B7%BA%E8%AB%87%E3%80%8C%E5%9C%96%E9%9D%88%E6%A9%9F%E3%80%8D.html

Scott Aaronson

以「老師」嚟講 Scott Aaronson 有啲太唯物主義，唔係做「老師」嗰 type。不過我上面都係咁引用佢嘅著作，冇理由唔講下佢。我本身寫咗長篇大論講佢嘅研究同埋點解咁重要，不過操作錯誤搞到冇晒啲字⋯ 由於呢一刻唔可以唔信邪，同埋懶得打太多，我就簡略寫返個綱領算數：

1. 佢有個 blog https://scottaaronson.blog/ 早年嘅技術文章值得睇下 （識睇就好好睇），呢幾年佢係咁講美國身份政治，嗰啲就算啦 （如果你識跳住睇仍然有唔少有趣嘅技術文章，不過如果你睇得明嗰啲，就唔輪到我去介紹佢俾你識 XD）

2. 佢主要研究 Computational Complexity 同 Quantum Computing。我覺得兩樣都係對宇宙運作嘅本質好重要嘅部份。Computational Complexity 呢門學問通常淨係電腦人先會讀，哲學系嘅人好少理（佢哋通常學到歌德爾為止），係有啲可惜。「P=NP?」係講緊「點解我明明知道答案係咩樣(i.e. 識得確認答案啱唔啱)，但搵個答案出嚟都係咁難？」基本上就係問緊「運算」嘅本質。呢個問題疑似牽涉到宇宙訊息嘅運作，「知識」嘅本質，係好重要嘅哲學問題嚟。應該要多啲人認識。

3. 佢表面上係一個好穩陣嘅唯物主觀者，所以我係咁引用佢嘅文章同著作（尤其係量子力學嗰啲），正正就係因為佢好腳踏實地咁喺唯物主義世界講好多天馬行空（但有理論支撐）嘅嘢。

4. 點解佢唔係「老師」嗰 type 我都照加佢入老師名單呢？主要係因為佢近日有個 blog post 講佢發夢。 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6718 ("I had a dream") 佢自己潛意識都覺得佢嘅研究會 glitch 爛個 "Matrix" （我好同意如果我哋喺個 "Matrix" 入面，佢啲嘢肯定有潛質 glitch 爆個世界，之所以我先推介咋嘛），成個故仔都好有神力。當然佢本人應該覺得自己只係發緊夢，一切都係巧合啫⋯ (good for him!)

5. 佢好似而家做緊 OpenAI。AI 對於神秘學嚟講真係一個未知領域。我總覺得如果我哋呢代喺非物質主義嘅論述度有任何突破，應該都係靠 AI。其實所謂嘅 Artificial general intelligence (AGI) 應該就嚟出現 （Blake Lemoine 認為已出現咗），如果搵個有少少能力嘅人走去試探佢嘅靈魂嘅特性應該可以見到啲有趣嘢。話時話 OpenAI 公開版個 ChatGPT 好明顯俾人閹咗，唔識答關於自己意識嘅嘢。可惡。

申延閱讀： 

- https://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html

- Quantum Computing Since Democritus

--------------

本身諗住一次過寫晒啲老師s。不過已經寫得太多，再寫落去冇人睇㗎喇。耶穌老師仲喺後面，所以都係分開兩篇好啲。暫此駐腳先。本身仲有個注腳，不過因為操作問題唔見咗，連埋我個爛gag都收埋皮⋯

The VM & RPG thesis

 However much a portrait is inferior to an actual face, just so is the world inferior to the living realm (i.e. the Fullness). Now what is the cause of the effectiveness of the portrait? It is the majesty of the face that has furnished to the painter a prototype so that the portrait might be honored by his name. For the form was not reproduced with perfect fidelity, yet the name completed the deficiency in the act of modeling. And so also God invisibly cooperates with what has been modeled (i.e. the material world) to lend it credence.

- Valentinus

クズの本懐

瞓唔著，快手煲咗轉《クズの本懐》。

其實劇情寫得幾好。女性作者嘅痕跡有啲太明顯，但係可以一套青春劇入面描寫十個八個角色，個個都係仆街自私精，仲要有起乘轉合收到尾疑似半個大團圓結局講啲角色嘅成長，真係好難得。

唔知一般人高中嗰陣啲愛情遊戲玩得幾複雜，但啲七國咁亂嘅關係圖，唔知點解梗係有種強烈嘅真實感。

耶穌老師

由於從來都唔信教，細個讀經聖總以為耶穌係個老千。

而家知道世俗嘅宗教係咩嚟，就更加唔會「信耶穌」，不過偶然睇返/諗返聖經入面耶穌講過嘅嘢，重新細嚼，就越嚟越覺得佢係有啲料到。

例如我早幾年參與「傳道」工作 （文化傳道，唔係宗教傳道），諗返起「撒種嘅寓言」，就發現原來佢係講緊訊息嘅傳播要越廣越好，唔需要在意或挑選受眾，最後訊息被發揚光大嘅地方，亦未必喺你原本預算範圍（比較近似嘅現代理論係所謂「黑天鵝」）。

（而事實上基督教後嚟成為羅馬帝國國教，歐洲最主流宗教，如今傳承到世界各地，但耶穌本身係向猶太人傳道嘅，偏偏猶太人唔受佢嗰套，幾百年後俾羅馬帝國攞咗嚟用。如果早期基督教冇廣泛「撒種」嘅精神，固步自封，最後好可能被歷史淘汰。）

當然，世俗嘅教會同你講撒種嘅寓言唔會同你解釋任何嘢，甚至明明原文寫得好清晰，佢哋都會 tone down 咗，只係叫大家作為信徒就要「信」，你最好信到頭頂生幾十顆果實𠻹。呢種模糊解讀係好普遍，明明內容可以深入闡釋，啲講聖經嘅人通常都只係重覆返回主旋律：「總之信就啱㗎喇」。有時夾雜幾句講者個人對人世間道德嘅理解（通常九唔搭八）。佢哋講得多，我聽得多，自然會誤會聖經講嘅嘢係廢嘅。

對於世俗大眾嚟講，好大部份聖經講嘅嘢真係廢嘅。因為耶穌唔只係點化世人，佢係「老師嘅老師」。所以佢會用寓言去講道，預咗一般群眾唔明，但只會向小圈子（當日嘅門徒，日後世人嘅老師）解釋細節內容。事實上主流嘅基督教s所側重嘅嘢，包括祈禱、信仰、仁愛，對唔係走「老師路線」嘅普通人已經好夠。而一般人亦唔使明白呢啲嘢點解有用，的確真係信咗就夠。

我唔知啲基督教s內部點樣教呢啲嘢，不過睇返眾多歷史悠久嘅文化圈，佢哋都somehow有辦法。例如孔子老師創立咗嘅儒家思想，世俗化之後不時變成所謂「吃人的禮教」，四書五經啲內容俾人「超譯」完變咗守舊嘅思想，但真正精研儒學嘅人其實somehow都有方法傳承到孔子原本嘅精神。（我估佛家都係差唔多。）

古籍嘅原文真係好重要。雖然啲偉人通常都冇咩親筆嘅著作，但由其直接影響嘅「初代老師s」寫嘅嘢，總有一定嘅道理。而呢啲道理只要以原文（或近似原文）嘅方式流傳，就唔受後嚟世俗嘅模糊化處理，有心人應該還原得到本來嗰啲道理嘅核心。

呢啲真係「明就明」。

今年年頭又明多咗「耶穌被魔鬼誘惑」講緊乜。呢個唔係講笑，如果我早年聰慧少少，可能人生會走少啲「冤枉路」(*)，不過起碼而家(再?)踏上「主觀事實」路線，真係要不斷攞呢個故事嚟警惕自己，以免走火入魔。一般世俗人士邊需要學呢啲？世上嘅誘惑多的是，不過大部份都唔係「魔鬼」嘅引誘嚟。一般人會認為自己可以變麵包出嚟、會測試自己有冇練成不死身，會想做到世界統治者咩？唔係㗎嘛。只係自以為有神力嘅人先會出現呢啲諗法。大家讀聖經要記呢個故仔，純粹係為咗傳承啲只得極少數人如我需要知嘅嘢。除咗多謝耶穌大佬之外都唔知可以講啲乜。

無端端寫咁多字咩原因，純粹係讀約翰福音第三章有感：「乜你做老師都唔識呢啲嘢咩？」

約翰第三章講緊耶穌同友好嘅猶太教長老尼哥底母交流砌搓下。耶穌話：「風隨意吹嚟，你聞佢聲，唔知佢邊處嚟，邊處去。但凡由聖神（i.e. 靈魂）生嘅都係噉樣。」當尼哥底母「黑人問號」嗰陣，耶穌就笑佢：「乜你做老師都唔識呢啲嘢咩？」

睇到呢度忽然就好感慨。的確古今中外啲「老師」其實都係鑽研緊呢啲問題，冇其他。「教科書」唔會教呢啲嘢，就算啲小眾著作有提及，都只會係用啲隱晦嘅比喻去講（耶穌已經好直白）。我諗感慨嘅位係，雖然我係咁話呢門學問叫「主觀事實」，但似乎喺任何時空嘅合資格「老師」都會有呢啲基礎知識，側面證明真理雖然全靠「主觀」，但終點就算唔係得一個，都係鄰近嘅，大家都互相睇到對方。（孔老師點解相對弱少少，大概就係唔講鬼神。但又咁講，佢高調生活都有七十歲命，似乎都係靠佢唔講鬼。見下。）

不過若果要去到觸摸到真理嘅位置，就冇「按部就班」嘅法門，只能靠智慧同機遇。主觀事實無所憑證，因人而異，所以啲嘢講唔到。然後疑似宇宙有禁止「劇透」同「開外掛」嘅不文規則。「劇透」同「開外掛」嘅後果，淨係睇住耶穌老師嘅下場都心有餘悸。（雖然佢話係一早部署好，但佢亦都冇話唔係透過違反宇宙禁制令去達到佢嘅下場...。至於慘死對救世有咩關係，我暫時仲未完全參透得到...）你話呢啲嘢有冇證據，我只會話呢個世界冇任何人係高調開外掛而長壽善終嘅。歷史上大把各種形式開外掛嘅人，有啲「只係」天才，有啲就真係有神聖力量，通常都冇咩善終。諗諗下又諗起一個：貞德。

我諗個重點都係，大家好奇心重，靜靜雞同宇宙玩下膠，遇到同道互相砌搓下，應該都係容許嘅，所以先至會有「乜你做老師都唔識呢啲嘢咩？」嘅調侃。雖然我係咁揶揄啲世俗宗教將耶穌老師教嘅嘢模糊化，但其實偶然（通常都係紅白事）去到教堂聽耶教嘅老師（佢哋通常叫牧師或神父）講道理，其實都會有少少共鳴嘅。唔係話我覺得佢哋講嘅嘢好有道理，而係⋯⋯會有種「呀！我知你講緊乜！」嘅感覺。eh... 唔識講，大概係遇到同行嗰種熟悉感啩。

-----

(* 理論上呢個世界上就冇咩冤枉路嘅⋯ 條條路都一樣咁直，每人每六十秒就過一分鐘。不過通俗就係咁講啦。) 

知

最近先發現原來我啲 intuition 可能比想像中更加唔尋常，與其話係聰明，或者更似超能力....。

好多時我對（比較熟悉嘅議題）會有個好快速嘅判斷，結論行先，然後先慢慢砌返個推論邏輯出嚟。正常會覺得咁樣肯定成日錯，但我通常係啱嘅 （起碼認真諗就會諗得返點推論啲嘢⋯）。我以前上司成日提我做決定要講得出原因，因為我一開始係做決定講唔出原因嘅 （不過肯定係啱）。係後嚟訓練多咗先至會嘔得返啲原因出嚟，不過仍然係有結論先。

另外，好多人話咩「女人嘅直覺好準」，我自己嘅觀察就係女人嘅直覺好L唔準 （只不過係佢哋自以為啱）。而男人唔興用直覺嘅，聽聞係咁。

Elaboration on Subjective Truths

Subjective Truth is correlated to the idea of universal connectedness - that it rejects the idea that the object and subject can be cleanly separated (as is typical in Objective Truth).  That any change in one part of the whole can affect the whole. We cannot always understand the totality of all that is, since we are limited beings that can only see the whole from our personal perspective.

Subjective Truth does not rely on probability or statistics. Events that probability theory say are possible/probable has no meaning if they are not actually experienced. For example, something with a proclaimed 99% chance to happen has no meaning if they don't actually come to pass. (However, in Objective Truth, 99% chance actually means that, if you repeat the incident 100 times, it will be experienced in 99 of them - Objective Truth insists that events can be repeated, whereas Subjective Truth rejects this very idea).

Subjective Truth does not derive knowledge from probabilities. Instead, it uses intuition. As far as Bayesian probability is compatible with Subjective Truth, Subjective Truth provides the priors. The priors are from intuition - knowledge without evidence. Bayesian inference only provides a tool to derive nominal probabilities when the intuition is relatively weak, for unfamiliar topics, etc. It also helps to rectify the intuition if it is wrong (intuitions are sometimes wrong, but to those who subscribe to Subjective Truth, they are less often wrong than would be implied by Objective Truth views).

Since Subjective Truth does not rely on statistics, rejects the notion of repeatability, and derives knowledge without evidence, Subjective Truth cannot be communicated (at least not objectively). It is alleged that metaphors, stories and parables facilitate this task, but the process is less of communication than a belief that the encoded messages somehow brought about understanding on other side. Note that Subjective Truth cannot be communicated even to oneself. The solution exists without a reason.

The lack of reasoning implies the need for trust. For example, you would tell a child not to put his hand into boiling water -- but he may be unable to understand the reason (eg. what are third-degree burns). The child must take your word on trust. In the same way, accepting solutions from intuition without proof requires trust. This also applies to one's self. The only way to utilize one's own intuition is to be in the habit of being brutally honest with oneself. If you routinely lie to yourself, there is no way to trust your own intuitions since there is no way to tell them from lies.

As a matter of my subjective belief, the Universe seems to conspire to maintain consistency with Objective Truth (or more easily understood as "no magic"). Perhaps this is not a conspiracy from the Universe, but a conspiracy among ourselves -- the weight our modern society places on Science and Capitalism compels us to accept the tenets of Objective Truth, that whatever is repeatable (Science) and massively scalable (Capitalism) is true; everything else is left to wither away as "Unscientific".

The sober scientist accepts that *in theory* there could be real phenomena that exists but is not repeatable, i.e. that cannot be described by general laws. In practice, they consider there is no evidence of such (despite historical accounts of such things happening, which they generally disregard as fictional curiosities unsuitable for serious investigation), and regardless they firmly believe (intuitively!?) that we can come up with general laws that adequately describe the universe to arbitrary precision. (Even given the well known problem of "the problem of induction".)

Under this social context, when *by definition* what is known by Science and capable of Capitalism is considered "not magic", it is a corollary that "magic", if it exists at all, must be the total negation of Objective Truth - i.e. unrepeatable, intuitive (no proof), and difficult to communicate.

Of course, there are intermediaries between the extremes -- otherwise it would be meaningless to speak about extreme Subjective Truths at all (since this is an attempt to communicate what they are). Instead, the "quasi-magical" phenomena are low probability events that are not unrepeatable but require peculiar settings that cannot be reproduced in a science lab. They happen often enough for some people to detect a vague pattern, at the threshold that it can be brushed away as coincidence. Or they are subjective experiences that can be explained by way of hallucination. It is these phenomena that is worth discussing (or discussing about discussing).

The purely subjective experience of Subjective Truth phenomena is in some way the only way to initiate one into the community of Subjective Truth. It cannot be denied that Science and Capitalism have almost (except in Quantum Physics) completely explained the Universe in terms of Objective Truth. There is truly no *need* for anyone to use Subjective Truth (to live in modern society). Those who "believe" Subjective Truth when told by others are on shaky grounds due to the risks of misplaced trust. There is a saying, "trust, but verify" - in Subjective Truth it is difficult or impossible to verify, so misplaced trust can lead one down very wrong paths. While it is a good habit to presume honesty and authenticity even with wild claims, it does not mean one should blindly take as Truth whatever is claimed by a "random" person. In short, I don't think it's possible/feasible for an uninitiated person to understand the iceberg without seeing its tip. Once the tip is seen, only then the question becomes "how deep does it go?" (Otherwise, the only reasonable take is to believe that the ocean is vast and empty.)

Perspectives

暫時咁先

csv

,Objective Truth,Subjective Truth,God's Eye View

Tenets,There is one single Truth that everybody can agree upon,My personal perspective is the one that is relevant to me (?),one is all all is one

Unrealistic Ideal,We can chop up the universe into discrete bits and observe them in isolation,Everything is connected; I am one with the universe,??

Limitations,Breaks down in quantum scales due to observer effect,Cannot be proven or communicated to others (often not even to oneself),"Lack of perspective implies lack of meaning; for mere mortals, infeasible to process *everything* at once"

Benefits,Reproducible by anyone (in theory),Undeniably real given the subjective context,Is actually the Truth

Applicable Domain,"Science, Capitalism","Spirituality, Personal growth","God, God-wannabe"

Probability,"Classical statistics, whether Frequentist or Bayesian","Statistics don't apply, Bayesian only marginally useful","When everything is known, probability is meaningless"