Once you get the hang of noticing cosmic messages...
... you'll realize they repeat it over and over and over,
until you start feeling like it's a bit too much.
But then, I guess that's a kind of cheeky yet loving way to say that you're on the right track..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhabrot
So I learned about this relationship here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWCIzENcHXY&t=6660s
Laughed so fucking hard..
朝早再戰新宿御苑，終於九點鐘入場。一開始人少少有啲包場嘅感覺。真係好靚，唔明上次班友仔匆匆忙忙下晝三四點入去打卡係為乜。
由於之前兩日行得太多，有啲攰，所以就喺腳膠之庭度足足坐咗半個鐘。冇人。
之後本身諗住去川越尋找醬油雪糕，仲去咗一半路去咗和光市諗住兜個轉再轉車，點知喺和光市發現間醬油雪糕店當日定休，所以就疊埋心水喺和光市兜耐啲。網上介紹（日本語）和光市附近有天然溫泉，不過唔近火車站，咁我就行咗四十幾分鐘過去。由於地方隔涉，間溫泉都係本地人光顧。本身諗住平日下午兩點唔會有咩人，但原來佢出出入入生意都好唔錯。佢除咗有溫泉，仲有一堆遊戲機，同埋啲親子遊樂場。幾得意。浸溫泉嘅絕大多數都係年紀大過我嘅日本伯父。anyway 沖涼同浸溫泉都好舒服。不過浸完又要行返四十幾分鐘出去，都真係幾攰。
今次揀咗條好少少嘅路（往程主要係行公路則），多啲本地嘢睇。見到有自動賣菜嘅櫃，幾得意。買咗啲食物諗住食，包括個海鮮gratis，點知唔記得要餐具。（最後成為兩日後嘅早餐）
離開和光市就去咗銀座，望下冰俾我嘅伊X文具店。唔識睇，不過就事但買咗啲嘢。銀座其實真係冇咩好睇，最後望住網上介紹（日本語）話歌舞伎座可以買啲「一幕席」，咁我就走去碰下運氣。去到嗰陣六點，買到八點飛，所以就喺附近搵嘢食。見到個叫咩FARM TO GO嘅餐廳，主打時令農作物，就走咗入去。都幾好食，啲菜有菜味。
之後去睇表演。個場好似個opera咁，好大。本身驚聽唔明啲歌劇，但佢原來主要係舞樂。舞伎主要都係舞，另有俳優奏樂唱歌。第一幕係兩男一女，貴族服裝，一出場我仲以為係公仔嚟，俾佢完全驚艷咗。尤其女服飾真係好靚，靚過啲公仔咁靚（諗起套變裝娃娃）。之後兩幕嘅服飾都係平民，一個係漁夫，一個係普通讀書人？冇咁艷麗但都好睇。
睇完都九點幾
蝶主席約咗我六點食飯，地點係東京略西南部份，所以就喺附近搵嘢睇
俾我喺地圖睇到有啲國會大樓，最高法院之類，就plan咗行程去兜下
首先去晚飯嘅餐廳最近個車站嘅locker擺低由香港帶過去嘅四本唔係我送俾佢嘅書
然後就搭車去咗二藏門，出嚟兜咗
- 国立劇場 (路過)
- 最高裁判所 - 個樣勁搞笑
- 憲政紀念館 （喺度留咗大半小時睇佢個免費展覧）
- 国立国会図書館
- 国会議事堂
- 国会前庭 (公園)
 |
| 日本最高裁判所 |
 |
| 国会議事堂 |
 |
| 国会前庭 |
轉戰新宿，喺西站落，本身諗住向東行點知被吸引向西
- 新宿中央公園- 嗰度有個流水鍾意坐嗰度休息，都幾chill
- 路經咗個十二路熊野神舍
- 見到東京都廳好高好大，上咗個免費觀望台，排咗半個鐘隊上落，唔算好高，一般般
- 之後本身諗住搭車去明治神宮，但發現原來勁近。喺路上食咗個聲稱係ちゃんぽん嘅多菜麵。我俾佢個多菜吸引咗，然後原來佢有豬肉。味道似拉麵多過ちゃんぽん，可能係湯底有味増，不過係幾好食，同埋真係有菜。我點餐嗰陣好肚餓多手點咗麵都加大，最後差啲食唔晒
- 明治神宮真係好大，好宏偉，好靚，啲樹喺秋天有肅穆嘅感覺，本身諗住去埋新宿御苑，所以有啲趕，但行咗入面個御苑。當日風都幾大，一陣陣風吹過嚟。入面有個釣魚嘅台，啱啱風吹起湖水，好特別。
- 之後發現新宿御苑疑似定休，但反正都冇嘢好做就行咗去博下，按計劃摸咗門釘
- 之後去咗新宿某個好local嘅劇場睇表演，大部分都係「落語？」但好彩睇咗十分鐘左右好似係三味線嘅彈唱表演，之後睇咗一整段棟篤笑（比較似一人話劇）但完全唔明佢講咩，但睇得出係演好好
- 之後就亂咁行咗陣新宿嘅百貨公司，但冇咩睇，買咗啲食物（旭日早餐）
- 然後差啲喺新宿站迷路搵唔到我要去嘅地鐵入口
- 攞埋啲書就去搵蝶主席，由於迷路遲咗少少
主席約咗食一間西餐廳
外邊個樣勁浮誇，完全係日本嗰種「外國嘢就係高級啲」感覺
五隻叉，四把刀，七個course，主席係靠食麵包食飽嘅
啲食物不過不失，有啲位好 fusion，但冇咩驚喜，整體感覺都係華多於實，我一直都覺得如果柒翼喺度會屌爆。不過其實係唔差嘅，中上水平，只係作啲狀有啲over咗
兩人埋單萬幾yen （靠主席信用卡折咗）算係唔貴但如果冇折就真係唔抵
不過主席食得開心
（以下相 *唔係*
飛成田機場。忽然覺得啲田好似太陽能板。
 |
| 似唔似太陽能板？ |
本來諗住落機直出酒店但一時興起喺sky tree 個站度落車
好順手就喺sky tree 打咗卡
路經咗個擺設咗燈飾嘅神舍
之後拖住喼走咗過去淺草寺
唔覺意喺側門入，今次都成日喺側門入啲寺院神舍
淺草寺求籤
紙上有文言，舊式日文，現代日文，同埋英文
三樣嘢寫嘅都幾唔同
順手喺嗰頭食咗啲嘢，燒魚飯セット？之類
高級太空倉其實幾好，係隔音差啲，不過大部份人都好靜
沖涼洗手間都好乾淨
個 samsung 門鎖好難用，第一次唔識搞就好易入唔到，之後有晚有條友半夜十二點入嚟，試咗十幾廿分鐘都唔得，應該係嘈醒晒所有人
19
本來諗住落機直出酒店但一時興起喺sky tree 個站度落車
好順手就喺sky tree 打咗卡
路經咗個擺設咗燈飾嘅神舍
之後拖住喼遊咗淺草寺
唔覺意喺側門入，今次都成日喺側門入啲寺院神舍
淺草寺求籤
紙上有文言，舊式日文，現代日文，同埋英文
三樣嘢寫嘅都幾唔同
順手喺嗰頭食咗啲嘢，燒魚飯セット？之類
高級太空倉其實幾好，係隔音差啲，不過大部份人都好靜
沖涼洗手間都好乾淨
個 samsung 門鎖好難用，第一次唔識搞就好易入唔到，之後有晚有條友半夜十二點入嚟，試咗十幾廿分鐘都唔得，應該係嘈醒晒所有人
20
蝶主席約咗我六點食飯，地點係東京略西南部份，所以就喺附近搵嘢睇
俾我喺地圖睇到有啲國會大樓，最高法院之類，就plan咗行程去兜下
首先去晚飯嘅餐廳最近個車站嘅locker擺低由香港帶過去嘅四本唔係我送俾佢嘅書
然後就兜咗
- （todo 要trace返啲路線
- 最高法院 - 個樣勁搞笑
- 憲政資料館？
- 中央圖書館？
- 國會大樓
- 某公園
轉戰新宿，喺西站落，本身諗住向東行點知被吸引向西
- 新宿中央公園- 嗰度有個流水鍾意坐嗰度休息，都幾chill
- 路經咗個十二路熊野神舍
- 見到東京都廳好高好大，上咗個免費觀望台，排咗半個鐘隊上落，唔算好高，一般般
- 之後本身諗住搭車去明治神宮，但發現原來勁近。喺路上食咗個聲稱係ちゃんぽん嘅多菜麵。我俾佢個多菜吸引咗，然後原來佢有豬肉。味道似拉麵多過ちゃんぽん，可能係湯底有味増，不過係幾好食，同埋真係有菜。我點餐嗰陣好肚餓多手點咗麵都加大，最後差啲食唔晒
- 明治神宮真係好大，好宏偉，好靚，啲樹喺秋天有蕭suk 嘅感覺，本身諗住去埋新宿御苑，所以有啲趕，但行咗入面個御苑
- 之後發現新宿御苑疑似定休，但反正都冇嘢好做就行咗去博下，按計劃摸咗門釘
- 之後去咗新宿某個好local嘅劇場睇表演，大部分都係「落語？」但好彩睇咗十分鐘左右好似係三味線嘅彈唱表演，之後睇咗一整段棟篤笑（比較似一人話劇）但完全唔明佢講咩，但睇得出係演好好
- 之後就亂咁行咗陣新宿嘅百貨公司，但冇咩睇，買咗啲食物（旭日早餐）
- 然後差啲喺新宿站迷路搵唔到我要去嘅地鐵入口
- 攞埋啲書就去搵蝶主席，由於迷路遲咗少少
主席約咗食一間西餐廳
外邊個樣勁浮誇，完全係日本嗰種「外國嘢就係高級啲」感覺
五隻叉，四把刀，七個course，主席係靠食麵包食飽嘅
啲食物不過不失，有啲位好 fusion，但冇咩驚喜，整體感覺都係華多於實，我一直都覺得如果柒翼喺度會屌爆。不過其實係唔差嘅，中上水平，只係作啲狀有啲over咗
兩人埋單萬幾yen （靠主席信用卡折咗）算係唔貴但如果冇折就真係唔抵
不過主席食得開心
The bashar formula seems to be the definite guide on how to invoke the Anomaly of small numbers
To not be part of the law of large numbers you have to not be part of a crowd unless you want to. Thus one would naturally have to follow their own passions to express their own individuality.
Perhaps that’s the thing to it, and it helps make magic happen
the muscle must relax before it can steadily hold a position
the mind must realize the vast space of possibilities before it can choose
but to the outsider it looks the same
is there a difference? yes there is, the objective part is the choice to hold a position, the subjective part is the realization of the vast space out there
people mistake the feeling of obsession for love, but it is the relaxation before the choice that gives love its essence
the feeling of obsession is real for sure, but if it must be called “love” also, then i would accept that the word “love” linguistically has two meanings, one often used as the feeling of obsession in romantic relationships, the other being a more spiritual but less “feel-y” kind.
—
the realization of the vast space of possibilities can be called freedom. because we had all these choices and we did choose something, so in this sense true freedom leads to true love.
the interesting thing is that this is all internal and subjective, from the outside it is difficult if not impossible to tell whether somebody had this realization or not. their objective situation is often not objectively better than anyone, after all it’s expected that people generally make the same choices whether they are aware of vast non-preferable possibilities or not. but it may be speculated that the free person owns their decisions and they generally make better ones, and they probably occasionally make apparently super weird decisions that confuse others, which generally turn out ok. but otherwise this revelation is internal.
so in a non intuitive sense the ability of a person to imagine non-preferable choices or even realities make the current one so much better. yet a weird observation is that the person who keeps imagining supposedly more preferable possibilities generally are less happy. the solution is not to keep thinking about disasters, but to expand one’s imagination, and actually do take the preferred possibilities that can be chosen. the ones that cannot be chosen for any reason are not possibilities(???) so as i imagine now it is probably better to focus on the ones that are “possible. however here we introduce so called unchosen possibilities and unchoosable possibilities- is there really a difference? the only difference is the point of self knowledge- the unchosen possibility is not taken because the self that has chosen has rejected it but the self that has not yet chosen has not yet done so, the unchoosable possibility is not taken because both selves have rejected it. this sounds weird from the common objective truth perspective but there is actually no difference in the kind of impossibility between the self rejecting something due to having chosen something and the thing being “physically impossible “, because one the self rejects some choice it is physically impossible for it to happen, eg if i have actually rejected going to a party , then it is physically impossible for you to find me going there (without being held against my will). the confusion here is that most people actually don’t “decide”- they hold out (or they don’t actually know their decision). perhaps one will change their mind - but then that means that they have not really made a decision yet. as such making decisions and knowing that one has made a decision is a much more “powerful” kind than the normal decisions. i think they are generally quantatively different though and so far as decisions are 99+% they are probably supposed to have similar effect.
The illusion and reality of time
First, we have a memory of time passing
We remember that if we didn’t do something, a while later that comes back to bite us
For example we don’t do homework, and then tomorrow we don’t have homework to hand in
How ever, this memory is not something of the past, it is of the present
And this present memory encodes a belief that if we don’t do homework today we will not have homework to hand in tomorrow
This belief is strong, near universally held, and thus becomes the actual reality. Nobody doubts this because we do not have experiences that defy this (generally speaking ) However if our memories we encoded differently perhaps we will have a different experience of reality ?
As such the current state of patterns determine the next state , but more importantly the current state not only encodes the state but also encodes the rules of transformation, in the form of encoded beliefs in entities that matter . There is no fixed outside set of rules or laws that determine the transformation of states, it is all self encoded
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” - Arthur C. Clarke
But is that really true?
The Magic (some spell it as “Magick”) in the modern era actually has a property that is very different from science and technology in general. Whereas science and technology generally involve processes that are reproducible, Magic is often about statistical anomalies.
In general, science covers phenomena that are reproducible under artificial conditions. For example, in a lab; or in a factory. We can, through repeated experiments, understand the conditions that give rise to a phenomenon, and thus we can establish cause and effect.
Much of Magic does not have clear cause and effect. The phenomena are generally not reproducible under artificial conditions, if at all. Proclaimed practitioners generally cannot clearly explain why they can achieve a certain effect, at least not under reductionist language. Any documented effects of Magic are generally seen as coincidence, flukes, or statistical anomalies.
To put it another way, if somebody discovers a surprising natural phenomenon that is easily reproducible in a lab setting, it would most likely be investigated under the umbrella of science, even if at first it *feels* like magic. A lot of technology feels like magic when first introduced, but after a short while, people become accustomed to it and it doesn’t feel that special any more. (This is why, despite Arthur Clarke's quote, we don't really think technology is actually Magic.) In contrast, what is generally considered Magic is always surprising to the general populace because they never expect it to happen, and it doesn't happen often enough that these expectations change.
And thus, with this working definition of Magic, i.e. "*Magic involves the phenomena of statistical anomalies that are not reproducible under laboratory settings*", we have a better idea of the methodologies we must use to research and understand it, in particular, we cannot use the scientific method as-is. Frequentist statistics does not work. The law of large numbers does not apply. Instead, if there is a solution, it must lie in tiny amounts of very surprising evidence (I plan to write more about this later). To process this evidence, we must leverage Bayesian statistics (especially subjective probabilities) instead. To manifest the anomalies, we must turn the Law of Large Numbers on its head, and use its reverse effect, which I shall call "The Anomaly of Small Numbers". In addition, methodologies from the humanities should be considered, for example "historiography", where instead of trying to reproduce the topics studied (impossible since we can't reproduce historical accounts/events), we try to assess the reliability of sources. The main point being, with this line of thinking, we should be able to find a way forward for studying Magic, as long as we don’t fall into the trap of thinking that “Science” is the totality of all Truth or that it is the only infallible way to find Truth.
There are obviously yet-to-be-discovered phenomena that can investigated by means of scientific methods. Even though they may sound magical per Arthur Clarke’s quote, perhaps they should be called quasi-magic instead of Magic, to highlight the fundamental differences between the two.
It is a common misconception that practitioners of Magic reject science and conclusions of mainstream science. This doesn’t have to be the case, at least as far as science does not mistakenly conclude from the lack of *reproducible* evidence of Magic that such phenomena outside of its domain (unreproducible anomalies) absolutely do not exist. (Remember that the lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.) Given the success of modern science in the many domains it has succeeded in, the modern Magic theorist must accept the fact that much of modern science is true, or at least it is a practical, workable interpretation of truth. Once one realizes that Magic is not a subset of science and that science is limited to reproducible phenomena, it would be obvious in retrospect that the scholar in Magic must fully understand what science has to teach us, especially its actual limits, and henceforth attempt to study the phenomena outside of these limits. It would be folly for a scholar in Magic to ignore the teachings of science, and then erroneously attempt to explain phenomena that already has a workable explanation in science -- unless the Magical explanation is part of a larger set of phenomena some of which is unexplainable in science.
It seems that analogies are the cosmic language of creation.
If something can't be explained in more than one way or one level, it's probably a dead path.
喺十二味叫咗個霸王辣子雞。外賣。
咁睇圖都見到，啲辣子雞辣椒多過雞，食完雞之後仲有一大堆 (真係「堆」) 辣椒。
我就攞咗啲辣椒嚟循環再用。
 |
| (OpenRice 圖，唔係我嘅) |
咁食淨嘅殘菜又口水又剩唔係好唔衛生咩？係呀，所以我將啲淨低嘅辣椒擺咗入壓力煲度「蒸」煮咗十分鐘，保證殺菌消毒。
然後就用密實袋封住，擺雪櫃。由於本身啲椒都有少少鹽調味，件嘢應該可以擺幾個星期。
-----
所以我就試咗兩種菜式：
(1) 懶人水煮牛 (+公仔麵)
- 用「大量」嘅油炒香啲醃好咗嘅牛肉
- 加入辣椒
- 再炒多幾分鐘 etc，切忌炒燶
- 加水
- 加入即食麵調味包s
- 煮多幾分鐘
- 加入即食麵
- 煮多幾分鐘
- 食得
(2) 大懶人辣子雞
- 大量嘅油炒香啲雞肉
- 加入適量嘅鹽，可以再加少少生抽
- 加入辣椒
- 不斷炒，炒到啲雞肉乾身少少焦，香辣可口
- 食得
尤其啲辣子雞真係同本身啲辣子雞差唔多味，哈哈。
And I'm starting to worry that maybe fractal-like concepts not only apply to geometry (as in, "how long is the coastline", or "what direction is the coastline at point (x,y)?"), but to truths in general.
Just like the article describes, "rough" facts like "water boils at 100C" can have tonnes of nuance, and when you drill down into the details, you might discover that the truth is so much more complicated that the notion of truth and falsity is lost among the vast sea of complex details. (eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram#/media/File:Phas... ... who'd have thought something taught in elementary school would be so complicated :-/ )
So is it possible that most "truths" in which we have absolute conviction are actually just rough understandings, and if we dig deep enough we'd find that we're actually mostly wrong? It seems insane to think that way, but I have a strong intuition that this might actually be the case.