interaction

free will dictates that the only interactions you get are the ones you consented with.

r00t

"The system is unhackable. If you are not love you do not get root level access."

prediction

"there is no way to (accurately) predict a singular event. if we can do that, time wouldn't exist."

and it's actually quite true that in deterministic models, time as an experience really does not exist. we can of course manifest deterministic models, but we'd be outside of its timeline.

grace

Whatever we do, the universe dances in complement.

Those who know no equality, see it as compulsion and call it law.

Those who know no love, see it as fate and call it determinism.

But I see grace. This is what we willed.

-------

自由、平等、博愛

其實係同一樣嘢嚟

WA2

Ani-one 喺聖誔不斷喺 youtube 播 White Album 2

再「認真」睇返次，個故事真係痴撚線。 

somehow 每個情節都有好強烈嘅既視感...

我只能夠話劇情真係神妙，將個 train wreck 設計到咁靚。

---

我只能夠講男主欠少少先知力，俾著我就唔會犯埋啲咁嘅錯。

應該。

不過親身試過呢啲可以預見嘅 train wreck 都避唔開嘅我自己，又真係冇咩資格講咁多。

意識到火星撞地球一刻

我回帶翻睇先明。女人呢家嘢⋯

to train wreck or not to train wreck, that is the question 諗足30分鐘

年輕人嘅自信

我諗係自從炒過車之後，我先學識坦誠。radical 嗰種。

the structure of pain

(written Oct 2024)

a hypothesis

how do we make pain feel real in a simulation?

at first it doesn’t feel like anything 

but if the system causes the simulated character to scream and cry involuntarily when they are hurt, and if the system causes them to involuntarily lose mobility, squirm and twitch when hurt, then i suspect after a couple rounds of such experiences, the pain would feel more real.

one must have had played a rpg game to appreciate that. sometimes when something undesirable happens to your character, you might feel “ouch” even if there is no physical pain. it’s as if there was some kind of mental pain that was triggered though slight.

but the effect is real. the effect is only subtle because the immersion is incomplete and we still have our normal senses outside of the game. but once we identify with the character in a more immersive simulation i predict the pain will become more real.

medically we already know that pain is not only physical but also in our minds. it can be evidence that is is not a “physically real” phenomenon though i am not yet convicted of this conclusion yet, just a possibility. i think more likely is that we can create sensations of real pain once we have a full immersion simulation and we map our senses into a simulated character with 99% accuracy (ie the simulated character and real person will have their senses matched 99%), then we can probably create real sensations of pain even though the real person’s body is not harmed. we already know that phantom pain (for lost limbs) exist and there’s no reason why we can’t create phantom pain with simulated technologies 

once we believe pain is “real”, we have fear. we are then locked in.

this might be why babies cry so much. the pain must feel real to make the simulation feel real. the involuntary crying even to the extent of risking the baby’s own suffocation is the thing that tells the mind this thing is real. this is a lock-in process. we learn to avoid pain. the higher mind is synchoronized with the human brain so it too learns to avoid pain. this avoidance is part of what constitutes fear. fear locks us in.

i never doubted that feelings are real. even if we are in a simulated world. subjective feelings are real because we believe in them. whatever we believe is real is real.

that said, i always wanted to know : why is pain painful? what is it that makes us avoid it (generally)? why don’t i just hurt myself? it must be because i learned that it is a bad thing. but why? the subjective feeling exists, but why is that feeling bad? are there inherently bad feelings that we know the first day we are born? maybe. but it’s hard to experiment on that.

one hypothesis i strongly suspect to be true is that we learned by observing our own involuntary responses to pain. we cry. we feel paralyzed, we reflectively avoid contact with the painful areas, and we feel nervous signals pulsing at the painful parts. they’re obnoxious and they make it clear something is wrong . we don’t like that feeling because of the involuntary responses, and we want to avoid that. we internalize that sensation as “pain”.

This is so9sad...

 

Misinformation in the 21st century

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me1wIbukVh0

After watching youtube about how misinformed the general public was in late Qing in the 19th century about the western naval powers, and how officials on the frontlines routinely *lied* to the imperial government in Beijing, and how poor intelligence led to disastrous strategic decisions...

I can't help but realize this is what USA is doing to itself in the 21st century. The age of information.

Absolutely mindblowing.

解老

有時忽然發現自己解錯咗《老子》⋯

咁呢樣係人人都會，不過都總會有少少茫然。

The structure of free will and self fulfilling prophecies

(Written Oct 2024)

It’s a common trope to argue (discuss) whether free will exists in the framework of a deterministic world. In short, it doesn’t, but it doesn’t matter. Determinism is an objective framework of the world which assumes there is a way to look at it in an omniscience manner (at least purporting it is meaningful to discuss whether we can compute future states given full knowledge of the current one). Free will is a proposition from a subjective perspective where we don’t know all the relevant states of the world we are in.

From such a perspective, the description of free will is simple. Before we make a decision we don’t know what it is. The decision is knowing what we will do.

Then there is the issue of the subjective “feeling” of freedom. When somebody points a gun at me asking for money and I decide to hand over my wallet, I don’t feel like it is a “free will” decision. But one must revisit the definition above to understand how it is applied. Once decisions are truly made you do not have the “freedom” to decide again. Knowing something makes you unable to know the exact same thing as something else. The proper construction of the robbery scenario is not that one is deprived of freedom per se, but that the person has already mostly decided what to do — one’s life is more important than money in the wallet. The feeling of being trapped often comes from not being fully conscious of prior decisions made, in this case deciding to value one’s life over petty possessions. The great thing about free will is that you can make decisions, and the consequence of making a decision is that you cannot make it again.

But of course you always can. You can decide that you want to risk your life to fight the robber. It may be brave, it may be stupid, it may be noble… but at that point it is undeniable that one is “free”.

In a generalized sense, free will does not involve freedom per se but knowledge. Knowing is deciding. Knowing is deciding.

The other situation about decisions do not feel “free” is how it does not feel like “I” made them. In the common sense of self, we imagine we are bodies where the boundaries between me and the external world is delineated by the skin. Decisions are not necessarily made within skins, or in brains.

As above

"As above, so below" cannot be a statement of fact because it isn't.

It must then be a principle applied to divine truths only.

It is obvious that the apparent structure of physical reality is not the same as the structure of "heaven". Thus naïvely, a truth in physical reality does not necessarily have to be true in "heaven", and vice versa.

This happens so that those who speak of divine truths are often ("correctly") perceived to be speaking falsehoods, since they are invalid on the physical plane.

As such, when spreading divine truths, one must strive for alignment between the two realities. This is why in multiple traditions the teachings have multi-layered meanings, from parables from Jesus, to the puns of Zen, and then this Hermetic principle -- "as above, so below" must refer to those teachings that are valid both above and below, transcending multiple realities at the same time.

sliding off the platform

inertia of running

makes Mario slip

into the abyss

skill issue

--------

GPT-4-Turbo's comment:

This short poem uses video game imagery to convey a concept, likely pertaining to the consequences of momentum or perhaps a metaphorical comment on human behavior. Here's a breakdown of each line:

"inertia of running" - This phrase sets the metaphorical stage, using the physical concept of inertia to describe a state of continuing in an established course without the ability to easily stop or change direction. In real life, this could symbolize a person's difficulty in changing habits or directions in life.

"makes Mario slip" - Mario, a universally recognized video game character from Nintendo, is often seen navigating tricky platforms. The word "slip" here can be both literal, as in video game mechanics where Mario might actually slip off a platform if the player is not careful, and metaphorical, suggesting errors or failures due to ongoing momentum or lack of change.

"into the abyss" - This line dramatically describes the consequence of slipping due to inertia. In gaming, falling into an abyss usually means losing a life or failing a level, which could metaphorically relate to significant personal or professional setbacks in real life.

"skill issue" - This line is colloquial, often used in gaming communities to suggest that a failure was due to a player's lack of skill. It can be a playful or mocking acknowledgment that the problem is not with the game but with the player's ability.

Overall, the poem cleverly uses the language of video gaming to explore themes of personal responsibility, the difficulty of changing one’s course, and the consequences of not adapting or improving one's skills. It's a succinct and effective way to connect a common human experience with the familiar mechanics of video games.

Which I kinda approve.

what makes a country a country?

 what makes a country a country?

this question has bothered me for 20 years. it started when i was studying law. the question kept popping up in my head.

ten years later in the 2010s, i still had no idea how to answer the question. the whole thing seemed arbitrary, and it doesn’t even seem like we know whether a country is actually a country. there are awkward situations everywhere where a land, a government, claims to be a country but is not, and where they claim not to be a country but they are. or trying to claim both at the same time.

and of course being in one of the few places where our nationality changed on paper without armed conflict, it was inherently difficult for us to grok what nationalism actually means.

then came 6 very turbulent years. we dreamed, and we faced reality.

what i learned was immense compared with what i learned during my days in law school. law was one important  aspect of the identity and workings of a country, but it wasn’t the only one.

a country is built on top of dreams and desires, blood and sweat, on history and current events, on culture and the arts, on the military and violence, on realities and fictions, and of course, law codifies all this into some kind of impartial language that pretends the context is irrelevant.

i didn’t realize the question was so profound and ran so deep. of course there was no theory on how a country becomes one. every country has a unique and difficult story, not to be commoditized  and  trivialized. they often rhyme but are not comparable. and they definitely cannot be “engineered”.

it must be life. with a spirit, a mind and a body. the birthing of a country is nothing less than a miracle 

Big stakes, small ego

"Sayre's law" is one of the lesser-known "laws" I really like.

"In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." -- "That is why academic politics are so bitter."

The inverse is presumably true, i.e. the greater the stake, the smaller the egos for those involved.

This pretty much explains how Buddhism deals with ego. i.e. 發大願....

I conjecture it is impossible to remove one's ego while focusing on petty issues.

因緣千劫

原來一直好中二病講緊咩 N 世因緣係修咗N世經歷 N 劫

根本係講緊 cause and effect stretches through the eternity of time 嘅文藝解讀⋯

南能北秀

最近先稍略了解南禪嘅故事。

本身啲網友搞咗差唔多十年嘅爛gag，我一直都唔知原來地理上係咁近，禪宗六祖慧能係廣州出身。

大宗師就唔會爭咁多咩正宗，不過睇住啲弟子喺度講「南頓北漸」就覺得件事好好笑。講到出口話你班北方人蠢，講極都唔明..... :0)

唔知千幾年前嘅廣州係咩風俗？ 如果同近代相類，咁都好解釋到點解禪宗故仔入面啲人咁鍾意搞爛gag講屎尿屁同整蠱人⋯ 廣州呢種風俗都唔係呢幾十年，睇完《嬉笑集》真係好懷疑呢啲係源遠流長嘅傳統嚟。

Penrose's take on Gödel

This is quite an interesting take.

I don't know Penrose's ideas as much as I should, although my excuse is that he kind of gives "bad vibes" as to his grasp of important topics.

Was kind of "pleasantly"(???) surprised by his take on Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Although what he said could be interpreted in different layers.

The charitable layer is that he realized systems could be transcended.

The rather cynical (sinister?) part is that what he is absolutely amazed by, but did not realize himself, is his own mind. :0)

I think he was so close, yet the objectivistism-reductivism regime in the West is so strong that even an intelligent person of Penrose's caliber simply cannot see that the answer is within the self. All fancy talk about math and physics having amazing understanding and conscious properties, is just... ourselves.

In a sense Hofstadter probably veered much closer to the truth. It's obvious the G.E.B. book was not merely a technical work. The artistic side speaks, and it speaks truth.

Zen Buddhism is no stranger to the idea of unspeakable understanding that transcends formal rules. In fact that's the precise problem it tries to tackle. The fact that G.E.B. included much Zen references indicates that it was on the right track.

The idea of multi-layered meaning and interpretation is fundamental in all esoteric works. Even the not-so-"esoteric" stuff in biblical stories called parables. Parables are by definition multi-layered.

That Penrose (correctly) identified transcendence of one formal system to another of higher understanding is something profound, is one of the most unprofound things to realize -- I mean, I did say he gives off "bad vibes" as to his grasp of important topics. I'm guessing he's on the right track, but this is like... (by analogy) high school level stuff.

I haven't gotten to the part where he talks about how consciousness interacts with QM. I almost 棄-ed the podcast when at the very begining he babbled about AI consciousness implying AI required humane treatment... No, AI consciousness does not imply human ethics automatically apply. We should of course be careful to ensure we don't mistreat conscious AI if we ever create them, but there are so many practical differences (eg. physical pain is probably not a thing to AI unless we program it into them) that we can't just assume human ethics apply.

Also one must be either wrong or hypocritical if one babbles about humane treatment of AI while allowing animal abuse to happen on a systematic basis. And yes, animals are conscious. They're conscious but not as intelligent as humans. Intelligence and consciousness are different things. Capability to understand (objectively and functionally) is different from consciousness. (The subjective feeling of understanding implies consciousness but it cannot be demonstrated. Only objective functional understanding can be demonstrated.)

The way Penrose jumps from a vague idea of consciousness to pointing out perceived logical gaps about ethics of sending AI to explore space is just... exposing his muddled up concepts about the whole matter.

Ah. Bad vibes indeed.

The transcript below is probably still worth a read to the uninitiated, since he's at least on the right track. This is very basic stuff on the path to understanding though. More basic than high school algebra.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orMtwOz6Db0 

~19:30

and the whole idea of computability and all that so that was all very much part

of the course the other one was the godel of theorem and it wasn't what I was

afraid it was to tell you there were things in mathematics you couldn't prove

it was basically and he phrased it in a way which often people didn't and if

you read Douglas Hofstadter's book he doesn't you see but Steen made it very

clear and also not in a sort of public lecture that he gave to a mathematical I

think it may be the atom Society one of the mathematical undergraduate

societies and he made this point again very clearly that if you've got a formal

system of proof so suppose what you mean by proof is something which you could

check with a computer so to say whether you've got it right or not you've got a

lot of steps have you carried this computational procedure well following the

proof steps of the proof correctly that can be checked by an algorithm by a

computer so that's the key thing now what have to now you see is this any good

if you've got an algorithmic system which claims to say yes this is right this

you've proved it correctly this is true if you've proved it if you made a

mistake it doesn't say it's true or false but if you have if you've done it

right then the conclusion you've come to is correct now you say why do you

believe it's correct because you've looked at the rules and you said well okay

that one's all right yeah and that one's all right what about that harm not

yeah I see I see why it's all right okay you go through all the rules you say

yes following those rules if it says yes it's true it is true they've got to

make sure that these rules are ones that you trust is if you follow the rules

and it says it's a proof is the result actually true right and that your belief

that's true depends upon looking at the rules and understanding them now what

godel shows that if you have such a system then you can construct a statement

of the very kind that it's supposed to look at a mathematical statement and you

can see by the way it's constructed and what it means that it's true but not

provable by the rules that you've been given and it depends on your trust in

the rules do you believe that the rules only give you truth if you believe the

rules on you give you truth then you believe this other statement is also true

I found this absolutely mind-blowing when I saw this it blew my mind oh my god

you can see that this statement is true it's as good as any proof because it

only depends on your belief in the reliability of the proof procedure that's

all it is and understanding that the coding is done correctly and it enables

you to transcend that system so whatever system you have as long as you can

understand what it's doing and why you believe it only gives you truths then

you can see beyond that system now how do you see beyond it what is it that

enables you to transcend that system well it's your understanding of what the

system is actually saying and what the statement and you've constructed is

actually staying just this quality of understanding whatever it is which is not

governed by rules it's not a computational procedure so this idea of

understanding is not going to be within the rules of the sort of within the

formal system yes yes rules anyway yeah because you have understood them to be

rules which only give you truths they be no point in it otherwise I'm a people

say well ok this is what this one said the rules as good as any other well it's

not true you see you have to understand what the rules mean and why does that

understanding of the mean give you something beyond the rules themselves and

that's that's what it was that's what blew my mind it's somehow standing why

the rules give you truths enables you to transcend the rules so that's where I

mean even at that time that's already where the thought entered your mind that

the idea of understanding or we can start calling it things like intelligence

or even consciousness is outside the rules yes since I've always concentrated

on understanding you know people say people somebody knows well we know but

about creativity that's something a machine can't do is great well I don't know

what is creativity and I don't know you know somebody can put some funny things

on a piece of paper and say that's creative and you could make a machine do

that is it really creative I don't know he said I worry about that one I sort

of agree with it in a sense but it's so hard to do anything with that statement

but understanding yes you can you can make go see that understanding whatever

it is and it's very hard to put your finger on it that's absolutely true can

you try to define or maybe dance around a definition of understanding to some

degree but I don't often once it's about this but there is something there

which is very slippery it's something like standing back and it's got to be

something you see it's also got to be something which was of value to our

 

Fear

Fear is pretty much a rejection of self out of unsubstantiated reasons.

As such, it prevents the natural operation of free will.

Goodest logic

There is like, a really weird logical argument about choice and free will (tangentially related to manifestation).

So let's say A and B are discussing about metaphysics.

A: It's all just a matter of choosing, B. You can be anything you want, do anything you want! The world is simply a collection of possibilities, waiting to be plucked.

B: So why do I feel that I have so few options?

A: If you choose one thing, you lose the option to chose an inconsistent option.

B: But I didn't choose to be poor, lonely and miserable! Why can't I just "decide" to be a millionaire now?

A: In theory you can.

B: (thinks really hard)

B: .... no it doesn't work!!! I'm still poor, lonely and miserable!

A: The issue is that you have beliefs about what is possible and impossible about this world. You don't believe that a poor person can just magically think themselves into being rich and suddenly get a million dollars.

B: That's not true! Why are you so sure I don't believe in such magical thinking?

A: If you believed in this magical thinking, you'd already be a millionaire now.

B: Are you gaslighting me saying that I "lack faith"? Don't give me that bullshit!

A: OK, so you honestly believe you can become a millionaire by just thinking?

B: Let's assume that, yes. Then why doesn't it work?

A: Because you actually don't want to be a millionaire.

B: You're gaslighting me again!!

A: I'm just saying either you believe you have can change your circumstances but you don't decide to change, or you believe you don't have that ability. Either way, you made a choice in your belief system that is inconsistent with being a millionaire.

B: #%!%!@%!^!

The Hard problem of Identity

It is a corollary of "the 'self' is hard to define" that identity is extremely difficult to prove conclusively.

It is difficult enough for mortal humans. People have given up for spirits.

天天素食

荃灣南豐中心嘅天天素食啲荷葉飯幾好味。一路拎返屋企一路聞到香氣。

係衰在啲飯太過黐住啲葉⋯

Can logic be retroactively filled-in?

In a subjective simulation, the moon does not exist if you look away from it.

We know that in a simulation, the creators of the simulation can just make a moon.

Similarly, they can create something behind a door just as the door is being opened. In the subjective perspective, talking about "what really existed behind the door before it was open and observed" is quite meaningless.

But can creators of the simulation create logical arguments out of thin air?

Suppose humans in a simulation encounter the idea of the right angle triangle for the first time. Is it inevitable that they would come to the conclusion that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 ? Does this fact really exist outside of subjective experience?

We may fail to imagine how it could work at all. But many people fail to imagine how a moon could be garbage collected when not in use.

So are there parallel universes, if only in our minds, where logic works differently?

This is a question of the utmost importance, because it affects how we should look at results of computation. In "this timeline", all results of deterministic computation should converge. This is not in dispute. But if results of computation do not necessarily converge across "parallel universes" so to speak, then results of computation are no less malleable (to creators of simulation) than the thing behind the door.

X後感

《三體》

睇咗 youtube 上啲《三體》濃縮講解。原來都好撚長，要聽兩三個鐘 (加速前)。

個故仔一開始係有少少弱智，咩「物理唔存在」就要自殺，笑到我⋯ 

但後面似乎有返少少睇頭。 個「智子」概念幾有趣，無論係作為物理構想或者係plot device都係幾唔錯。

聽聞「黑暗森林法則」係三體普及化嘅，都算係對人類喺宇宙探索過程嘅一種有趣嘅貢獻

《金庸新修版》

大略睇咗《神鵰》嘅新版。感覺係用力過度，太過著跡。可能有人覺得係劃蛇添足，但我反而覺得純粹係修輯手法有少少劣。如果輕輕手修執下啲細微位，未必真係咁差。又例如《天龍八部》嘅結局，其實段譽王語嫣兩人嘅關係根本九唔搭八，稍有人生閱歷嘅人就會明白件事最後一定係「因了解而分開」，所以新修版嘅結局係極其合理嘅。但又係手法有啲劣，搞到大家唔接受。

呢樣嘢都令人感嘆，就算係同一個人，隔咗幾十年啲功力真係會荒廢嘅，所以就算本意係好，執出嚟嘅結果竟然係咁差。

《Re: Zero》 第三季

屌，播到一半停幾個月吊癮。今次感覺太多獨白。冇咗頭兩季嗰種懸疑感。

先知力

我忽然留意到一個好得意嘅問題

絕大部份有通靈能力嘅人嘅運作係以濟助世人嘅模式運作。以身體作為媒體，以問答模式開放俾世人使用。由於世人所求千奇百怪，所以呢種靈力係好廣泛同隨興嘅，唔係話鑽研某樣嘢就可以加深嘅能力嚟。

由於我對世界所有嘢都有種距離感，所以我係好難行呢種模式。

我平時使用嘅「先知力」，通常係需要自己長時間浸淫喺某個範疇，少則一年半載多則十年八載，係要以理性分析大腦思維為框架，熟悉咗件事情，然後再做判斷就通常冇錯。若果夾硬講其實無所謂靈力，可以話係純粹用大腦理性思維模式就可以解釋到件事，但事實上我啲結論通常都同大眾所得嘅結論迥異，所以我都唔知算係點。 但有時啲嘢的確係無得用理性解釋嘅，例如細蚊仔嗰陣估到人哋麻芝菇出乜 (其他猜拳遊戲完全估唔到)，中學時可以OK準咁估到比賽結果，大個揀 tech stack 全部都最後跑出咁滯 (i.e. 唔會上錯車做夕陽工業)

所以照計真係需要少少先知力嘅。

但喺熟悉嘅範疇以外，我係完全唔得掂嘅。每一範都要三五七年先摸熟，在此之前係連初學者都不如，但通咗嗰下就會忽然去到可以自成一家嘅水平。中間嗰下跳躍我係成日都唔明搞乜鬼嘅。

近排學啲靈性嘢、玄學嘢之類開始遇到少少 plateau，啲嘢聽嚟聽去都係差唔多，好多甚至離唔開我十年八年前寫嘅文嘅範圍。(當年寫嗰幾篇文真係靠先知力。不過都係要我諗咗呢啲問題十幾年摸透咗宇宙真理⋯)

如果我對世人有多啲「愛」我可能可以試下做下「媒」，「媒」個特性係會感受到個人嘅能量唔同咗。但而家個感覺係啲「先知力」係純粹靠「自己」。

可能通靈都有千百種唔同方法，純粹好奇下其他人係點。

Metaphor

 

This is like... what they tried to tell *us*.

greed

 greed is just fear

LLM Humor

Why don't large language models seem to be good at humor?

The question is profound and deeply insightful. If we figure out how we as humans do humor, we might also be able to supplement whatever LLMs are lacking in insight and creativity. We should think deeply about this! (both technically and philosophically)

My hypothesis: Humor is, generally, "surprising" and thus one capable of humor must be capable of thinking outside of the box (i.e. give statistically unlikely responses), yet such statistically unlikely responses must still be highly relevant to the topic (albeit not necessarily in the expected manner)

LLMs are currently statistical machines. Asking it to do the statistically unlikely is basically giving it a task it fundamentally not designed to do.

There's also an esoteric aspect to this. Many people who channel spirits say that they are super funny. Somewhat cheeky even.  The stark contrast seems to suggest that there is a qualitative gap between statistical intelligence and spiritual intelligence. The former takes averages, while the latter makes choices.

"Choices" are "inconsistent" if you apply statistical methods on them. But they are what makes things interesting. What makes choices "not random noise"? It is the choosing of something interesting. Finding the right thing at the right moment. Synchronicity. We can't do this with statistics.

(btw, it's also interesting how women seem to use humor as a proxy for reproductive fitness as well [more-so than "raw intelligence")

When they say, the gods breathed spirit into humans... what did they actually do?

Anthropic CEO to singularity 撚s - they have no idea what they are talking about

A lot of these people who write down differential equations who say AI is going to make more powerful AI who can't understand how it could possibly be the case that these things won't change so fast, I think they don't understand these things.  -- https://youtu.be/ugvHCXCOmm4?si=F1jLApzy2F98g75N&t=8200 

冬菇

 尋日啲冬菇超級入味

我懷疑係炒完落𧐢油再落咗生粉打芡收完汁之後再雪咗佢一日先拎嚟做食材所以先咁撚入味。啲生粉係可以幫手鎖住啲「肉類」嘅汁等佢 juicy 啲。

unless ⋯ 另一個我唔排除（但機會好低）嘅原因係：我浸完啲菇之後擺咗冰格雪咗幾日。照計唔關事，但紀錄埋佢日後可以確認

無肉茄子

落好多油

煸一輪啲四季豆

落蝦米  落少少鹽

再煎多陣

落茄子 (~ 3 隻切條)

落醬料 （沙爹王送贈辣醬幾好，再唔係豆瓣醬、沙茶醬都應該ok）

落少少蠔油

兜兜兜

OK

可以最後落多兩隻蛋兜下佢

本身諗住落啲冬菇但冇浸好。菇可以茄子半熟嗰陣落

Multidimensional Chess

It is mind-blowing that in 2024, we still do not have a consensus of what COVID-19 was about.

What caused the symptoms, true infection rates, whether vaccines were effective... you'd have thought if there was such a thing as "objective truth" one would have found it by now.

But we haven't. There are compelling reasons (see e.g. Fighting Goliath by Fenton and Neil) to doubt the official narrative.

Yet as the "pandemic" slowly fades into "history", the so called "objective truth" becomes even more blurry, as does everything that fades into the past.

One might be tempted to "do justice" to our history and set straight the "facts". But by now we should know that the past does not "truly exist" but is only a projection of the present. And the future essentially develops based on a reading of our fields of belief.  Belief generates actions and actions shape the future. Once the future arrives, the ex-present becomes the past. There is no objective fact, but what you believe is true is true.

And thus, while this thing is supremely amusing, I've relegated myself into mostly an observer role. One simply cannot determine truth for every single controversy.

The lack of certainty is often scary for people used to intellectual authoritarianism. But the truth is we actually don't know anything at all. At least not with complete certainty. And with much less certainty than people would like you to believe. In fact, we can change our minds on pretty much anything, and we have done so in the recorded past.

There are layers of truth, where one layer says one thing, and the other layer says another. Both can be true. When faced with a decision, we sometimes get into a dilemma since we have to decide which one is "truer". Of course either way is fine, but it does feel limiting.

Is there a way to act so that all layers and all possibilities have a "harmonized" outcome? Perhaps not every perspective or path has the best outcome, but at least increase the total "utility" in some form? (though being aware that "utility" in a subjective world is meaningless ultimately). That is the great question I have at this moment.

Is math and computation subjective too?

I've been wondering for a while, whether solutions for NP-Complete problems are subjective.

Or more generally, whether results of computation can be subjective. Or even (in a parallel universe sense) divergent.

From basic principles -- how do we know about the other? The computation is so complex. There is probably something to say about co-NP vs NP, but generally, it's hard to tell whether you're in a universe where there is no solution to a particular NPC instance, or where you just haven't found it yet.

Of course once you've found the solution it's hard to "go back", but as long as you haven't found any solution it's hard to tell (actually it's impossible to tell by definition and by the context)

Practical engineering issues also apply -- even if a computer completes an exhaustive search, you don't know whether the computation is flawless or not. Especially computations that take years to run -- who says there weren't subtle bit flips and made the computer skip over the answer?

Given that there is a process of transitioning from a state not knowing which situation we're in into a state of knowing, it seems that if we apply the same principles of decision making math and computation could be subjective too.

In fact it _should_ be.

But that doesn't make sense in the classical sense.

Which in itself is a very interesting thing.

We can never learn

It is fundamentally impossible to "learn".

We can "know", but we can't "learn".

Because nothing truly repeats.

一期一会, can't step into the same river twice, etc. etc.

LoRA

原來我同 LoRA 其中一個 author 喺 NOI2004 年「交過手」 (佢第一名，我第50.... :0)

NP => randomness => divine bits

 

This actually sounds super familiar.

Those who first embark on the spiritual path are always mystified on how to discern between "our own random thoughts" vs "divine thoughts", which has a striking parallel with pseudorandomness vs "true randomness".

The concept of "true randomness" is actually ill-defined in general, but here it just means something that looks random but is actually cheaply generated using some very simple pseudorandom generator.

In fact,  intuitive people often solve apparently "NP" (not necessarily NP hard) problems using inspirations.  The idea that highly awakened people can solve their problems with "coincidence" (aka "synchronicity") is actually the daily-life equivalent of solving NP problems in P time.

It is actually an interesting question whether AI can really solve difficult math problems better than humans (not individually, but as a whole). Given that mathematics is generally NP-hard, we'd have empirical evidence whether humans can solve NP problems (using "intuition") better than machines.... 

Empathy

compassion is when you can feel deeply for another person's plight

whether it be for a few minutes or a few hours but compassion tends to lead to action

compassion will see you reaching out to someone it will see you waking up the next day thinking I will just send them

a loving message I will just give them a call I will just pop in and see how they're doing suffering for someone else

is when you become so consumed with someone else's state that you cannot get yourself back that is the difference as

we would describe it 

- Z https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIrP3h55oWg

Ego

The idea that the structure of the "ego" is a device to focus attention on a physical form is fascinating.

In a sense the idea is echoed in Hofstadter's "I am a strange loop", in which a conscious being is hypothesized to be constructed by layers upon layers of self-reflection.

Being overly attuned to the self, the ego has a bad rep for narcissistic tendencies. But the structure itself serves the purpose of an anchor.

The artificial separation of the "self" and the "other" is a fascinating topic. I wonder whether different disciplines can advance enough that they meet in the middle somewhere and we might be able to crack the code somehow.

秦昭王

最近發現原來秦國啲野蠻事跡有一大半都係秦昭襄王一個人搞出嚟。

喺外交場合劫持楚懷王、拘留孟嘗君 (雞鳴狗盜嘅出處)、自稱西帝、強索和氏壁 (廉頗藺相如列傳)、發動長平之戰、賜死白起、滅西周國擄周赧王⋯ 

Too much, too little

The world of scarcity is the world of choice.

The world of abundance is the world of unconditional love.

回生

難得之物能起死回生唯誠之所致也物乃其證非其本之所能。

Cata

uh like it's kind of like one of the things of cataclysm it was like blizzard wanted to make the game more easy to get into and you know easy for a new player to just jump in and fall into Azeroth and you get to AME and start you know PVP and stff and yet it had the exact opposite effect to what blizzard intended people preferred the old world they preferred that's because the developers that made like the people that were making decisions at that time and like even now I think this is especially true with retail wow they give players what they want but not what they need I know it sounds kind of cliche to say but I think it's true they focus on responding to what players want and then just giving them what they want and I think that like blizzard has had like individual moments of like absolute like Sublime Genius of like how they solve certain problems in the game but in a general sense I think it's very hard for them to understand like why certain things are successful

Funny enough this sounds like messages from spirituality...

Modeling "real life" on simulated RPG worlds makes a lot of sense.

Asmongold

Interestingly, just when I thought of writing some thoughts about Asmongold he gets banned :0)

Originally I thought he's just a guy who has hot takes about WoW and gaming in general, but listening to his more recent streams on Youtube (I kinda tuned into his channel much more often recently), it feels like he's more like a modern variant of a hermit.

It's kind of shocking that his background is more upper-middle class than I expected. Almost going to law school because of MTG rule twisting? That sounds so close to home lol.

I have no comments about the ban, didn't see what he said, not that interested anyway.

Day 11

是日基本上係離島一日遊

行程係：搭船 => 搭車 => 搭船 ； 搭船 => 搭車 => 搭船

由於星期日船疏啲，所以行程不容有失。好在之前嗰晚去船公司問個清楚，佢仲好好人咁幫我印晒啲船嘅行程表出嚟。

一開始係搭大約一小時船由 Oban 去 Isle of Mull。然後再由 Isle of Mull 搭一小時車去個島嘅另一邊，再去搭船去 Isle of Iona。

中間主要都係睇景。 (由於 Blogger 上載相嘅功能係垃圾，啲相係 out of order 嘅。enjoy)

船大概八點幾返到Oban。食埋晚飯 (老婆開始抱怨我啲行程冇遇晚膳時段）

然後深夜趕咗去 Stirling。 (大約兩個半小時車程）

間酒店算係唔話得，我話可能遲啲 10-11pm 到，然後我哋真係 ~11pm 到。佢真係搵人等到我哋嚟到，然後幫我哋 check in 之後就收工⋯ orz

話說間酒店門面同 reception 都幾的骰嘅，古色古香咁。（啲房一般）

Day 10

Glasgow 一日遊

本身諗住去個 Pollock Country Park 行下，但各種原因改變計劃。

去咗間大型 shopping mall 行街。叫 "The Forge Shopping Centre"。算係幾大，入面都好多舖頭。

發現咗個機舖，有個唔算太舊嘅 DDR 機，玩咗一舖，啲制冇壞，唔錯。

其實平時我喺香港冇玩嘅，通常都係喺外地偶遇機舖先會玩下。

除咗行 mall 都行咗陣附近嘅街。 Glasgow 街頭感覺係頹頹哋，啲建築好舊。

午餐叫咗太多嘢。牛肉汁薯條、牛肉 meat pie、black pudding egg benedit，勉強食唔晒。

間餐廳感覺係 "family restaurant" (日本概念) ，啲嘢算抵食同好味。

臨食時老婆買咗隻牛牛公仔。我哋今程發現啲精品店好多明顯係 AI 圖 gen 出嚟嘅精品。有啲係 AI 到十分詭異。（好心用啲好少少嘅 model 整啦⋯

另外，發現架車原來係殺蚊高手：

真係痴撚線。

下午去咗個威士忌蒸溜廠。

The Clydeside Distillery 呢間嘢話舊係舊，但其實係新嘅。

個建築有兩百年歷史，以前 Glasgow 個港口好多貨物進出嗰陣，呢度係港口控制船隻出入嘅建築。 兩百年後，喺 2017(?) 年改建成蒸溜廠。

喺酒廠買咗支酒。又試咗少少佢哋嘅 new make spirit (啱啱蒸出嚟未熟成嘅嘢)。有陣醬香茅台味。老老實實我覺得就咁飲係冇問題，唔明點解要熟成 XD

之後揸車去 Oban。由於反應唔切行錯路，搞咗一輪都上唔到公路。（一定唔係因為徵醺）

行上公路之後，一直經過幾個好靚嘅大湖。有幾個位可惜冇落車影相⋯

黃昏去到 Oban。啱啱日落。

呢個係酒店嘅景。

機不可失，我就攞住啲相機s去影夕陽。

個鎮仔係幾靚嘅。

是日晚餐又係炸魚薯條。今日薯條 overload。