Anti-dualism

 留個底

Simulation theory

"We are living in a computer-programmed reality, and the only clue we have to it is when some variable is changed, and some alteration in reality occurs. We have the overwhelming impression that we were reliving the present - deja vu."  -- Philip K. Dick

This is basically the same argument made in The Matrix movie.

I kind of sympathize with simulation theory in the sense that I think some of its elements are quite plausible, but I can't help but think that those arguments as-is are too crude.

We make assumptions as to the limitations of the creators of the simulated reality, but given that they have made such an elaborate simulation, it seems that it is unwise for us, with such a limited perspective, having only had access to such technology for mere decades, to speculate on specific limitations that they might have when designing or implementing the simulation.

The deja vu, the "Mandela effect", the glitches in the system -- they are intriguing for sure and deserve further investigation and analysis, but I think it is premature to say that they provide evidence of simulation. It just *looks like* artifacts of simulation for us given our technological limitations, but they may be limitations of some other kind (eg. allowing the reality to adopt different laws and mechanisms including possibility of Magic -- I wrote about my own speculations here ) 

I also want to note here that the arguments about limitations in laws of physics due to computational limits are absolutely baseless -- the system running the simulation must have orders of magnitude more computation power than we have access to; it would be like people in 1900 conjecturing what computation power we have in the 2000s. They wouldn't be able to fathom the thing we have and all the "wasteful" ways we are using the power (electron apps anyone?)

Furthermore, the idea that time exists outside the simulation and poses a limitation on the simulation engine is very suspect. (Also, this idea does not align with ancient esoteric teachings, and thus probably doubly wrong.) The system doing the simulation could be nothing more than a simple Turing machine with infinite tape -- because the concept of time only exists within this simulation, it doesn't matter how "fast" or "slow" the simulation is run.

That said "simulation" is definitely a step in the right direction -- it's what ancient esoteric teachings have been telling us for a long time -- that life is a game that repeats itself (Reincarnation), that life is a play (Brahman?), etc.

There's also a risk of people not fully aware of the philosophical meaning of "reality is a simulation". For starters, it doesn't render reality as "unreal" -- there's the "simulations all the way down" argument, and arguably all *and* none of them are "real" -- reality is only as real as you let it be.  It is perfectly viable to know about simulation theory, agree with its arguments, and still choosing to treat the allegedly simulated reality as "real". In fact, I would argue that it is the most prudent way to interpret things.

By the way, the question of why the simulation isn't perfect (and so we can exploit its bugs to take a peek at what is "outside" of it) is a profound question that probably doesn't have a convergent answer. I suspect it may be a fundamental law that there is no perfectly closed system. This law would allow for changes in reality to a greater extent than whatever one could imagine, and perhaps could be seen as a corollary of the law of abundance...

Perhaps.

Economic Paradoxes

It's also really bizarre that money is so integral to modern society yet we don't really know what it is. It's like all the information is out there in the open, but for whatever reason we can't really analyze it in a way that convinces everybody.

And while the guy in the video often makes questionable claims (as is common for most Modern Monetary Theory advocates), I think the main takeaway is that his claims are complementary to the more mainstream concepts of monetary theory and it increasingly looks like *both* the theories have some truth to them, even though they are contradictory. Hence the paradox in the title.

https://youtu.be/RC2oLB4Nsw8?si=45dAtQrLWB42ZY2x&t=4378 - "

[1:13:00] you know 's all this GDP people things are getting sold things are being bought but the people who are getting the income don't want to spend it all well then how does it get sold well the identity is that for last year's GDP let's say was 34 trillion for everyone who spent less than their income someone else must have spent more than their income otherwise it wouldn't have been 34 trillion so if people saved four trillion and didn't spend their income it means some there would have only been 30 trillion in spending and not 34 well where the other four trillion it has to be from people entities businesses who spent more than their income and it's more than four trillion it's a very big number might be seven or eight or 10 trillion okay and so um and so well who spends more than their income well if you buy a house with a mortgage you just spent more than your income you've accelerated your spending if you buy a car on credit you've accelerated your income if you use a credit card you've accelerated your income if you're a business and you sell bonds and and invest you've spent more than your income if you're the government running a deficit you've spent more than your income any entity spending more than its income is said to be deficit spending spending more than their income okay and so what we have is all the unspent income is offset by all the deficit spending that deficit spending is public deficit spending plus private deficit spending and that's just a accounting identity it's always equal it's not a theory there's no dispute we know for a fact

《囍帖街》

原來我之前從來都冇聽明過囍帖街嘅歌詞⋯

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsH8F01Gxss

呢兩個星期係咁推俾我睇，睇嚟又係宇宙嘅愛...

———

原來我之前從來都冇聽明過囍帖街嘅歌詞⋯

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsH8F01Gxss

呢個月係咁推俾我睇 (查返係5月8，5月17，5月26)，睇嚟又係宇宙嘅愛...

PS: 最勁嘅位係每次都係唔同因由推出嚟，月頭嗰次係唔知點解喺脆上面見到「TSW」寫嗰篇謝安琪訪問... 月中嗰次係見到脆上有人清唱首歌，然後今次就係 IU 嚟香港...

———

5月30: 落樓下食個晏又聽到背景音樂都係播⋯

我平日聽咩歌？ (六年後嘅 Update)

上回提到： https://centraltrunks.blogspot.com/2018/02/blog-post.html 

原來都六年前嘅事。

呢六年個 playlist 都多咗好多雜不甩嘅嘢。 （其實啲人聽到我 playlist 都會覺得點解你乜都有嘅？）

我諗由最新近嘅講起？（non-exhaustive）

- Kiri T 至少做一件離譜的事 - 唔識呢位歌手，純粹偶然喺臉書見到，個 MV 真係好正好搞笑。(小巴司機：「⋯」) 首歌都係好聽嘅。我見維基話佢係主打英文歌，幾有趣。得閒會聽下。

- Yoasobi - 我真係舊年因為 アイドル (IDOL) 先認識 Yoasobi ，但其實我同意 IDOL 好嘈 :0) 「吱吱吱吱吱咋咋咋？」 《夜に駆ける》我一般。我最鍾意嘅其實係《もう少しだけ》，某程度上係好合適我呢排suppose走緊嘅方向。好過夜に駆ける個意境吖。

- 講到 Idol ，英文版我只推 rachie 嘅 cover ；其實 Yoasobi 係有官方英文版嘅，我見有人讚佢(哋?)將英文版唱到好似唱日文咁，我心諗：「　」。只有 rachie 嘅版本真係聽得明係英文同埋順暢。我甚至覺得比日文原唱更好。(可能係因為我唔識日文...)  另外 rachie 其他日文英譯嘅 cover 都好好聽 eg A Cruel Angel's Thesis

- 有位究極冷門嘅 Youtube 結他手我幾鍾意： youtube.com/@jasongeovanni5056/videos  似乎係一位印尼後生仔。

- 糖妹 - 佢把聲好好好好聽 (係有陳慧嫻feel)，可惜 live 會偶爾走音... 不過佢 iTunes 上面啲歌應該係執到冇走嘅。值得加落 list 度。

- 可愛くてごめん (sor)

- Sirenita Bobinsana by Blu of Earth - 第一次聽被感動到

- 久遠たま - Youtube 歌手，唱 live 有啲水準 （i.e. 唔一定走音） 佢最鍾意唱啲大聲快歌，睇得出佢嗌得好開心。我最鍾意嘅係佢首 《回レ!雪月花》嘅 Cover。首嘢應該都少少冷門，係『機巧少女は傷つかない』嘅 ED。 首歌嘅節奏同內容都好得意，有少少日系中二病但又有啲青春咁。我係因為佢呢首 cover 先發現久遠たま。

- Chloë Agnew 嘅 Ave Maria - 詳見 https://centraltrunks.blogspot.com/2020/04/blog-post.html

- 君だったら by HAPPY BIRTHDAY - 唔知點解啲人可以寫啲咁淒美嘅歌...  

- Enn - 一位香港 Youtube 歌手，好多非中文歌 (日、英 cover），但我比較鍾意嘅係 《「うっせぇわ」粵語廣東話翻唱『收皮啦～』- Chill Remix》同埋佢 Vtuber debut(?) 首歌《まふまふ「女の子になりたい」粵語廣東話翻唱『想變成人類呀！』》 

- 講起 Enn ，順便提下同佢一齊合作嘅歌手 Yuka。我最鍾意佢呢首： 天使にふれたよ! を 歌ってみた  - 我完全唔記得點解會搵到呢首歌 （睇 view 數都知幾冷門....），但我係經過佢先知道 Enn @_@

- なんでもないや - 上白石萌音  --- 等等等埋我解釋.... 上白石萌音喺 2016 年做《我的名字。》嘅聲優嗰陣都出過一首《なんでもないや》，嗰首就一般般啦。但佢 2021(?) 年做咗一次『yattokosa』 Tour ，呢次真係唱得超好。完全係另一個層次。版權問題 Youtube 好似冇咗，但感謝黨感謝國家，Bilibili 好似仲有。

- 薩拉熱窩的羅密歐與茱麗葉 - 鄭秀文  --- 重新發現咗呢首 90 年代嘅歌。唔知點解特別啱vibe。

- 雪の果てに君の名を - nonoc -- Re Zero 外傳嘅主題曲。 nonoc 嘅唱功有少少勉強，但我覺得首歌本身係好聽。(走音敏感嘅朋友可以試下聽 acoustic 版?)

- secret base〜君がくれたもの〜

- Tiffany Poon - 佢不嬲都係做 live classical performance 但近年多咗「出碟」？ 

- Chopin - Winter Wind - Cateen -- 呢首好明顯係睇完《四月😭》之後鍾意咗。呢個版本喺網上我搵到最好聽嘅， Hayato Sumino 好似係佢本名，似乎係一位正經嘅古典鋼琴家，不過佢有個 youtube channel 叫 Cateen ，有時會 post 啲鳩嘢⋯

- Theishter - 佢編/彈啲動畫歌好正

----

呢個係玩嘅，不過我覺得幾 soothing： munch song (Elia Stellaria)

Subjective truth implies relativity

 Subjective truth implies relativity.

Relativity implies that one must make reference to TWO things to make any observation, otherwise all observations are meaningless.

For example, "X is valuable" is meaningless in subjective truth. "Y is wrong" is meaningless in subjective truth. "Z is good" is meaningless in subjective truth.

So, there is no inherent property.

It is the interaction of things that matter.

Experiment errors

(21 Apr)

How much weird phenomena has been swept under the carpet by the name of error bars in empirical experiments?

Not talking about silently throwing away data, but those data that kind of expends the error bar….

Perhaps digging deep into the error data might be fruitful.

Spirit and many worlds

 I scribbled this down in my notes 3 weeks ago, and I have no idea whether it's legit or not.

Spirit and many worlds

what if the spirit or soul is just the thing that travels between quantum worlds 

The thing that travels or chooses between quantum worlds is obviously not explainable within the worlds. There cannot (?) be evidence within the worlds about the mechanism we jump between them.(is that really true?)

So the problem is whether we can actually establish a link between spiritual phenomena and quantum world selection/jumping.

This could kind of explain the paradoxes between epidemiological(sp?) theories of the spirit and the fact that we seem to be aware of the epidemiological effect, ie if we are souls without a physical presence how do we synchronize with the body and how does the body notice that it is driven by a soul? It can be proposed that the soul drives the quantum world jumping into a state where its body “resonates” with the soul or at least in a preferred state of such.

The link is far fetched though and there probably cannot be much hard evidence except it being a nice story that reconciles the discrepancy of the epidemiological paradox 

How would this be applied in practice? Perhaps if we on a soul level realize we are more than the human body, for example if we feel to be as one with nature, of course the soul in theory could get messages from nature, but where does the body get it from? It must be from micro-world jumping, whether quantum or not. The soul most resonates with the human body, so it is focused there and the effect of world jumping is most strong and apparent, which then allows the message to be apparently communicated.

努力

人係冇需要「努力」嘅。本身人只需要做到應該要做 (i.e. "本份")嘅嘢，保障自己生存，就冇必要繼續做啲純粹為生存而做嘅嘢。

有啲人叻啲，有啲人冇咁叻，咁叻嘅人就更加係冇同其他一一樣咁多付出。

但「努力」係資本主義產生嘅倫理，目的係揸盡每一個人嘅產能。人如果冇剩餘價值，個制度就揸唔出利潤，社會就冇得更加「富庶」。

本身資本主義唔係真理，但資本主義加上帝國主義，就迫使所有國家都要轉型，否則好快就滅國。戰國時中國內部做咗一次咁嘅統合，去到 19~20 世紀又發生咗一次。

喺後資本主義年代，「努力」變咗 optional 之後，人又要重新思考人生嘅意義。整輩子活在資本主義嘅人，其實係完全唔知道原來「返工」以外仲可以有意義存在，亦唔知原來「返工」喺佢哋人生入面佔咗幾重要嘅地位。

Consistent histories / Decoherent Histories

How come this stuff is so obtuse.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-consistent-histories/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-04024-z

The nature article is particularly egregious. Word soup. Worse than my worst writings.

But I *think* this actually aligns with my ideas about the past not being a "real" thing. Just why is it so damn obtuse...

Psuedo-randomness = subjective randomness = "Real" randomness

How could I have missed this obvious truth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZck0N_T9Cs 

2:24 What these examples show is that from a computer scientist's point of view, randomness at its core is often not about debating whether the underlying physical laws are deterministic or not. Often, a more useful way to look at it is that the bits are random to you if you cannot exploit the way they were generated.

為什麼道教不像其他教派一樣傳播給全世界

脆上見聞，幾值得參考

 

 為什麼道教不像其他教派一樣傳播給全世界

別的教派：你是罪人

道教：我是神仙

別的教派：傳教多積累功德、或是邀請他們接受福音

道教：愛信不信，末法時代靈氣稀薄，不要打擾老子飛升

別的教派：只要是人都可以皈依

道教：心不信大道不收，心不正只求神通不收，心不定不堅不固，沒有天份等等通通不收

別的教派：見神要拜

道教：勤加修煉我就是神

別的教派：神啊賜我力量，然後自己上

道教：急急如律令，神啊你給我上

別的教派：講道理講真善美

道教：先講道，道不同略懂拳腳，後續切磋神通也略懂超度

別的教派：宣揚理念與思想

道教：修仙修真我修本心

別的教派：祈禱放生捐錢

道教：易學八卦六壬陰陽五行畫符咒法神通，講究的就是一個君子自強

別的教派：信我，帶你上天堂

道教：道爺我成了

上述皆為幹話，分享來笑笑而已勿槓

投資嘅能量

其實我一直都對自己坐擁唔算細嘅資產感到唔係好自在 

(...多謝你哋嘅好意但唔使喇多謝 [見下])

話晒古今中外各位老師都唔係好鼓勵守財奴，話財富要分享先有意義，最好散盡家財，唔係淨係用喺自己身上。

但呢幾日我再從豐足(abundance)嘅角度諗多幾下，發現現代人處理資產原來同古代嘅「守財奴」係好唔同嘅玩法。

以前啲人嘅資產基本上係 commodities (包括金幣銀幣) 同 土地，同人「分享」嘅方法唔多。如果唔係「散盡家財」嘅玩法，大概就係借出去(錢)或租出去(地)。  但由於借錢風險比較大，我諗最多都係將土地租出去。

但現代金融體制令到發放資產嘅玩法多咗好多。例如所有形式嘅「投資」（唔係投機）理論上都係一種「送錢出去俾人（做生意）」嘅形式。

可能會有人覺得「投資」有錢賺唔算做「善事」，所以就唔會有傳統意義嘅「積德」嘅效果。我唔知炒股有冇「積德」，但如果用一個比較現代啲嘅「能量流動」講法，掉啲錢落股票市場確實係一種極有效將資金能力流動嘅方法嚟。而你實際上做緊嘅嘢，又確實係將你用唔著嘅財富交俾其他「更需要」呢筆錢嘅人 (假設你入貨個價位夠低)。至於投資好多時賺返有凸呢樣嘢，其實唔係負面嘢嚟，反而可以係豐足嘅一種體現。始終「倒錢落海」形式嘅「積德」實在太過 zero sum，實際嘅操作稍為有種「懲罰」成功搵到錢嘅人嘅鄉愿感覺。如果我哋唔係習慣咗妖魔化「貪念」呢樣嘢，其實你分享財富出去，梗係想對世界有最大正面效果(EA撚散退！)，而「投資回報」都算係一個幾合理嘅 metric。

我唔係否定嗰啲「散盡家財」嘅玩法，只係講緊現代社會有啲新嘅方便玩法，仲係反 zero sum 反誅心論 (i.e. 貪) 嘅豐足玩法。

That said，既然能量呢家嘢部份取決於心態，我就好懷疑嗰啲短炒、玩牛熊證之類嘅玩法包唔包喇。

Aphantasia

I almost forgot this stuff:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia

This seems to explain quite a few things.

In particular, the difference in self-reported visual imagery of mystical experiences.

That probably means unless I somehow drastically rewire myself, I won't be able to visually "see" whatever stuff people are reporting to see.

Which I guess is a good thing. Forms are often deceiving (or at least distracting).

占卜

https://www.threads.net/@chelse_hiulaam/post/C6rEfVNP5wy

喺脆上面見到有人話幫人抽牌交流下能量，咁冇理由唔玩下㗎 (?)

結果比想像中更好玩，如果我多份少女心就可能會沉迷抽牌

完全唔明佢點樣由啲牌可以interpret到佢講嘅嘢出嚟... 真係犀利

另外話說佢副牌好靚。

Murphy's Law vs Positive Thinking

(Half-written by Github copilot, so the tone is a bit weird)

Murphy's law is actually quite interesting.

It is generally stated as such: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong."

It has been applied to many different situations, but it is most commonly used in engineering and technology. It is to some extent an empirical statement that things tend to go wrong, and it is also a rather uncontroversial observation of the simple fact that the more complex a system is, the chances of something going wrong increases as the scale of the operations increases.

However, there is also a more esoteric interpretation of Murphy's law, i.e. things will actually go wrong even more often than what might be expected from a simple frequentist probabilistic analysis. In short, "I have really bad luck."

There are many possible ways one might try to avoid Murphy's law. The first is to minimize the chances of things going wrong by making sure that the system is as simple as possible, and that all possible failure modes are dealt with. This is the approach taken by most engineers and scientists, and it probably the most effective way to avoid Murphy's law.

However, those who believe in mind over matter might also try to avoid Murphy's law by simply thinking positively and expecting things to go right. This is the approach taken by many people who believe in the power of positive thinking.

But does positive thinking really work? Can you really avoid Murphy's law by simply thinking positively and expecting things to go right? If you believe in the power of positive thinking, then you might think that the answer is yes. But why doesn't it work? Why do things still go wrong even when you think positively?

The answer is that the very idea of "positive" thinking is flawed. If you need to think "positively" to avoid Murphy's law, then you are already assuming that things will go wrong. In other words, you are already expecting things to go wrong, and you are trying to counteract that expectation by thinking positively. But this is a self-defeating strategy, because you are still expecting things to go wrong, and you are still giving power to the idea that things will go wrong.

What can we do then? Remember that the law of free will is a universal law, and that we have the power to choose our own destiny. If you want to avoid Murphy's law, then you need to take physical action to make sure that things go right. You need to take responsibility for your own actions, and you need to make sure that you are doing everything in your power to make sure that things go right. Unsurprisingly, this approach converges with the boring materialist approach.

Those who believe in the power of positive thinking generally forget that we live in a physical universe, and there is a reason for that. Minds can move matter, but the accepted laws here is that we interact with the physical world through our physical bodies. If you want to avoid Murphy's law, then you need to take physical action. As they say, "actions speak louder than words."

In a sense, Murphy's law is a device where it gives us a choice. We can either accept that things will go wrong, and take physical action to make sure that they don't.

As a rule of thumb, it is obviously a good idea to maintain a generally positive vibe, but once you consider a negative outcome as a possibility, it is on you to take action to minimize the possibility of it eventually happening.

進退

雖然話我應該係要學習點樣「無分別心」

但總係好想印證下呢大半年思想有冇進步

每次都係覺得，其實所有概念嘅「種子」喺十年八載之前已經完成，而家只係不斷重新翻兜炒作。

但事實上我理解嘅嘢真係成熟咗。舊酒新瓶得嚟啲酒確實係醇咗。

但我本身係想⋯⋯更加 profound 咁。

可能本身唔應該有呢個 expectation。

-------

又話說，所有睇得明嘅嘢，其實真係要自己先明咗，然後睇資料 (書、片、etc.) 嗰陣先知佢講乜。否則其實係點睇都唔會明。

Midnight Gospel

 What the heck.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Midnight_Gospel

What the...

宗教

宗教本身係比較難「明」嘅。

我唔係講啲教義難明。如果你純粹係一個教徒，咁啲教義冇咩特別難，聽完，信，照做，大概就算係完成咗流程。

但只要認真去推敲啲經文經書，就會見到好多有趣但同啲普遍流傳嘅教義唔同嘅地方。呢樣嘢唔多需要你好叻都睇得出，只要你肯認真嘗試理解每一隻字每一句，就會見到啲有趣 （但唔明）嘅嘢。

唔明係可以唔理嘅，因為真係難明。

真係明白宗教，係要自己認真諗過點樣 structure 一個宗教體系出嚟。要有核心教義，要有宣傳手法，要有入會門檻，要有初楷簡化版教材，要有門規法矩，要有培訓核心成員同接班人嘅程序，等等。

以上都只不過係世俗嘢。

但宗教基本上係一個傳承神秘超自然力量嘅載體(vessel)嚟，當中多咗好多考量。由於超自然力量本身有少少危險性 (可能唔只少少...)，大眾接觸到嘅簡化版教材係唔會直接教佢哋呢啲嘢。但，你唔好彩嘅話，核心成員都未必真係會學得識，何況宗教壯大之後，主要係靠啲未登門弟嘅教眾流傳。所以「宗教」呢個載體係要有方法將啲資訊由唔識嘅人口中傳承後世，等有緣嘅人接觸到之後明白佢講乜。所以有呢堆咁嘅考量，加上你又想一般信眾信咗你套嘢之後都有啲好處，唔想當佢哋只係信念同資訊嘅 substrate，咁就成個宗教構造就差唔多只可以咁運作。

望到《金剛經》入面一句好感慨：

若當來世，後五百歲，其有眾生得聞是經，信解受持，是人即為第一希有

佢哋真係唔係 expect 一般人明白。

但勁就勁在，佢唔止係流傳到五百年，而家二千五百都嚟緊。到今日大家終於知道咩係 virtualization，點解 XX 非 XX 是名 XX。我哋亦終於知道物理現像唯物主義係真係無「我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相」... 只有一堆基礎能量嘅互動。

正如我之前講笑咁講，《金剛經》嘅「金剛」梵文本身可以解「閃電」同「鑽石」，正正係對應上個世紀先出現嘅 silicon semiconductor (silicon 有 diamond cubic crystal structure, 通電, 係我哋呢個世代講虛擬嘢嘅基礎技術) -- 如果唔係點解要叫「金剛經」？ 真係講到好似佢係為咗流傳兩三千年等到呢個年代先expect人明白嘅玩法嚟。

當然最搞笑就係唔會有人覺得呢種詮釋係啱。因為實在太痴線，匪夷所思。

但我就係匪嘛。究竟啲資訊點樣流傳同傳承，我已經不斷喺度諗。出面嘅人 99% 唔明，可以點搞？ 啲方法唔係太多，都係嗰三幅被，所以睇住人哋點做，自然就心神領會。

(好彩我主要嘅問題唔係五百年後有冇人睇得明⋯)