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.