Self-imposed constraints of logic

I'm actually pretty good at making logical arguments that have a correct conclusion. People may think that's because I'm logical, but generally the trick is to have good intuition. If you have the correct conclusion, you can easily work backwards and back-fill the logic.

I didn't always provide the arguments to my conclusions, before I picked up the habit of *being rational*, I just often gave the intuitive conclusion without explanation.

The rational explanation is a useful skill for persuasion (and sometimes to double check myself), but it is also a self-imposed limitation to my abilities to intuit.

i.e. if there's no apparent connection between the situation and an outcome, then limiting myself to rational explanations means that I can't give a correct conclusion.

I will probably have to learn to lift this limit somehow. Otherwise my abilities are incomplete.

Sacrificial magic

Q: "If abundance is natural, why have magic users from past millennia used sacrificial methods instead?"

A: If the intended effect does not lead to abundance but instead deprivation, then obviously the ritual performed must be depriving in nature. This is why when you intend to take from others you get less, and why when you give you gain more.

 

materialization

It seems that the only way something materializes is ... whether people accept it as well.

As such the "spirit" and "physical" is a false dichotomy. The only thing that differentiates the two is whether other people want to see the same thing.

Compelling case against the anthropic principle argument

Basically, if the argument for how we became here is just via a multiverse argument and anthropic principle, then we should be seeing a very "bare bones" version of conscious life to observe the world, and not the "rich" life forms we see today. 

-----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W62oNjZYWio

 1:53:30 to a thinker by combining uh an infinite number of multi

1:53:37 an infinite Multiverse with the anthropic principle it would only give you it would only

1:53:42 explain the barebones minimal path to a thinker because that would be by far more probable than a profusion of life

1:53:50 that we see here so what we see when you look at Planet Earth is not Bare Bones so that do you get why that does not fit

1:53:57 with the Multiverse right because anthropic gives you the Bare Bones you

1:54:02 you're you're acknowledging um that this is a way to get around extraordinary improbabilities so you're not going to

1:54:09 get anything more than what you absolutely need to get to get a questioner okay you're not going to get

1:54:15 6,000 species you're not going to get all this profusion of life around us that is not explained by Multiverse

Is Murphy Compatible?

Is Murphy compatible with 先知力？

In theory with enough wisdom we just take the good path. The multiverses of Murphyesque failures should not really be a factor.

What is it that we need to be aware of all the pitfalls before we can choose the good path?

Is it because the applications of Murphy are statistical in nature? Or is it because so-called knowledge about failure modes is inherently necessary?

蘿蔔糕

結論蘿蔔糕係要落低筋麵粉先會「腍」。

Time and free will

It seems time is really a tool created to experience free will.

If we know everything, there is no time. Because we know what is happened.

With time, it implies we do not know everything. This is the condition for free will, because the mechanism of free will is going from not knowing what will happen to knowing what will happen (which we call "making a decision"). Time only flows when the not-known becomes known.

(Of course, most people do not experience everything that happens in the universe as a "personal" decision, but this is a most unscientific claim since even reductionist science tells us that everything is connected and the processes that decide where you eat lunch is essentially the same that decides the lottery numbers.)

Now that we've put all the big traditionally esoteric pieces together, where does this leave computation? Why are there problems that seem to be hard to decide? What is significant about this process or ritual of knowing?

Schrödinger's cat

This is where my avoidance of mathematics bites me in the ass.

I wanted to claim that Schrödinger's cat is actually a fable of learned men refusing to believe facts about the world.

But if that claim is true, then we must be able to apply the Born rule to all subjective probabilities, not just the quantum ones. (I think frequentist probabilities shouldn't count because it's just measuring the results?)

Now, then, it seems I'll have some reading to do.... :-/

L7

 "I see only the past." 其實同佛家講嘅因果業力真係異曲同工。

我見到「業力」嘅用法主要都係講緊事情嘅 inertia。慣性。

而神力在於跳出世間一般嘅慣性，所以可以改變所謂命運，所以可以彰顯自由意志。佛家嘅述語似乎係「脫離因果」。

further reading: https://hnfong.github.io/public-crap/writings/2015/%E6%99%82%E9%96%93_CM_%E4%BF%82%E7%8F%BE%E4%BB%A3%E6%96%87%E6%98%8E%E5%98%85%E7%94%A2%E7%89%A9.html 

Pre-reading Lesson 13

The moment I read the lines

I felt its truth, but logic hasn't caught up yet.

I re-read it, the logic sounds plausible, and I might have even marginally written truths so obscure in my most inspired states...

but...

what?

"an explicit cause and effect relationship of a kind which you are very inexperienced in recognizing" indeed.

In a sense this is the first statement in the book I encountered that is truly beyond my current comprehension.