:-/

 It feels like I'm somewhere on this curve now.

Barbie

Oh noes even Barbie reads like a spiritual revelation… the incarnation theme from the everlasting spiritual world of Barbie land is so hard to miss….

The self discovery theme and the I am… “Ken”

The dualities introduced by the “real world” vs singularities… death, male/female, happy/sad emotions

The idea that a person in the real world could influence her - as above so below

解經

基於「所有觀點都係啱」嘅宇宙法則，一啲冇人睇得明嘅書，應該真係可以用任何方法解讀。

咁就解釋咗點解《易經》可以用嚟占卜(好似係)、《聖經》有排陣密碼(好似係)。

至於有啲嘢貌似「真係啱」「真係錯」 (eg. 地球係圓/平)⋯ 我諗呢個反而係需要解釋嘅嘢嚟。點解「錯」嘅嘢唔可以係「啱」？可能係集體意識判斷咗啲嘢嘅對錯，喺呢個 MMORPG 入面，個人意志好難推翻集體嘅共識 (但 Flat Earth Movement 示範咗一個 valiant attempt 係咩模樣)。但如果啲資訊本身都冇人明，就真係可以隨主觀意願闡釋，(唔知係咪都睇個人「神力」) 宇宙好似會盡量配合。

Discussion synchronicity

我有時對住啲唔熟嘅人都有呢個問題，開始有個 hypothesis 係啲心靈感應問題，大概係大家啲 intuition 有幾 in-sync 之類...

（如果唔關事嘅話我都會幾 surprised... 我係親身見識過人嘅同步率係可以幾準....

The fuzzy solution to dualism

Given a choice, if the process to resolve it takes more than constant time C to resolve, just "randomly" pick an answer since it doesn't really matter which to pick.

This obviously works for things in daily life. (We can probably formulate many hypotheses on why spending longer is worse.)

The question is whether this works for more serious stuff, eg. legal disputes, political debates, etc.

----------

The complement to this fuzzy approach is to precisely carve out the pieces that we are relatively sure is correct. In every bitter dispute about general ideology, there is on every side an extreme that the other side can agree to. Start from there and carve out pieces until it doesn't work any more. In those actual areas of dispute, just apply the fuzzy solution.

That might actually work well enough for many things.

(The obvious problem is that once you move away from the extreme-extreme, the extremists from the other side start disagreeing. So can we conclude that battles are fought on the ideological "frontlines" because game theorists rather have support from with extremists on "their side" instead of doing the reasonable thing?)

P=NP if god helps us

"P=NP if god helps us" is obviously true (it is not so evident for many other complexity classes, eg. I don't think it's obvious that P=EXP if god helps us...)

The framework of subjective truth provides a mechanism.

That might explain why it is so hard to prove (might need to involve magical-physics) or disprove (disprove god exists or willing to help).

Of course, this hinges on the formalization of randomness, and I suspect at least to prove P!=NP we must not allow the formalization to involve any god-like events from happening...

私は ここに いる

「私は ここに いる」原來係 "I am.... here"

ehh 好難解釋

神就係 I am (eg. Exodus 3:14)

"I am... here" 大概就係人類覺醒自己嘅神聖嘅正解。

人同神唯一嘅分別就係有主觀，即係位置(同方向...)。

所以 "I am here" 呢句真係好強大，難怪可以就咁一句就得到神力。