temp=1 > temp=0?

擺住喺度先。WHY???

 

Notes on non-contagious nature of separation

Mechanistically, only the positive (“love”) can extend, the negative separates and thus is not inherently “contagious”. 

Evil if it exists cannot be shared, and "hell" if it exists are separate prisons. There is no common experience.

Extension can be done by recognizing that (1) truth is everywhere and (2) it is not limited to the “self”.

P=NP depends on the compressibility of interesting questions we want to ask??!?!?!?!?!?!

This is just a record of unsubstantiated ideas

So, it's well known that BPP=P if strong random generators exist, essentially because we could use it to simulate random numbers, and if they make a difference (in P time?), it would contradict the assumption that strong random generators exist.

And generally speaking people do believe strong random generators exist.

And I suddenly had a weird thought. Why isn't it possible to apply a similar (a *huge* stretch, admittedly) idea but towards NP problems? I mean, there's nothing that prevents us from accidentally getting an answer to an instance of a NP problem by seeding a PRNG with a magic number.

Of course, the output of the PRNG should not be expected to be legible -- in fact it's almost guaranteed to be gibberish, by definition.

But wait I thought -- isn't this just a compression/decompression problem?  Suppose we have temporary access to "god" and somehow was able to gain access to all the questions in NP ever asked by humans and all their answers.... Is it possible to write a compression function to map the questions into the answers?

The thing is, we think P!=NP because we think we need a function that can give answers to ALL possible questions in the problem space... but in fact, we actually can't feasibly ask ALL questions because that would be in EXP. So in fact the size of the problems we want to ask (or formally, the size of all the languages we want to decide whether is accepted?)  is in a tractable size, so the answers are also tractable. Of course we believe we don't know the answers, but we already know that it is possible to very luckily stumble into the answer (we have an exponentially small chance, which is what the "N" in NP stands for).

So it seems it is entirely possible that we could accidentally devise a decompression algorithm that somehow decompresses seemingly random bits from a PRNG into answers to NP queries? (As of writing I don't know why I think it's possible...)

Classical Philosophy: Causation and Knowledge

The following text was sitting in my notes. I don't know where I copied it from:

""" Philosophically, the collapse of metaphysics can be traced back to the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776), who argued that we never actually perceive one event causing another. We only experience the 'constant conjunction' of events, and do not perceive a metaphysical 'cause'. Similarly, Hume argues (without using the actual terms) that we never know the self as object, only the self as subject, and we are thus blind to our true natures.[18] More generally, if we only 'know' through sensory experience (seeing, touching, etc.), then we cannot 'know' or make metaphysical claims. """

Self-affirming logic?

The only reason we believe in the past is because our past experience tell us it needs to be regarded as real...

As in, literally, 從前有個小朋友唔聽話，有一日，佢死咗。

interactive book

 ACIM 最屈機係讀落去個感覺係互動嘅

我諗啲乜過兩頁佢就講啲乜

當然正常解釋係大道理得一個，所以內容係會converge，但個感覺仍然係有少少spooky 

天道無親，常與善人

望住呢句廿年，今日先發現原來真係字面咁解

聽傳說，天地真係會偏心啲立志行善嘅人。當然偏心係有限度嘅，世界大勢唔係只靠呢啲扭轉