關於「天子」

「天子」係周朝開始先有，商朝稱「帝」。

秦始皇稱帝，唔叫「天子」。

後來漢以後就亂咁互用。

單于據漢書全名為「撐犁孤塗單于」，「天為「撐犁」，謂子為「孤塗」，單于者，廣大之貌也，言其象天單于然也。」 所以都係「天子」咁解。

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

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

... 之但係點解「單于」唔讀得「dan」？

(同仆老師傾完之後我結論都係「做人唔好太何文匯，呢啲嘢信韻書就算⋯」)

Free Will of the complement

There is free will of the self for sure.

And then there is free will of the complement.

That is what they call "randomness", but obviously it's anything but.

太極

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

太極同道家啲實踐嘢其實我識得好少

入面講到啲圈圈冇範圍限制，個玩法幾得意。 正所謂「天大地大人亦大」，相信呢種訓練都係幾有效嘅。

另外佢嗰啲哼哼哈哈聲似乎真係有啲料到。主持諗到「哈哈」嗰下都幾得意。

唉，世界太大，可以學嘅嘢太多。

Free Will => Everything is True (somewhat)

The fundamental law of free will implies there is a rule against omniscience.

The rule against omniscience implies there cannot be an accurate theory of everything.

This implies theories either have to be incomplete, or wrong in certain areas, or have to self-limit their scope.

This implies that whatever theory we adopt, they are incomplete in some ways and is never totally correct.

From the perfectionist perspective, this means all theories are "wrong".

But another way to look at it is that, all theories are correct as chosen and adopted.

The modern way of attacking theories in the form of "your theory cannot be right because <flaw>" is not helpful except to show that "all theories are wrong" (which is, unless you're aiming at nihilism, not helpful), because we already shown that all theories have this problem. 

Instead, we must reflect on *why* we choose and adopt particular theories. Is it Occam's razor? Or something else? Or do we have particular axioms and prefer the theories that allow them?

But, in the end, it's still a matter of choice. And because we (those who do not prefer nihilism) prefer not to point at some flaws of a theory and label it wrong, it's probably more useful to think of them as all equivalently "correct" (this admittedly reeks of objectivism though!), and thus all valid choices.

The law against Omniscience

Before making the decision, you do not know what decision you will make. (The corollary is that once you have made the decision you lose the freedom of choice.)

Seems tautological. (And it is, I think)

The interesting part is that this resonates deeply in with the fundamental laws against omniscience -- the most interesting example being the classical proof for the halting problem.  The "diagonalization" trick only works if you presume there is a way to predict whether some arbitrary program halts, so that you can just do the opposite thing.

And thus we obtain a link between Free Will and the Law against Omniscience.

Ogi Ogas calls it the "Failsafe Supreme". I think it's just a universal law of free will (which, we could imbue intentions into it, but seems unnecessary).

I mean, the whole system is crafted so beautifully. If "we" created this, we must be such immensely powerful beings before we forgot who we were...

Decisions, Free Will, and Omnipotence

- Before you make a decision you do not know what you will decide.

- If you have no choice, it is because you have already made the decision.

- I am

- Everything is connected.

The puzzle is now, why does it not feel like I make decisions outside of my body?

- Am I not actually making decisions (even for myself)? No, I think, therefore I am making decisions.

- Have I forgotten those decisions? Perhaps, but if I truly wanted an alternative, I could always make the choice. So even if it was a forgotten prior decision, I must be implicitly allowing it to continue.

- What does it "feel like" to make a decision, for a human? We think we have a rational chain of thought that leads to a decision.  Cause and effect. Memory of the thought process and the feelings while making the decision.

Ah, but if I postulate that I am not the human, then it solves all those "feeling I made a decision" problems. I simply took the perspective of the human, thus giving up the memory of making decisions that were not up to the human to make.

Note: there is no real reason to make the postulation except that it has been part of traditional wisdom to consider it, and curiously it solves the problems.

mtg color pie

The MTG color pie is actually a surprisingly useful conceptual tool if only to describe the "affinity" of the magic...

It might sound "unserious" to use game design mechanics as a serious metaphor... but it's the best one (and most fleshed out one) that I know of...