Anti-dualism

 留個底

Simulation theory

"We are living in a computer-programmed reality, and the only clue we have to it is when some variable is changed, and some alteration in reality occurs. We have the overwhelming impression that we were reliving the present - deja vu."  -- Philip K. Dick

This is basically the same argument made in The Matrix movie.

I kind of sympathize with simulation theory in the sense that I think some of its elements are quite plausible, but I can't help but think that those arguments as-is are too crude.

We make assumptions as to the limitations of the creators of the simulated reality, but given that they have made such an elaborate simulation, it seems that it is unwise for us, with such a limited perspective, having only had access to such technology for mere decades, to speculate on specific limitations that they might have when designing or implementing the simulation.

The deja vu, the "Mandela effect", the glitches in the system -- they are intriguing for sure and deserve further investigation and analysis, but I think it is premature to say that they provide evidence of simulation. It just *looks like* artifacts of simulation for us given our technological limitations, but they may be limitations of some other kind (eg. allowing the reality to adopt different laws and mechanisms including possibility of Magic -- I wrote about my own speculations here ) 

I also want to note here that the arguments about limitations in laws of physics due to computational limits are absolutely baseless -- the system running the simulation must have orders of magnitude more computation power than we have access to; it would be like people in 1900 conjecturing what computation power we have in the 2000s. They wouldn't be able to fathom the thing we have and all the "wasteful" ways we are using the power (electron apps anyone?)

Furthermore, the idea that time exists outside the simulation and poses a limitation on the simulation engine is very suspect. (Also, this idea does not align with ancient esoteric teachings, and thus probably doubly wrong.) The system doing the simulation could be nothing more than a simple Turing machine with infinite tape -- because the concept of time only exists within this simulation, it doesn't matter how "fast" or "slow" the simulation is run.

That said "simulation" is definitely a step in the right direction -- it's what ancient esoteric teachings have been telling us for a long time -- that life is a game that repeats itself (Reincarnation), that life is a play (Brahman?), etc.

There's also a risk of people not fully aware of the philosophical meaning of "reality is a simulation". For starters, it doesn't render reality as "unreal" -- there's the "simulations all the way down" argument, and arguably all *and* none of them are "real" -- reality is only as real as you let it be.  It is perfectly viable to know about simulation theory, agree with its arguments, and still choosing to treat the allegedly simulated reality as "real". In fact, I would argue that it is the most prudent way to interpret things.

By the way, the question of why the simulation isn't perfect (and so we can exploit its bugs to take a peek at what is "outside" of it) is a profound question that probably doesn't have a convergent answer. I suspect it may be a fundamental law that there is no perfectly closed system. This law would allow for changes in reality to a greater extent than whatever one could imagine, and perhaps could be seen as a corollary of the law of abundance...

Perhaps.

Economic Paradoxes

It's also really bizarre that money is so integral to modern society yet we don't really know what it is. It's like all the information is out there in the open, but for whatever reason we can't really analyze it in a way that convinces everybody.

And while the guy in the video often makes questionable claims (as is common for most Modern Monetary Theory advocates), I think the main takeaway is that his claims are complementary to the more mainstream concepts of monetary theory and it increasingly looks like *both* the theories have some truth to them, even though they are contradictory. Hence the paradox in the title.

https://youtu.be/RC2oLB4Nsw8?si=45dAtQrLWB42ZY2x&t=4378 - "

[1:13:00] you know 's all this GDP people things are getting sold things are being bought but the people who are getting the income don't want to spend it all well then how does it get sold well the identity is that for last year's GDP let's say was 34 trillion for everyone who spent less than their income someone else must have spent more than their income otherwise it wouldn't have been 34 trillion so if people saved four trillion and didn't spend their income it means some there would have only been 30 trillion in spending and not 34 well where the other four trillion it has to be from people entities businesses who spent more than their income and it's more than four trillion it's a very big number might be seven or eight or 10 trillion okay and so um and so well who spends more than their income well if you buy a house with a mortgage you just spent more than your income you've accelerated your spending if you buy a car on credit you've accelerated your income if you use a credit card you've accelerated your income if you're a business and you sell bonds and and invest you've spent more than your income if you're the government running a deficit you've spent more than your income any entity spending more than its income is said to be deficit spending spending more than their income okay and so what we have is all the unspent income is offset by all the deficit spending that deficit spending is public deficit spending plus private deficit spending and that's just a accounting identity it's always equal it's not a theory there's no dispute we know for a fact

《囍帖街》

原來我之前從來都冇聽明過囍帖街嘅歌詞⋯

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsH8F01Gxss

呢兩個星期係咁推俾我睇，睇嚟又係宇宙嘅愛...

———

原來我之前從來都冇聽明過囍帖街嘅歌詞⋯

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsH8F01Gxss

呢個月係咁推俾我睇 (查返係5月8，5月17，5月26)，睇嚟又係宇宙嘅愛...

PS: 最勁嘅位係每次都係唔同因由推出嚟，月頭嗰次係唔知點解喺脆上面見到「TSW」寫嗰篇謝安琪訪問... 月中嗰次係見到脆上有人清唱首歌，然後今次就係 IU 嚟香港...

———

5月30: 落樓下食個晏又聽到背景音樂都係播⋯

我平日聽咩歌？ (六年後嘅 Update)

上回提到： https://centraltrunks.blogspot.com/2018/02/blog-post.html 

原來都六年前嘅事。

呢六年個 playlist 都多咗好多雜不甩嘅嘢。 （其實啲人聽到我 playlist 都會覺得點解你乜都有嘅？）

我諗由最新近嘅講起？（non-exhaustive）

- Kiri T 至少做一件離譜的事 - 唔識呢位歌手，純粹偶然喺臉書見到，個 MV 真係好正好搞笑。(小巴司機：「⋯」) 首歌都係好聽嘅。我見維基話佢係主打英文歌，幾有趣。得閒會聽下。

- Yoasobi - 我真係舊年因為 アイドル (IDOL) 先認識 Yoasobi ，但其實我同意 IDOL 好嘈 :0) 「吱吱吱吱吱咋咋咋？」 《夜に駆ける》我一般。我最鍾意嘅其實係《もう少しだけ》，某程度上係好合適我呢排suppose走緊嘅方向。好過夜に駆ける個意境吖。

- 講到 Idol ，英文版我只推 rachie 嘅 cover ；其實 Yoasobi 係有官方英文版嘅，我見有人讚佢(哋?)將英文版唱到好似唱日文咁，我心諗：「　」。只有 rachie 嘅版本真係聽得明係英文同埋順暢。我甚至覺得比日文原唱更好。(可能係因為我唔識日文...)  另外 rachie 其他日文英譯嘅 cover 都好好聽 eg A Cruel Angel's Thesis

- 有位究極冷門嘅 Youtube 結他手我幾鍾意： youtube.com/@jasongeovanni5056/videos  似乎係一位印尼後生仔。

- 糖妹 - 佢把聲好好好好聽 (係有陳慧嫻feel)，可惜 live 會偶爾走音... 不過佢 iTunes 上面啲歌應該係執到冇走嘅。值得加落 list 度。

- 可愛くてごめん (sor)

- Sirenita Bobinsana by Blu of Earth - 第一次聽被感動到

- 久遠たま - Youtube 歌手，唱 live 有啲水準 （i.e. 唔一定走音） 佢最鍾意唱啲大聲快歌，睇得出佢嗌得好開心。我最鍾意嘅係佢首 《回レ!雪月花》嘅 Cover。首嘢應該都少少冷門，係『機巧少女は傷つかない』嘅 ED。 首歌嘅節奏同內容都好得意，有少少日系中二病但又有啲青春咁。我係因為佢呢首 cover 先發現久遠たま。

- Chloë Agnew 嘅 Ave Maria - 詳見 https://centraltrunks.blogspot.com/2020/04/blog-post.html

- 君だったら by HAPPY BIRTHDAY - 唔知點解啲人可以寫啲咁淒美嘅歌...  

- Enn - 一位香港 Youtube 歌手，好多非中文歌 (日、英 cover），但我比較鍾意嘅係 《「うっせぇわ」粵語廣東話翻唱『收皮啦～』- Chill Remix》同埋佢 Vtuber debut(?) 首歌《まふまふ「女の子になりたい」粵語廣東話翻唱『想變成人類呀！』》 

- 講起 Enn ，順便提下同佢一齊合作嘅歌手 Yuka。我最鍾意佢呢首： 天使にふれたよ! を 歌ってみた  - 我完全唔記得點解會搵到呢首歌 （睇 view 數都知幾冷門....），但我係經過佢先知道 Enn @_@

- なんでもないや - 上白石萌音  --- 等等等埋我解釋.... 上白石萌音喺 2016 年做《我的名字。》嘅聲優嗰陣都出過一首《なんでもないや》，嗰首就一般般啦。但佢 2021(?) 年做咗一次『yattokosa』 Tour ，呢次真係唱得超好。完全係另一個層次。版權問題 Youtube 好似冇咗，但感謝黨感謝國家，Bilibili 好似仲有。

- 薩拉熱窩的羅密歐與茱麗葉 - 鄭秀文  --- 重新發現咗呢首 90 年代嘅歌。唔知點解特別啱vibe。

- 雪の果てに君の名を - nonoc -- Re Zero 外傳嘅主題曲。 nonoc 嘅唱功有少少勉強，但我覺得首歌本身係好聽。(走音敏感嘅朋友可以試下聽 acoustic 版?)

- secret base〜君がくれたもの〜

- Tiffany Poon - 佢不嬲都係做 live classical performance 但近年多咗「出碟」？ 

- Chopin - Winter Wind - Cateen -- 呢首好明顯係睇完《四月😭》之後鍾意咗。呢個版本喺網上我搵到最好聽嘅， Hayato Sumino 好似係佢本名，似乎係一位正經嘅古典鋼琴家，不過佢有個 youtube channel 叫 Cateen ，有時會 post 啲鳩嘢⋯

- Theishter - 佢編/彈啲動畫歌好正

----

呢個係玩嘅，不過我覺得幾 soothing： munch song (Elia Stellaria)

Subjective truth implies relativity

 Subjective truth implies relativity.

Relativity implies that one must make reference to TWO things to make any observation, otherwise all observations are meaningless.

For example, "X is valuable" is meaningless in subjective truth. "Y is wrong" is meaningless in subjective truth. "Z is good" is meaningless in subjective truth.

So, there is no inherent property.

It is the interaction of things that matter.

Experiment errors

(21 Apr)

How much weird phenomena has been swept under the carpet by the name of error bars in empirical experiments?

Not talking about silently throwing away data, but those data that kind of expends the error bar….

Perhaps digging deep into the error data might be fruitful.