Daily Archives: October 17, 2011

虛工作經驗

Posted on by

Curiosity 2.2 | 原地踏步

（安：我十分欣賞 Paul Graham 的文章。他的其中一個講法是，工作經驗的所謂「多少」，其實並不重要。真正重要的是，那些工作經驗，為你的想法帶來多少改變、為你的思考帶來多大提昇。在看 Paul 的文章之前，我從未聽過，有人對「工作經驗」，有這類的見解。）

Stephen Covey 和 Paul Graham 對「工作經驗」這個詞語的用法不同。Paul Graham 的「工作經驗」，是指工作年資，亦即是時間的長短。而 Stephen Covey 的「工作經驗」，是指對工作經驗的個人體會，亦即是 Paul Graham 所講，想法的改變 和 思考的提昇。雖然他們用字有別，但這一點上，有相同的見解。

Stephen Covey 都講過，你工作了 29 年，並不代表你真的有 29 年的「工作經驗」。如果你在那 29 年裡，都以同一個心態，用同一個處事方式，在同一個崗位，做同一類工作的話，你實際上只有一年的工作經驗。你有的，就只是第一年的工作經驗。其餘 28 年的所謂「經驗」，只不過是將第一年的經驗不斷重複。

— Me@2011.10.17

Another popular explanation is that wisdom comes from experience while intelligence is innate. But people are not simply wise in proportion to how much experience they have. Other things must contribute to wisdom besides experience, and some may be innate: a reflective disposition, for example.

— Paul Graham

2011.10.17 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Single-world interpretation

Posted on by

Everett’s thesis introduction reads:

    Since the universal validity of the state function description is asserted, one can regard the state functions themselves as the fundamental entities, and one can even consider the state function of the entire universe. In this sense this theory can be called the theory of the “universal wave function,” since all of physics is presumed to follow from this function alone.

The universal wave function is the wavefunction or quantum state of the totality of existence, regarded as the “basic physical entity” or “the fundamental entity, obeying at all times a deterministic wave equation”.

Criticism

Ray Streater writes:

    The idea of the wave-function of the universe is meaningless; we do not even know what variables it is supposed to be a function of. […] We find the laws of Nature by reproducible experiments. The theory needs a cut, between the observer and the system, and the details of the apparatus should not appear in the theory of the system.

Hugh Everett’s response

    If we try to limit the applicability so as to exclude the measuring apparatus, or in general systems of macroscopic size, we are faced with the difficulty of sharply defining the region of validity. For what n might a group of n particles be construed as forming a measuring device so that the quantum description fails? And to draw the line at human or animal observers, i.e., to assume that all mechanical aparata obey the usual laws, but that they are not valid for living observers, does violence to the so-called principle of psycho-physical parallelism.

— Wikipedia on Universal wavefunction

2011.10.16 Sunday ACHK