Digital physics

The answer to all questions is No. In fact, even the right reaction to the first sentence – that the Planck scale is a “discrete measure” – is No.

The Planck length is a particular value of distance which is as important as 2π times the distance or any other multiple. The fact that we can speak about the Planck scale doesn’t mean that the distance becomes discrete in any way. We may also talk about the radius of the Earth which doesn’t mean that all distances have to be its multiples.

In quantum gravity, geometry with the usual rules doesn’t work if the (proper) distances are thought of as being shorter than the Planck scale. But this invalidity of classical geometry doesn’t mean that anything about the geometry has to become discrete (although it’s a favorite meme promoted by popular books). There are lots of other effects that make the sharp, point-based geometry we know invalid – and indeed, we know that in the real world, the geometry collapses near the Planck scale because of other reasons than discreteness.

— Is reality discrete at the quantum level?

— Lubos Motl

2012.01.31 Tuesday ACHK

Buddha 2

Lessons from the Light, 2

The revelations coming from the light seemed to go on and on, then I asked the light, “Does this mean that humankind will be saved?”

Then, like a trumpet blast with a shower of spiraling lights, the Great Light spoke, saying, “Remember this and never forget; you save, redeem and heal yourself. You always have. You always will. You were created with the power to do so from before the beginning of the world.”

In that instant I realized even more. I realized that WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN SAVED, and we saved ourselves because we were designed to self-correct like the rest of God’s universe. This is what the second coming is about. 

— Mellen-Thomas Benedict

The way to be saved is to realize that

you are already saved.

— Me

2012.01.31 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

種子論起點 10

網誌時代 12 | 程式員頭腦 12

這段改編自 2010 年 3 月 20 日的對話。

(安:Paul Graham 講過,他 寫文章的模式 和 寫電腦程式的模式 差不多。他要寫一篇文章時,會先高速把第一個版本寫好。然後,他會花幾個星期的時間,去不斷 debug(修正)該篇文章。)

雖然,我不是用 Paul Graham 那個版本的方法,但是,我寫文章的模式,都和寫程式差不多。那不單是指工作模式的相似。我發覺我寫文章時的思考模式,和一個程式員的幾乎沒有分別。例如,我需要不斷監察住,我的作品有沒有邏輯矛盾。

「寫文章」和「寫程式」的步驟相同,不足為奇,因為,所謂「文章」,其實就是人腦的程式。

— Me@2012.01.31

2012.01.31 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK