# The problem of induction 3.3

“Everything has no patterns” (or “there are no laws”) creates a paradox.

.

If “there are 100% no first order laws”, then it is itself a second order law (the law of no first-order laws), allowing you to use probability theory.

In this sense, probability theory is a second order law: the law of “there are 100% no first order laws”.

In this sense, probability theory is not for a single event, but statistical, for a meta-event: a collection of events.

Using meta-event patterns to predict the next single event, that is induction.

.

Induction is a kind of risk minimization.

— Me@2012-11-05 12:23:24 PM

.

.

# The problem of induction 3.1.2

Square of opposition

.

“everything has a pattern”?

“everything follows some pattern” –> no paradox

“everything follows no pattern” –> paradox

— Me@2012.11.05

.

My above statements are meaningless, because they lack a precise meaning of the word “pattern”. In other words, whether each statement is correct or not, depends on the meaning of “pattern”.

In common usage, “pattern” has two possible meanings:

1. “X has a pattern” can mean that “X has repeated data“.

Since the data set X has repeated data, we can simplify X’s description.

For example, there is a die. You throw it a thousand times. The result is always 2. Then you do not have to record a thousand 2’s. Instead, you can just record “the result is always 2”.

2. “X has a pattern” can mean that “X’s are totally random, in the sense that individual result cannot be precisely predicted“.

Since the data set X is totally random, we can simplify the description using probabilistic terms.

For example, there is a die. You throw it a thousand times. The die lands on any of the 6 faces 1/6 of the times. Then you do not have to record those thousand results. Instead, you can just record “the result is random” or “the die is fair”.

— Me@2018-12-18 12:34:58 PM

.

.

# The problem of induction 3.2

The meaning of induction is that

we regard, for example, that

“AAAAA –> the sixth is also A”

is more likely than

“AA –> the second is also A”

We use induction to find “patterns”. However, the induced results might not be true. Then, why do we use induction at all?

There is everything to win but nothing to lose.

— Hans Reichenbach

If the universe has some patterns, we can use induction to find those patterns.

But if the universe has no patterns at all, then we cannot use any methods, induction or else, to find any patterns.

.

However, to find patterns, besides induction, what are the other methods?

What is meaning of “pattern-finding methods other than induction”?

— Me@2012.11.05

— Me@2018.12.10

.

.

# The problem of induction 3

.

In a sense (of the word “pattern”), there is always a pattern.

.

Where if there are no patterns, everything is random?

Then we have a meta-pattern; we can use probability laws:

In that case, every (microscopic) case is equally probable. Then by counting the possible number of microstates of each macrostate, we can deduce that which macrostate is the most probable.

.

Where if not all microstates are equally probable?

Then it has patterns directly.

For example, we can deduce that which microstate is the most probable.

— Me@2012.11.05

.

.

# 時空兌換率

.

$E = m c^2$

.

$E = c^2 m$

.

$1 \text{USD} \approx 8 \times 1 \text{HKD}$

1 美元 $\approx 8 \times$ 1 港元

.

（而光速 c，則是時間和空間的兌換率。）

— Me@2018-05-11 09:10:00 PM

.

.

# Inception 16.4.2

.

（CPK：試過臨知道答案前，就醒了。）

.

.

.

.

.

— Me@2018-04-24 11:36:31 AM

.

Some pundits have argued that the top was not in fact Cobb’s totem, rendering the discussion irrelevant. They say that the top was Mal’s totem; Cobb’s was his wedding ring, as he can be seen wearing it whenever he is in a dream and without it whenever he isn’t. As he hands his passport to the immigration officer, his hand is shown with no ring; thus he was conclusively in reality when seeing his children. Furthermore, the children were portrayed by different actors, indicating they had aged.

— Wikipedia on Inception

.

.

# Inception 16.4

.

（CPK：在自己的夢裡面，是不是真的可以，想怎樣就怎樣？）

《潛行凶間》中的意念，你可以假想，有七成是真的。

（CPK：試過臨知道答案前，就醒了。）

.

— Me@2018-04-18 02:48:05 PM

.

.

# 潛行凶間 16.3

Inception 16.3

.

《潛行凶間》中的意念，你可以假想，有七成是真的。

3. 多重自我

3.1 每一個人，其實有超過一個自我。

3.2 而每一個自我，其實有超過一個層次的意識。

.

「清醒夢」或「多層夢」，如果自然發生，你可以細心觀察。

— Me@2018-04-08 10:51:30 AM

.

.

# 潛行凶間 16.2

Inception 16.2

.

2. 多層夢

《潛行凶間》中的意念，你可以假想，有七成是真的。

（但是，千萬不要主動去引發，「清醒夢」或「多層夢」。它們時常發生的話，會破壞意識，脫離現實。）

— Me@2018-03-08 08:32:52 PM

.

.

# 潛行凶間 16

Inception 16

1. 清醒夢

1.1 有些人在某些時候，在夢知道自己在發夢，卻又可以保持住，發夢的狀態。

1.2 那些人之中的部分人，在那些清醒夢時候的部分時候，甚至可以控制著，那些夢境的劇情演變。

（CPK：未。不過，我的姐姐試過。）

《潛行凶間》中的意念，你可以假想，有七成是真的。

2. 多層夢

3. 多重自我

3.1 每一個人，其實有超過一個自我。

3.2 而每一個自我，其實有超過一個層次的意識。

— Me@2018.02.18

.

.

# 馬後炮

— Me@2017-02-03 04:15:54 PM

# 注定外傳 2.3.3

Can it be Otherwise? 2.3.3

（問：為什麼呢？

（問：如果有神明存在，神明可能透過我的靈感，去指引我。）

（問：如果有道理的，那就可能是「神的旨意」。

— Me@2016-12-30 03:37:35 PM

# 注定外傳 2.3.2

Can it be Otherwise? 2.3.2

— Me@2016-10-15 06:10:12 AM

# 注定外傳 4.0

Can it be Otherwise? 4.0

One of the major difficulties of free-will-VS-determinism problem is its “always-meta” nature.

— Me@2016-08-19 09:00:14 AM

You can will to act, but not will to will.

Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants.

You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing.

— Schopenhauer

— Me@2016-01-06 06:50:56 PM

By definition, will is a first cause. So you cannot control it.

— Me@2016-01-06 06:55:13 PM

# 注定外傳 3.0

Can it be Otherwise? 3.0

1. 人有自由；

2. 因為一切皆注定，人沒有自由。

（問：應該有差別吧？

「積不積極」主要取決於性格和際遇；與「自己有沒有自由」，或者「覺得自己有沒有自由」，沒有什麼大關係。

（問：如果「人沒有自由」呢？那大概不可能積極吧？

— Me@2016-07-04 11:21:49 PM

# 注定外傳 2.7

Can it be Otherwise? 2.7

（問：那即是話，如果人或其他生命體有自由，現實就是部分注定、部分不注定。

（問：那樣，現實是三者中的哪一個？）

— Me@2016-05-30 10:28:37 AM

# 注定外傳 2.6

Can it be Otherwise? 2.6 | The Beginning of Time, 7.3

『所有』，就是『場所之有』。

— Me@2016-05-18 11:40:31 AM

# 注定外傳 2.5

Can it be Otherwise? 2.5 | The Beginning of Time, 7.2

4. 即使可以追溯到「時間的起點」（第一因），所謂的「可以」，只是宏觀而言，決不會細節到可以推斷到，你有沒有自由，明天七時起牀。

（問：如果因果環環緊扣，即使細節不完全知道，至少理論上，我們可以知道，如果「第一因」本身有自由，那其他個別事件，就有可能有（來自「第一因」的）自由；如果連「第一因」也沒有自由，那其他個別事件，都一律沒有自由。

「第一因有自由。」

「第一因」根據定義，是沒有原因的。亦即是話，「時間的起點」，再沒有「之前」。而「有自由」，就即是「有其他可能性」。所以，「第一因有自由」的意思是，

「第一因還有其他的可能性。」

（問：如果有「造物主」，祂不就是那個誰，可以從宇宙之初的不同可能性中，選擇一個去實現嗎？）

「因果是否真的『環環緊扣』，有沒有可能，有『同因不同果』的情況？」

— Me@2016-03-15 08:43:58 AM

# 注定外傳 2.4

Can it be Otherwise? 2.4 | The Beginning of Time, 7

（問：不會沒完沒了呀。只會追溯到「時間的起點」。）

（問：可能可以。所謂「時間的起點」，其實就即是「宇宙的開端」。）

（問：而物理學家知道，「字宙的開端」是「宇宙大爆炸」。所以我們知道，「時間的起點」，就是「宇宙大爆炸」。）

1. 「宇宙大爆炸」是一件事件，有一個過程，並不是時間上的「一點」，所以不算是「起點」。「宇宙大爆炸這件事的開始那刻」才算是起點。

2. 物理學家根據愛因斯坦的「廣義相對論」推斷，「宇宙開端」那一刻，開始發生的第一件事，是「宇宙大爆炸」。所以，如果「廣義相對論」不正確，「宇宙大爆炸」就未必為真。

3. 即使「廣義相對論」是可信的，普朗克時期（Planck epoch），即是開端後的頭$$10^{−43}$$秒之內，以現時的物理知識，是處理不到的。所以，物理學家推斷不到，那段時間內，發生了什麼事。

— Me@2016-02-15 07:04:56 PM

# 注定外傳 2.3

Can it be Otherwise? 2.3

— Me@2016-01-06 03:17:54 PM