自由決定 2

Posted on June 23, 2015 by rpflee

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 18 日的對話。

甚至，再有一個可能是，它們極端地兼容 — 其中一方直情建基於，另外一方。

前人提出過，如果沒有「注定」（物理等自然定律），人或其他生命體，就根本不可能有「自由意志」。

例如，你想拿起一隻茶杯。因為你有自由意志，所以可以由腦部下指令，訊號由神經線傳達到手部，拿起茶杯。手部正正是因為是「注定」的，即是受制於自然定律，才保證必會執行，腦部的指令。

試想想，如果手部未必根據自然定律來行事，它就不一定會執行，你心中的目標。那樣，你（腦部）反而就沒有自由意志，因為手部的動作根本是隨機的，不一定會把你（例如「拿起茶杯」）的意志，化成現實。

如果所有東西也是注定的，你就沒有自由。如果所有東西也是隨機（不注定）的，你也沒有自由。換句話說，「自由」是既建基於「注定」，亦建基於「不注定」，缺一不可。

所以，「自由」和「注定」的關係是，「自由」建基於「注定」。

它們的關係，有點像「著佐權」（copyleft）和「著作權」（copyright）。

字面上，兩者相反 — 前者是「反版權」，後者是「版權」。實際上，「著佐權」不是「反版權」。「著佐權」建基於「著作權」。正如我在幾個星期之前所講：

「

Copyleft 的確切執行，建基於完善的 copyright 制度。

當一個地區的著作權（copyright）制度，尚未成熟時，著佐權（copyleft）不能有效發展。

」

— Me@2015-06-21

自由決定

Posted on May 30, 2015 by rpflee

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 18 日的對話。

地球表面，視為「一塊土地」的話，就是正正「有限而無邊」的，因為它是一個球體的表面。

我懷疑，「自由」和「注定」，雖然表面上，像「有限」和「無邊」般，貌似有衝突，但是在它們的內心深處，其實互相兼容。

至於怎樣兼容法，我暫時不知道。

具體怎樣運作，並不是那麼容易想像得到。不過至少，「自由」和「注定」兼容，有不少的證據。

甚至，再有一個可能是，它們極端地兼容 — 其中一方直情建基於，另外一方。

前人提出過，如果沒有「注定」（物理等自然定律），人或其他生命體，就根本不可能有「自由意志」。

如果所有東西也是注定的，你就沒有自由。如果所有東西也是隨機（不注定）的，你也沒有自由。

— Me@2015.05.30

機遇再生論 1.4

Posted on April 15, 2015 by rpflee

「

『機遇再生論』的大概意思是，所有可能發生的事情，例如重生，只要等足夠長的時間，總會發生。

」

但是，即使避開了「無限」，用了「足夠長」，仍然會有其他問題。「足夠長」這個詞語雖然不算違法，但是十分空泛，空泛到近乎沒有意義。

試想想，怎樣才為之「足夠長」呢？

以前在本網誌中提及過，凡是科學句子，都一定要有「可否證性」。因為凡是科學句子，都對世界有所描述，所以必為「經驗句」，不是「重言句」。凡是「經驗句」，必定有機會錯。換而言之，無論正確的機會率有多高，都不會是百分百。

因此，要測試某一句說話，是不是「科學句子」，你可以檢查一下，它有沒有「可否證性」。「可否證性」的意思是，如果一句「科學句子」有意義，你就可以講得出，至少在原則上，它在什麼情況下，為之錯。

例如，

「

甲在過身之後，一千億年內會重生。

」

是句「科學句」（經驗句），因為你知道在什麼情境下，可以否證到它 —— 如果你在甲過身後，等了一千億年，甲還未重生的話，那句就為之錯。

但是，

「

甲在過身之後，只要等足夠長的時間，必會重生。

」

則沒有任何科學意義。

— Me@2015.04.08

機遇再生論 1.3

Posted on April 9, 2015 by rpflee

「

『機遇再生論』的大概意思是，所有可能發生的事情，例如重生，在無限長的未來時間中，必會發生。

」

機遇再生論原始版本，有問題的字眼中，除了「所有」之外，還有「無限」。「無限」通常都是一個違法詞語。「無限」引起的問題，以前論述過，現不再詳談。請參閱「無限」系列的文章。

你可以嘗試移除「無限」這個詞語，只把「無限」的意思中，有意義的部分保留：

「

『機遇再生論』的大概意思是，所有可能發生的事情，例如重生，只要等足夠長的時間，總會發生。

」

但是，即使避開了「無限」，用了「足夠長」，仍然會有其他問題。「足夠長」這個詞語雖然不算違法，但是十分空泛，空泛到近乎沒有意義。

試想想，怎樣才為之「足夠長」呢？

— Me@2015.04.08

機遇再生論 1.2.2

Posted on March 28, 2015 by rpflee

「所有」，就是「場所之有」。

沒有明確的場所，就不知所「有」何物。

「機會再生論」原始版本的邏輯矛盾來源，在於「所有」。論述中，運用「所有」這個詞語時，並沒有講清楚情境，導致它不自覺地，包括了元層次的事物。「機會再生論」原始版本的邏輯矛盾，來自「本層次」和「元層次」（meta level）的矛盾。

「

『機遇再生論』的大概意思是，所有可能發生的事情，例如重生，只要等足夠長的時間，總會發生。

假設『事件甲』不自相矛盾，它發生的機會就不是零；那樣，根據『機遇再生論』，甲終會發生。

但是，除非甲是必然事件，否則，『事件甲不會發生』都不會自相矛盾，它發生的機會都不是零；那樣，根據『機遇再生論』，『事件甲不會發生』終會發生。

機會再生論，會引起邏輯矛盾。

」

留意，「事件甲」是「本層次」的事件。但是，「事件甲不會發生」卻是「元層次」的事件，即是「元事件」。所以，如果把「機會再生論」的原始版本，修正為嚴謹版本，講清楚當中的「所有」，限於「本層件」的事件，原始版中的邏輯矛盾，就可以避免。

留意，暫時的成果，只是透過分清楚語言層次，避開了邏輯矛盾。至於「機遇再生論嚴謹版」正不正確，符不符合實情，則是另一回事，另一個話題。

— Me@2015-03-21 10:07:51 PM

機遇再生論 1.2.1

Posted on March 21, 2015 by rpflee

而這個「機會再生論」原始版本的邏輯矛盾來源，在於「所有」。

論述中，運用「所有」這個詞語時，並沒有講清楚情境，導致它不自覺地，包括了元層次的事物。「機會再生論」原始版本的邏輯矛盾，來自「本層次」和「元層次」（meta level）的矛盾。

「所有」即是「全部」，意思是「百分之一百」。但是，如果沒有明確的上文下理，講清楚是什麼的百分之一百，「百分之一百」就沒有明確的意思，不太知道所指何物。

相反，如果有明確的上文下理，就自然有明確的意思。例如，「三十元中的百分之一百」，就很明顯是指，那三十元。

又例如，「這間屋的所有人」，都有明確的意思，因為有明確的範圍；有範圍，就可點人數：

凡是在這間屋內遇到的人，包括你自己，你都記下名字，直到在這間屋，再不找到新的人為止。那樣，你就可以得到，有齊「這間屋所有人」的名單。

「所有」，就是「場所之有」。

沒有明確的場所，就不知所「有」何物。

— Me@2015-03-21 10:07:51 PM

機遇再生論

Posted on March 9, 2015 by rpflee

「機遇再生論」的大概意思是，所有可能發生的事情，例如重生，只要等足夠長的時間，總會發生。

假設「事件甲」不自相矛盾，它發生的機會就不是零；那樣，根據「機遇再生論」，甲終會發生。

但是，除非甲是必然事件，否則，「事件甲不會發生」都不會自相矛盾，它發生的機會都不是零；那樣，根據「機遇再生論」，「事件甲不會發生」終會發生。

機會再生論，會引起邏輯矛盾。

— Me@2015-03-02 05:10:07 PM

2015.03.09 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

For all, 8

Posted on August 4, 2014 by rpflee

all = 100%

Without a context, the word “all” is meaningless.

Without specifying 100% of what, the phrase “100%” is meaningless.

— Me@2014-07-26 02:49:06 PM

For all, 7

Posted on July 27, 2014 by rpflee

Whatever you (physically or mentally) encircle, it is part of the universe, not the universe.

If you claim that what you have encircled is the whole universe, I will ask,

“How can you know?”

If you define the word “universe” as “everything“, how can you know that there are no other parts unknown to you?

— Me@2014-07-27 02:50:20 PM

For all, 1.3

Posted on February 27, 2014 by rpflee

Universe 2.3

“All” is “所有” in Chinese. Literally,

所 = location

all = 所有 = the place has

Without referring to a particular place, the word “all” is meaningless.

— Me@2014.02.23 09.04.23 AM

Universe 7

Posted on February 26, 2014 by rpflee

The universe as a whole is an un-observable for two reasons, one physical and one logical.

The physical reason is that the speed of light, while being the maximum possible signal transmission speed, is finite. However, the expansion of the universe, in a sense, is faster than the speed of light. So the light rays emitted by some objects can never reach your eyes, no matter how long you wait. You cannot observe everything at once at any particular moment of time.

The logical reason is that, for any observer, at least one thing in this universe it cannot observe: itself. You can never see yourself directly, just as a camera can never take a picture of itself directly.

— Me@2012-10-18 12:47:32 PM

— Me@2014-02-25 01:57:06 PM

Universe | I

Posted on February 10, 2014 by rpflee

Onion self 9 | 洋蔥自我 9 | Inner and outer, 7

Universe is not something you can observe directly, but a logical implication.

Whatever you can observe, it is only part of the universe, not the universe itself.

“I” is also a logical implication or logical limit.

Whatever you can observe, belongs to your “I”, but is not your “I”.

For example, you can see your right hand.

It is part of you.

It is yours, but it is not you.

— Me@2012.10.18

— Me@2014.02.09

Universal set

Posted on November 27, 2013 by rpflee

For all, 4

The problem of the definition of “the universal set” is its mixing-level nature, creating paradoxes.

— Me@2012.10.15

Also, “all” is meaningless without a context.

— Me@2013.11.27

For all, 3.2

Posted on September 11, 2013 by rpflee

Omnipotence 2

Another problem of the concept “omnipotence” (all power) is that “all” must have a domain. Without a context, “all” is meaningless.

“All” does not mean “infinite”. Instead:

all

~ exhausted

~ nothing missing

— Me@2013-09-07 8:54 PM

Without a proper definition of “all”, mixing language levels is inevitable. Mixing levels could create self-reference, in turn could create logical contradictions.

A logical contradiction due to mixing different language levels is called a “paradox”.

A classic example is:

If X is omnipotent, X can create a stone that it cannot lift. Then X is not omnipotent, because there is a stone it cannot lift.

So omnipotence is a self-contradictory concept.

— Me@2020-04-06 09:58:46 PM

For all, 3

Posted on August 25, 2013 by rpflee

Omnipotence

The problem of the concept “omnipotence” is that it mixes different language levels, leading to contradictions and paradoxes.

(Me@2020-03-30 07:48:43 AM: Contradiction due to mixing different language levels is called “paradox”.)

A logically possible version of “omnipotence” is:

X has the power to do anything, except the things that require X to manipulate his own power.

— Me@2012.08.19

T-symmetry 10

Posted on August 18, 2013 by rpflee

Uncertainty principle, 5.2 | Universal wave function, 12.2 | Reductionism 5

The uncertainty principle states the limit of reductionism. Science is based on reductionism, which assumes we can investigate part of the universe. So the uncertainty principle, in effect, states the limit of science.

— Me@2011.11.29

You need to be a meta observer to get all the information of the universe in order to see the macroscopic time symmetry. However, by definition, the universe cannot have any meta.

— Me@2013-08-17 6:52 PM

The arrow of time is due to macroscopic states, aka incomplete pieces of information about the microstates. The microscopic state information keeps losing to the environment.

— Me@2013-08-14 6:58 PM

Always

Posted on February 22, 2013 by rpflee

For all, 2

“Always” means “all the time“, not “an infinite length of time“, for “infinity” is not a number.

— Me@2013-02-21 11:14:53 AM

Phe-nomenon

Posted on January 14, 2013 by rpflee

Universal wave function, 19 | Reductionism 4

Impartial/All is the Noumenon, which is logically impossible for any single observer to observe directly, unless the observer is the whole of the universe. But “self-observation” is meaningless.

— Me@2012.04.07

Because “state” is expressed in RQM as the correlation between two systems, there can be no meaning to “self-measurement”.

— Wikipedia on Relational quantum mechanics

The Noumenon is a logical implication. It cannot be observed directly. It can be observed partially only, through senses, or phenomena. An observation is an interaction between the observer and the observed.

To really “observe” the Noumenon, all we can do is to observe as many phenomena as possible. In other words, we consider as many observer-observed pairs as possible.

— Me@2013.01.14

This is because this state would have to be ascribed to a correlation between the universe and some other physical observer, but this observer in turn would have to form part of the universe, and as was discussed above, it is impossible for an object to give a complete specification of itself. Following the idea of relational networks above, an RQM-oriented cosmology would have to account for the universe as a set of partial systems providing descriptions of one another. The exact nature of such a construction remains an open question.

— Wikipedia on Relational quantum mechanics

nomenon = all

phe- = part

noumenon = all aspects of the universe

phenomenon = part of the reality of the universe

— Me@2012.04.07

For all, 1.2

Posted on December 25, 2012 by rpflee

Universe 2.2

Defining the word “universe” as “all the things” does not totally make sense, since the meaning of “all” is relative to a place. Without a context such as “all things in this house“, the word “all” is meaningless. To be meaningful, you have to specify what the word “all” is with respect to.

Instead of “all the things“, we can define “universe” as

universe = all the things observable by an observer, directly or indirectly, in practice or in principle, plus the observer itself

— Me@2012.10.16

— Me@2012.12.24

Universe 3

Posted on December 23, 2012 by rpflee

— Draft only. These few lines are not 100% correct. —

In other words, whatever list you have constructed, it contains only part of the universe, not all of the universe. The universe, as infinitesimal and infinity, is not a thing, but a process (of keeping collecting things). The universe is a logical implication, or a logical limit.

— Draft only. These few lines are not 100% correct. —

— Me@2012-12-20

Physics Town

continues

Category Archives: For all | 所有