# 原因非理由

— Me@2016-03-31 08:35:43 PM

.

.

# Euler problem 12.2

primes :: [Integer]
primes = 2 : filter (null . tail . primeFactors) [3, 5 ..]

primeFactors :: Integer -> [Integer]
primeFactors n = factor n primes
where
factor n (p : ps)
| p * p > n = [n]
| n mod p == 0 = p : factor (n div p) (p : ps)
| otherwise = factor n ps

groupFactors :: [Integer] -> [[Integer]]
groupFactors = gf []
where
gf acc lst
| null lst = reverse acc
| null acc = gf [[p,1]] ps
--
--
| otherwise = gf ([p,1]:acc) ps
where
ps = tail lst

nDiv :: Integer -> Integer
nDiv n = product (map ((1+) . head . tail)
(groupFactors (primeFactors n)))

fm :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer
fm m n
| triDiv n > m = n*(n+1) div 2
| otherwise = fm m (n+1)
where
triDiv n
| even n = nDiv (n div 2)*nDiv (n+1)
| otherwise = nDiv n*nDiv ((n+1) div 2)


λ> :set +s
λ> fm 500 1
76576500
(0.20 secs, 199,313,728 bytes)
λ> 

— Me@2023-05-04 09:51:19 AM

.

.

# For all, 10

No observer can observe and get all the information of the current state of the whole universe.

Since the definition of the “universe” is “everything”, any observer must be part of the universe. Also, in the universe, any observer has at least one thing it cannot observe directly—itself.

Therefore, no observer can observe the whole universe in all details.

— Me@2022.09.30 07:57:46 PM

.

Can a part of a painting represent all the information of the whole?

No.

(Kn: Yes, if excluding itself.)

That is exactly my point.

.

“Yes only if that part does not contain that part itself” is equivalent to “no”.

— Me@2016-08-20 03:30:26 PM

.

.

# Bee

Even if the Bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly would not understand.

.

.

2022.07.29 Friday ACHK

.

physical definition

~ define the microscopic events in terms of observable physical phenomena such as the change of readings of the measuring device

~ define unobservable events in terms of observable events

— Me@2022-01-31 08:33:01 AM

.

superposition

~ lack of the existence of measuring device to provide the physical definitions for the (difference between) microscopic events

— Me@2022-01-31 08:33:01 AM

— Me@2022-02-12 10:22:09 AM

.

In the EPR experiment, how come the two always correlate if there are no definite states before the measurements?

When you actually know the results of your experiment, it does affect your expectations of the faraway results if there are correlations – and correlations are almost always there iff the two subsystems have interacted or been in contact in the past). — Lubos Motl

Microscopically, there is no time, in the sense that all the (past and future) quantum states have one-one correspondences. All results are deterministic. No causality violation required nor allowed. — Me@2016-10-14 07:55:48 PM

This is called quantum determinism, which may or may not be correct. But quantum determinism, even if true, is not necessary for explaining the EPR experiment, if we understand that:

1. Superposition is mathematical, not physical.

2. “Wave function collapse” is mathematical, not physical. It just means that we have to replace the wave function with another if we replace the system with another.

The system before and after the detectors activated should be regarded as two distinct systems. In other words, when you activate the detectors, you have actually replaced a system-without-detectors with a system-with-detectors.

“Wave function collapse” replaces the pure state wave function with a mixed state wave function. In other words, it replaces the pure state of superposition with a mixed state of eigenstates. In other other words, it replaces quantum probability with classical probability.

Before opening the box, the cat is not in a superposition state. Instead, it is in a mixed state.

The uncertainty is classical probability, which is due to lack of detailed knowledge, not quantum probability, which is due to lack of definition (in terms of physical phenomena difference).

— Me@2022-01-29 10:38:19 PM

— Me@2022-02-12 10:28:57 AM

.

.

# To realize is to realize, 1.2.2

So in theory, there is no free will, because the future is already fixed, by the physical laws.

.

However, even if we knew the exact physical laws, it would be still logically impossible to get all the data of the present state of the whole universe, because it is logically impossible for any observer to observe itself, with 100% details, directly. For example, no camera can take a picture of itself directly.

So “in practice”, which is actually also “in principle”, there is free will, because logically, no one can predict, with 100% accuracy, your future actions.

.

In one logical sense, the future is already fixed, so there is no free will. In another logical sense, the future is fixed, but no observer can know that “fixed future” with 100% accuracy, so there is free will.

As a result, whether you label your actions are due to “free-will” or “not-free-will” has no real consequence. In other words, whether there is free will or not has no meaningful difference.

The difference that makes no difference makes no difference.

So you can actually transcend the free will problem altogether. You can just ignore it and live your life.

Or, you can somehow capitalize on this freedom of labelling your (future) life as either fixed or free, depending which label is more beneficial for you in a particular situation.

For example, when you are highly under pressure, you know that everything is fixed by the physical laws, from god’s point of view. When you are highly above pressure, you know that you are partially responsible for creating your own reality, because the future is not fixed for any one observer, for there is no “god’s point of view”.

You have the flexibility to label it in one way or another.

— Me@2021-05-07 10:27:04 PM

.

.

# To realize is to realize, 1.2

For example, when you ask “how to be a polite person”, you become a polite person.

In other words, when you realize that you should be a polite person, that polite person is realized at that moment.

.

The ultimate self-fulfilling prophecies:

1. free will or not

2. god or no god

3. afterlife or not

4. future spouse exists or not

.

Why self-fulfilling?

1. free will or not

If we knew the exact physical laws and all the data of the present state of the universe, we would be able to predict, with 100% accuracy, the state of the universe at any future moment.

.

In theory, the exact physical laws exist, whether we know them or not. Also, in theory, all the details of the present state of the universe exist, whether we know them or not.

So in theory, there is no free will, because the future is already fixed, by the physical laws.

.

However, even if we knew the exact physical laws, it would be still logically impossible to get all the data of the present state of the whole universe, because it is logically impossible for any observer to observe itself directly. For example, no camera can take a picture of itself directly.

So “in practice”, which is actually “in theory”, there is free will, because logically, no one can predict, with 100% accuracy, your future actions.

— Me@2021-04-16 04:45:47 PM

.

.

# 機遇創生論, 2.1

.

.

「緣份攻略」都不行，因為感覺有點怪。

（安：那就不如叫做「緣份理論」。）

「理論」很空泛。不應把「理論」，視為名字的一部分。

（安：不如叫做「超級種子理論」，或者「廣義種子理論」？）

（安：無錯，那相當「拗口」。)

（安：我剛才都是想到「大種子論」。）

（安：但「種子大論」比較奇怪。）

— Me@2021-01-13 04:52:02 PM

.

.

# 機遇創生論 1.7.2

.

.

「自由意志」問題方面，如果要討論的話，要先釐清「人有沒有自由意志」的意思，因為，它有超過一個常用的詮釋：

.

1. 思：

2. 因：

3. 果：

.

1. 思：

2. 因：

.

.

「自由論」和「決定論」，其實沒有實質上的分別。

— Me@2020-12-29 05:46:05 PM

.

.

# 機遇創生論 1.7

.

.

（問：「種子論」，其實就即是「自由決定論」？）

「種子論」重於討論，人生如何逹到成功。（留意，這裡的「成功」，是在你自己定義下的成功，而不是在世俗標準下。）

「自由決定論」則重於研究，宇宙既然依物理定律運行，那就代表，人的一舉一動，甚至思想意志，在宇宙創生那刻，就已經決定了？

（問：「自由決定論」即是問，世間上，有沒有「自由意志」？）

「自由決定論」的重點跟人（或者其他意識體）沒有直接的關係。

「自由決定論」的重點在於研究，「Laplace 因果律」是否正確。

「Laplace 因果律」就是：

「如果『因果律』是正確，人就沒有自由」只是「因果律」的一個例子。而這個例子因為直接和人相關，所以，人們特別重視。但是，即使那樣，那仍不是「因果律」的重點。

.

（另一話題：）

「自由意志」問題方面，如果要討論的話，要先釐清「人有沒有自由意志」的意思，因為，它有超過一個常用的詮釋：

.

1. 思：

2. 因：

3. 果：

— Me@2020-12-11 06:43:58 PM

.

.

# 機遇創生論 1.4

.

1. 不懂道理

2. 懂道理但缺乏足夠情報

「反白論」的意思是，現時的地球人間，極多的情況下，名義與實情都是相反的。

As a rule of thumb, the more qualifiers there are before the name of a country, the more corrupt the rulers. A country called The Socialist People’s Democratic Republic of X is probably the last place in the world you’d want to live.

–- Paul Graham

「反白論」的應用在於，掌握以後，大大減少了，你被世人欺騙得到的比例。

— Me@2020-03-19 09:34:39 PM

.

.

# 機遇創生論 1.3

.

.

.

While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of those actions. Consequences are governed by natural law.

— The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

— Stephen R. Covey

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

the courage to change the things I can change,

and the wisdom to distinguish the two.

「經驗」的近義詞，是「錯誤」。它們不同義的地方，在於「經驗」可以累積，「錯誤」不一定可以累積。

「種子論」的重點，並不是給予你，一條必勝的方程式。

「種子論」的重點是，令你知道，無論如何，你也會遇到無數次的失敗；那是正常不過的事。「種子論」的重點是，令你不再害怕失敗，從而，你會勇於嘗試，敢於超大量地犯錯。

「種子論」的重點是，重複犯同一個錯誤本身，並不能提高成功的機會率。

「種子論」所要求的「不斷犯錯」是，每次也是「新的錯誤」。「新錯誤」的意思，並不只是相對於你來說是「新」，而是相對全人類來說，都是「新」。

— Me@2020-02-24 10:52:08 PM

.

.

# Unitarity, 2

Just as in the definition of a function in mathematics, two x values can map to the same y value, but one x value cannot map to two y values; the future is unique in classical physics.

In quantum mechanics, the uniqueness is not of the measurement results, but of the set of probabilities of the results.

— Me@2018-02-03 11:29:18 AM

.

With respected to a known state, the future is unique in classical physics.

In quantum mechanics, the set of probabilities is encoded in the wave function.

— Me@2020-02-21 06:25:52 PM

.

.

# 機遇創生論 1.2

.

.

「緣份攻略」都不行，因為感覺有點怪。

（安：那就不如叫做「緣份理論」。）

「理論」很空泛。不應把「理論」，視為名字的一部分。

.

.

— Me@2020-02-15 07:17:00 AM

.

.

# 機遇創生論

.

（安：除了創作那個大理論的名字外，還有什麼話題？）

.

.

（安：不行。我都想過這個名字。但它非常誤導。「合體機械人」只是比喻。整個理論和機械人無關。）

「副作用機械人」？

（安：不如直接用你的名字，命名那個理論。）

「種子論」是起點，「果實論」是終點。然後，每個果實內，其實又有很多新種子。

.

「緣份管理學」？

（安：我覺得「管理學」好像令個理論降級了一點，因為一般而言，「管理學」並不是，太高深的學問。）

「緣份機械人」？

（安：叫做「人生攻略理論」？）

.

「緣份攻略」都不行，因為感覺有點怪。

（安：那就不如叫做「緣份理論」。）

「理論」很空泛。不應把「理論」，視為名字的一部分。

— Me@2020-01-29 12:23:38 AM

.

.

# Free will, 6

The factors are so many and so complex that no single observer can ever predict my actions with 100% accuracy, even in principle.

$\displaystyle{\equiv}$

I have free will.

— Me@2018-05-06 12:21:36 AM

.

.

# Laplace’s Determinism

If everything is determined (by its causes), there is no free will.

If everything is random (aka not determined), there is also no free will.

If there is free will, it is neither cases.

— Me@2011.08.20

— Me@2018-02-27

.

.

# Determined by what?

If you say “an event is determined”, in order to be meaningful, you have to specify, explicitly or by context, that the event is determined by whom.

Similarly, if you say something is free, you have to specify “free from what” or “free with respect to what”.

free ~ independent of

Without a grammatical object, the phrase “independent of” is meaningless, unless the context has implied what that grammatical object is.

— Me@2015-05-23

free [without an object] ~ free from everything

is meaningless, because the word “everything” is meaningful only if it has a context.

— Me@2017-07-20

# 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