The continuum (real number) is an algorithm.
— Me@2025-01-09 11:21:54 PM
.
.
The continuum, formed by real numbers, includes irrational numbers, which are not traditional numbers but algorithms.
— Me@2025-04-16 02:30:23 PM
.
.
2025.04.16 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Lisp as a Y combinator
.
Lisp is the fixed point of the process which says, if I know what Lisp was and substituted it in for eval and apply and so on, on the right-hand sides of all those recursion equations, then if it was a real good Lisp, is a real one then the left-hand side would also be Lisp.
— Gerald Jay Sussman
.
Process: This refers to the act of defining or implementing Lisp. Specifically, it’s about defining Lisp’s core functions like eval and apply which are crucial for interpreting and executing Lisp code.
— Me@2024-12-30 10:45:35 AM
.
.
2025.01.10 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
The time arrow is formed not in the observed system itself, but in the observer when he keeps losing information about that observed system.
— Me@2024-09-18 09:41:37 PM
.
.
2024.11.02 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Utopia | 何有之鄉, 2
.
有些人比天使更加美麗.
有些人比魔鬼更加醜惡.
.
在哪裡,
可以找到比天使更美的人?
— Me
.
這個想法是錯誤的。記住：
天使即魔鬼
原因是，任何兩個人，都起碼會因為喜好的不同，而相處不舒服。如果有一個對象，相處時十分理想，竟然沒有任何形式的不舒服，那是因為那個對象，是騙子創造出來的角色。
那個騙子飽讀詩書，有能力亦有意圖，根據和你基本的對話，了解你想要的理想對象，有什麼條件。然後投其所好（投你所好），創造那個虛擬人物出來，和你相處，從而騙取你的金錢或更多。（網上的那個她，往往是一個他，反之亦然。）你說你對物理有興趣，他會立刻長篇大論，相對論加量子力學。你話你對歷史有研究，他就馬上高談闊論，羅馬帝國衰亡史。
謊言是美好，現實是殘酷。
.
大部人的錯誤概念是，愛情主要帶來快樂。實情是：
愛情是吃苦，婚姻是受罪。
正如，上班是吃苦的過程，為的是換取金錢。「理想工作」這概念教壞人。企圖找到「理想工作」，很容易導致，永久不工作。
如果某項工作是快樂的，其他人，主要是僱主本身，一早就自己做了。正正是工作厭惡，僱主不想自己做，他才把其推給你做。而薪金就是補償。
同理，婚姻是受罪的經歷，為的是換取子女。「理想對象」這概念教壞人。企圖找到「理想對象」，很容易導致，永久無對象。（如果是主動選擇單身，則不是問題。但是，幻想有理想對象的人，必然不想單身。）
如果某個對象那麼理想，她就要麼早已名花有主，要麼不需要婚姻；兩種情況，由始至終，根本不需要你。
.
所以，選擇工作職位的原則，並不是找「理想工作」，而是找厭惡得來，仍然可以遷就到的工作。換句話說，排除那些「不可能遷就到」的工作便行。
沒有無刺的玫瑰
但有很多沒有玟瑰的刺— 叔本華
不可能遷就到，而必須辭職的例子有：
一、 薪金低到連正常的，衣食往行也不夠。
…
— Me@2024-08-19 03:25:32 PM
.
.
2009.08.14 Friday
According to Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed. He describes this metaphysical environment as like being on frictionless ice: where the conditions are apparently perfect for a philosophically and logically perfect language, all philosophical problems can be solved without the muddying effects of everyday contexts; but where, precisely because of the lack of friction, language can in fact do no work at all. Wittgenstein argues that philosophers must leave the frictionless ice and return to the “rough ground” of ordinary language in use. Much of the Investigations consists of examples of how the first false steps can be avoided, so that philosophical problems are dissolved, rather than solved: “The clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear.”
— Wikipedia on Ludwig Wittgenstein
.
.
2024.06.12 Wednesday ACHK
注定外外傳 2.3 | Can it be Otherwise? 3.3
.
簡化來說，這次的宏觀狀態和上次相同，不代表微觀狀態和上次一樣。
詳細而言，「同一個微觀狀態」不只是「未有定義」，而是「不可能有，直接的定義」，因為，你試想想，我們怎麼分辨到，不同的「微觀狀態」呢？
只能透過對「宏觀狀態」的「觀察」或「量度」。
換句話說，你只能透過「宏觀狀態」，去定義各個「微觀狀態」。
所以，我們不可能，直接定義「同一個微觀狀態」。
要「同一個狀態」，最多只能定義「同一個宏觀狀態」。但那也只是簡稱，實情是「（其實對應於，多過一個微觀狀態的）同一個宏觀狀態」。
.
所謂的「宏觀狀態」，即是「物理現象」。所謂的「物理現象」，就是從「物理事件」中，可以「觀察」到的感覺，或「量度」到的數據。所謂的「微觀狀態」，即是「物理本體」。所謂的「物理本體」，就是指「物理事件」本身。例如，我看到一個杯子時，透過視覺接收到的杯子影像，就是「杯子現像」。而那些影像的原因來源，即是那個「杯子本身」，就是「杯子本體」。
同一個杯子，可以有不同的現象，例如，我在不用角度看那杯子，就會看在不同的影像。
又例如，即使我看到，一個彩色的杯子時，會接收到一個彩色影像，我的狗在看到那杯子時，只會看到黑白的版本，因為狗是色盲的。（那是簡化的講法，因為狗只是「紅綠色盲」，不是「全色盲」。）
.
「杯子本體」，可以視為「杯子全部」——有關杯子的全部事實。而「杯子現象」，則是「杯子部分」——有關杯子的部分事實。
留意，並沒有所謂的，「我看到杯子本身」和「我看到杯子現象」之分，因為，「我看到杯子」的意思，正正就是指：「我接收到，來自那杯子的影像訊息」。而「色即是空，空即是色」，就是這個意思。
「色」是「顏色影像」，即「現象」也。「空」則是「色」的因——有「顏色影像」之前，就存在的東西，即「本體」也。
正如，電腦「零件」，有分「硬件」和「軟件」。但沒有分「硬件模式」和「軟件模式」，因為，「軟件」正正是，硬件電子的排列模式；「軟件」這個字眼的定義，就是「硬件模式」。這裡，「硬件」對應「本體」，「軟件」對應「現象」。
另一個講法是，「杯子」就是「杯子本身」，而「看到杯子（的感覺）」，就是「杯子現象」。
我只是這個世界，小小的一個角落。這小小的一個角落，卻是我的全部世界。
—
既然，「我看到杯子本身」和「我看到杯子現象」沒有分別，我們為什麼還要分辨釐清，「杯子本身」和「杯子現象」呢？
亦即是話，為什麼「杯子本身」和「杯子現象」，卻會有分別呢？
.
那是為了提醒，還有其他的現象。
例如，剛才提及，同一個杯子，可以有不同的現象——即使我看到一個彩色的杯子時，會接收到一個彩色影像，我的狗在看到那杯子時，只會看到「沒有那麼彩色」的版本，因為，狗是「紅綠色盲」的。
又例如，同一個電腦遊戲，你用不同配備的電腦，會看到不同詳細程度的畫面。
再例如，同一板網頁，你用不同的電腦作業系統，會看到不同的字體。例如，這篇文章，如果你用 Linux 的話，呈現的是階書。但是，其他系統如果沒有該字體，則會顯示其他。
One of the most powerful illusions of the human experience is the illusion that we’re seeing objective reality through our own perceptions. We can only see what we see.
— Christopher Nolan
以下其中三句同義：
1. 小世界，不是大世界。
2. 你的世界，只是你的世界。
3. 你的世界，只是主觀世界，不是客觀世界。
4. 你對客觀世界的感官和認知，只是客觀世界的部分，不是客觀世界的全部。
5. 你的世界，只是世界的現像，不是世界的本體。
其實，五句也同義。
愚蠢的人以為，自己的主觀世界，就是客觀世界；所以，他們不知道，自己的愚蠢。
聰明的人知道，自己的主觀世界，只是客觀世界的，一小部分；所以，他們可以真切感受到，自己的愚蠢。
— Me@2009.09.17
— Me@2023-11-13 12:56:32 PM
— Me@2023-11-24 11:12:39 AM
.
.
2023.11.25 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Eternal return, 3 | Can it be Otherwise? 3
.
Eternal recurrence is not a useful concept.
If two periods of time are identical in all details, they are actually the same period, not two periods. If two periods of time are not identical in all details, the second period is not an “eternal return” of the first period.
— Me@2013-06-04 01:30:16 AM
.
「自由命定問題」的意思是問：
同一個輸入，會否只有唯一的輸出？
簡化地問：
同因是否必同果？
詳細地問：
如果第二次實驗的，所有初始設定，和第一次的完全相同的話，第二次實驗的結果，會不會和第一次的，完全相同呢？
— Me@2023-09-14 12:43:41 AM
.
.
2023.10.07 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Paradox feeling arises when you try to substitute the representation of the whole sentence by that whole sentence in order to get its meaning, which does not exist. For example, in the sentence “this sentence is wrong“, if you try to substitute “this sentence” by “this sentence is wrong“, you will get
”
“
“
“
… is wrong
” is wrong
” is wrong
” is wrong
“, which is infinitely long.
.
The sentence “this sentence is wrong” can exist because “this sentence” is just a representation of “this sentence is wrong“, not really the whole sentence itself.
— Me@2015-09-20 09:22:21 AM
.
.
2023.09.14 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Adaptation
.
No movie can contain all the movies. At least, it cannot contain itself.
— Me@2015-10-10 07:37:26 AM
.
.
2023.08.16 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Adaptation
.
No movie can record its whole “the making of”.
Even two mutual movies [that record each other’s “the making of”] cannot work around this.
— Me@2015-10-19 06:13:58 PM
.
.
2023.07.31 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Universal set, 2 | For all, 4.2 | Alfred Tarski, 1.3
.
The universal set is the set that contains everything, including itself.
Since it contains everything, it should be the biggest set. However, according to the power set theorem, for any set A, its power set P(A) has more elements. So the power set of the universal set should have more elements than the universal set. This is the paradox of universal set.
The cause of the paradox is the mixing of language levels. That is exactly what the word “paradox” means. A logical error (dox) due the mixing of the language and its meta-language (para-language).
The cause of the language level mixing is the meaninglessness of the word “everything”. “Everything” (or “all”) is meaningful only if within a context, such as:
All the people in this house.
When you use “everything” without a context, it will include itself, thus the mixing of language levels.
— Me@2015-12-27 02:12:12 PM
— Me@2023-07-11 10:57:17 AM
.
.
2023.07.12 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Causal diamonds in time travel, 3
.
Time travel in the absolute sense is logically impossible.
If time travel was logically possible, it still could be logically consistent from the time traveller’s point of view, as long as he cannot see from the perspective of the meta time.
— Me@2016-06-01 07:10:51 AM
— Me@2023-02-23 12:13:20 PM
.
.
2023.02.23 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Time travel in the absolute sense is logically impossible.
If time travel was logically possible, no observer would see any paradox if there is no meta-observer, who can compare results seen by different observers.
— Me@2016-06-12 12:12:40 PM
— Me@2023-02-13 12:53:31 AM
.
.
2023.02.13 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
But if 
—
.
This is nonsense because:
1. That means it includes also false information.
2. Who can access those pieces of information?
If an observer needs to work to filter true or useful information from “all the information” inside
3. Assume that in a lottery, you have to choose the correct 6 numbers among 49 to win. If you say “number 1 to 49 contains all the 6 numbers that would win” but do not specify which 6, it is useless.
all information ~ no information
— Me@2023.01.28 11:12:46 PM
.
The ONLY information that
— Me@2023.01.29 10:26:54 AM
.
.
2023.01.29 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Meta numbers 2.1 | Zeno’s paradox 5
.
Infinity is not a number. Instead, it is a meta number.
Numbers are for counting things. Infinity cannot be used for counting things. Infinity is for counting natural numbers. It is a number of numbers.
Numbers represent what there are. But infinity cannot do so. Infinity is only meaningful as a potential one.
Infinity and infinitesimal are processes, not states. Numbers are points on the number line. Infinity is not a point, but an arrow pointing to the right.
An infinite set is a set with an infinite number of elements. An infinite set is defined as a set that contains a subset which is as large as the set itself. In other words, the elements of the subset can have one-one correspondence to those of the origin set. The whole can have one-one mapping to the part because it is not a state of finished mappings, but a process.
Processes are meta states. Processes describe how an object changes its states. Processes describe not the states, but the changes.
— Me@2016-06-13 11:43:36 AM
— Me@2023-01-04 10:36:53 PM
.
.
2023.01.05 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Why is there the universe?
.
The existence of the universe is not a property of the universe itself.
Instead, it is a property of the system that the universe is in.
.
However, there is no bigger system that contains the universe, because by the definition of the word “universe”, the universe contains everything.
So the question “why is there the universe” should be transformed to “why is there something instead of nothing?”
.
For example, the watch exists because the watchmaker has made it.
Similarly, if someone has created the universe, we can say that that someone is the cause of the existence of the universe.
However, there is no “someone” outside the universe, because of the definition of the word “universe”.
The universe has no outside.
— Me@2012-10-15 08:33:01 AM
— Me@2022-11-21 09:41:23 PM
.
.
2022.11.22 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
權力來源 3
.
political power
~ market power
~ the power due to being the default
~ network effect
— Me@2022-11-09 04:02:00 PM
.
.
2022.11.15 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
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
.
.
2022.10.01 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
_jgvg on July 23, 2018 | next [–]
This reminds me of someone who once told me that the vast majority of philosophical problems are self-inflicted and caused by the intentional use of vague and ambiguous definitions, and therefore could be solved trivially simply by agreeing on a definition for something.
One example given was the Theseu’s Paradox (or The Ship of Theseus).
The entire problem only exists because you’re intentionally using a vague term in the problem, therefore causing the problem itself.
At least that was the commentary, I’m not an expert in the subject, and I’m sure many will disagree. But then, even the disagreeing is just pointlessly creating a problem for the sake of the discussion.
zukzuk on July 23, 2018 | parent | next [–]
I think you’re missing something really profound here. I wrote my masters thesis on identity problems in version control systems (Git, Mercurial, Subversion, and the like). These systems are forced to take a stance on the Ship of Theseus problem — they’re tracking the identity of files/documents whose entire contents, name, and format may change over time.
Different systems have chosen to take very different stances on this. As it turns out, taking a stance on what makes a file a file (or a ship a ship) — being explicit rather than vague — does not solve the problem. Not even close. In fact, one of the many little things that make Git a brilliant piece of software is that it refuses to take a stance on identity. Git is intentionally vague about what makes a file a file. It doesn’t actually track it at all — file identity is determined retroactively. It’s a question for which Git intentionally doesn’t have a straight answer.
What I think is really fascinating about all of this is that computers are forcing us to deal with age-old philosophical problems head on. These are not just interesting riddles anymore. They’re real problems that need concrete solutions. Event more interestingly, there is something in this that establishes computing as categorically different from just pure mathematics. Computing forces us to bridge abstraction with the real world — to answer questions like what is the relationship between an abstract model and the thing that is being modelled. This to me is really exciting, and what follows from it can’t be easily dismissed with a comment like “most philosophical problems only exist because language is vague”.
— Was Wittgenstein Right? (2013)
— Hacker News
.
.
2022.09.15 Thursday ACHK
Good intentions 3
這段改編自 2021 年 12 月 15 日的對話。
.
贓官可恨，人人知之，清官尤可恨人多不知，蓋贓官自知有病，不敢公然為非；清官則自以為不要錢，何所不可，剛愎自用，小則殺人，大則誤國，吾人親目所見，不知凡幾矣。
唉！天下大事壞於奸臣手上的十之三四，壞於不通世故的君子手上的倒有十分之六七！
— 老殘遊記
.
（JC: 不記得何時，看過一個紀錄片，主持人到非洲做義工。
他說在那兒，如果有人問你拿食物，千萬不要即場給予，因為那樣的話，求助人身邊的人會，向你一湧而上地求助，令你即時有生命危險。）
.
所以，要成功做到好事，單單善意是不夠的，還要智力和策略。
記住，地獄不乏善意，而天堂，則需要善行。
心地好而沒有智力，比壞人更加危險，因為他可以在雙方不知不覺間，置你於死地。
地獄是善意之地，而天堂，則是善行之境。
— Me@2022.09.13 12:01:08 PM
.
.
2022.09.13 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Physics Town 
You must be logged in to post a comment.