Deus ex machina 3C
「時間旅行」、「蟲洞」、「平行宇宙」、「奇蹟」等情節,都是「天外救星」。它們的出現往往代表,該故事有著,不可修補的漏洞。
故事凡是時間錯亂,就宣稱是「時間旅行」。
故事凡是地點有誤,就宣稱是「瞬間轉移」。
故事凡是自相矛盾,就宣稱是「平行宇宙」。
故事凡是有違常理,就宣稱有「奇蹟」。
— Me@2014-07-11 04:59:55 PM
2014.07.13 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Deus ex machina 3C
「時間旅行」、「蟲洞」、「平行宇宙」、「奇蹟」等情節,都是「天外救星」。它們的出現往往代表,該故事有著,不可修補的漏洞。
故事凡是時間錯亂,就宣稱是「時間旅行」。
故事凡是地點有誤,就宣稱是「瞬間轉移」。
故事凡是自相矛盾,就宣稱是「平行宇宙」。
故事凡是有違常理,就宣稱有「奇蹟」。
— Me@2014-07-11 04:59:55 PM
2014.07.13 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
天外救星 3
Time travels, wormholes, parallel universes, miracles are all deus ex machina.
When a story’s author uses those deus ex machina, it means that the story broken, in the sense that the story has plot holes that the author cannot fix.
With time travel, the story’s time logic is given up. With wormholes, the story’s space logic is given up. With parallel universes, the story’s internal consistency is given up. With miracles, the story’s scientific consistency is given up.
— Me@2014-07-12 01:15:25 PM
2014.07.13 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
天外救星 2
Towards the end of the 19th century, Friedrich Nietzsche criticized Euripides for making tragedy an optimistic genre via use of the device, and was highly skeptical of the “Greek cheerfulness”, prompting what he viewed as the plays’ “blissful delight in life”.
Nietzsche argues that the deus ex machina creates a false sense of consolation that ought not to be sought in phenomena.
— Wikipedia on Deus ex machina
2014.07.12 Saturday ACHK
天外救星
Deus ex machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object. Depending on how it is done, it can be intended to move the story forward when the writer has “painted himself into a corner” and sees no other way out, to surprise the audience, to bring the tale to a happy ending, or as a comedic device.
Origin of the expression
The Latin phrase deus ex machina, from deus, meaning “a god”, ex, meaning “from”, and machina, meaning “a device, a scaffolding, an artifice”, is a calque from Greek ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός (apò mēkhanḗs theós), meaning “god from the machine”. Such a device was referred to by Horace in his Ars Poetica (lines 191–2), where he instructs poets that they should never resort to a “god from the machine” to resolve their plots “unless a difficulty worthy a god’s unraveling should happen”. He was referring to the conventions of Greek tragedy, where a machine is used to bring actors playing gods onto the stage. The machine could be either a crane (mechane) used to lower actors from above or a riser that brought actors up through a trapdoor.
Ancient usage
Aristotle criticized the device in his Poetics, where he argued that the resolution of a plot must arise internally, following from previous action of the play …
In modern literature
A deus ex machina is generally deemed undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of creativity on the part of the author. The reasons for this are that it does not pay due regard to the story’s internal logic (although it is sometimes deliberately used to do this) and is often so unlikely that it challenges suspension of disbelief, allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, though perhaps more palatable, ending. Following Aristotle, Renaissance critics continued to view the deus ex machina as an inept plot device, …
— Wikipedia on Deus ex machina
2014.07.11 Friday ACHK
「天外救星」是意料外的、突然的、牽強的解圍角色、手段或事件,在虛構作品內,突然引入來為緊張情節或場面解圍。近似詞有「天降神兵」和「如有神助」等。
Deus ex machina
拉丁語片語Deus ex machina(英譯:God from the machine)翻譯自希臘語,意思是「機關跑出的神」,中文一般翻譯為「舞台機關送神」、「機械降神」、「機器神」、「解圍之神」等。
在古希臘戲劇,當劇情陷入膠着,困境難以解決時,突然出現擁有強大力量的神,將難題解決,令故事得以收拾。方法是利用起重機,或起升機的機關,將扮演神的演員,下降至舞台上。這種表演手法是人為的,製造出意料之外的劇情大逆轉。
現代批評
這種手法通常被評論家認為是,不高明的說書技巧,因為它破壞了故事的內在邏輯,縱使有時候會為了這個理由,而故意採用。繼亞里士多德之後,文藝復興時期評論家將其視為,一種迂拙的情節計策…
— 改編自維基百科
2014.07.10 Thursday ACHK
Infinitesimal 4, Whole-part conflict 2
Actual infinity is logically impossible, for it makes the whole-part relationship break down.
— Me@2012-10-27
2014.05.27 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
paradox ~ mixing levels
Mixing levels is a problem of whole-part conflict.
“x = 1 – x” has no conflicts but “x = x – 1” does, because “x = x – 1” means “the whole is equal to a part“, which is logically impossible, according the definitions of the words “whole” and “part”.
— Me@2012.10.26
2014.05.04 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
The existence of X is not a property of X itself. Instead, the existence of X is a property of the bigger system that consists of X.
For example, the existence of a hole is a property of the whole, not of the hole itself. You cannot define a hole without the whole. Without the whole, the hole cannot exist at all.
hole ~ whole
— Me@2012.10.26
2014.04.30 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Your existence is not your property, because you do not belong to yourself.
Instead, you belong to something bigger, such as your family.
— Me@2012.10.19
2014.03.17 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
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
2014.02.26 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
There is a book called “What is the Name of This Book?”
That name creates no paradoxes, because the name is pointing to the meta-level, but without pointing back to the original level. Since there is no mixing level problem, there is no meta-dox (paradox).
–Me@2013-12-28 02:50:31 AM
2014.01.21 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
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
.
.
2013.11.27 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
In general usage, “sense” and “feel” have the same meaning. However, in special usage, they do not. For example, “I sense pain” is a little bit different from “I feel pain“.
I feel pain
~ I sense that my body is hurt
~ My mind has got the data “my body is hurt”
I sense pain
~ I sense that I feel pain
~ I sense that I sense that my body is hurt
~ My mind has got the data “I feel pain”
sensing ~ getting data of the outside world
feeling ~ a state of the mind
— Me@2013-11-16 3:43 PM
2013.11.18 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 24 日的對話。
「權力」是一個「自我實現預言」(self-fulfilling prophecy)。
「權力」結構的其中一個性質是:
我猜想你在想什麼;你猜想我以為你在想什麼;然後,我又猜想你以為我以為你在想什麼;如此類推。
所以,「權力」在大家一同覺得「有」時,就立刻「有」;在大家一同覺得「無」時,就立刻「無」。
— Me@2013.11.17
2013.11.17 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 24 日的對話。
那十個士兵中的任何一個,都以為另外的九位同事,會聽命於那位將軍。「如果我不服從將軍,他會命令另外九人拘捕我。任我的武功再好,也敵不過九個人。」而另外的九位同事,亦都會聽命於那位將軍的原因,正正是因為有同樣的想法。
這個人性社會結構,學名為「勢」,是「權力」的來源,可以十分堅固,因為人數越多,要摧毀這個「勢」就越困難,除非發生了一些特殊的情況。
那樣,怎樣才可以令那個「勢」消失呢?
就是要那十個士兵中的全部,或者大部分人,同時不服從那個將軍。但是,這個目標很難化成,實際的執行步驟,因為,「十人同時不服從將軍」有兩個先決條件:
第一,十人都不想服從;
第二,十人中的每一個,都知道其餘九人,都不想服從。
試想想,如果你是其中一位士兵,你可以怎樣做,去確定其餘九人,是否都是不想服從將軍呢?
唯一的方法,就是逐一問他們。但是,你要冒很大風險,因為,只要有其中一人仍然忠於將軍,他就會告發你,導致你被將軍下令拘捕。即使餘下的八人,心裡其實都是不想忠於將軍,也不會幫到你,因為,他們中的每一個,也尚未知道,原來十人之中,已經有九人想造反。
除非,發生了一些特殊的情況,導致那十位士兵的每一個,也立刻知道,原來大部分人也不想服從將軍。例如,將軍突然宣佈:「你們這一年的薪金,全歸我所有。」那樣,即使沒有任何形式的溝通,每一個士兵也會立刻知道,其餘九人中的每一個,都不可能想服從將軍。那樣,那將軍即時由「強勢」變成「弱勢」。
在那個極端不穩定的權力結構下,只差一聲號令,「弱勢」就會變成「無勢」,甚至是「負勢」。只要有其中一位士兵,有少許的膽量,大叫:「拘捕他!」將軍就立刻被那十人制伏。
那就是「兵變」,又名「革命」。
— Me@2013.11.13
2013.11.13 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
information ~ state of other objects
X stores some information about Y
~ part of X has the pattern representing the state of Y
~ part of the state of X is the same as the whole state of Y or part of the state of Y
— Me@2013-11-09 9:29 AM
2013.11.11 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 24 日的對話。
假設一位將軍有十位士兵手下。但是,每一位手下的武功都優勝過他。那樣,那位將軍為什麼仍然會有「軍權」,控制到那十個士兵?
「權力」是一個「自我實現預言」(self-fulfilling prophecy)。大家一同覺得「有」,就立刻「有」;大家一同覺得「無」,就立刻「無」。建立權力和摧毀權力的難度在於,要「大家一同」。
那十個士兵中的任何一個,都以為另外的九位同事,會聽命於那位將軍。「如果我不服從將軍,他會命令另外九人拘捕我。任我的武功再好,也敵不過九個人。」而另外的九位同事,亦都會聽命於那位將軍的原因,正正是因為有同樣的想法。
這個人性社會結構,學名為「勢」,是「權力」的來源,可以十分堅固,因為人數越多,要摧毀這個「勢」就越困難,除非發生了一些特殊的情況。
— Me@2013.11.10
2013.11.10 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Time travel is like a story character taking over the control of the storyline from the story writer.
— Me@2012-10-12 12:39:21 AM
2013.11.09 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
真確與真實 2
“True” or “false” are for translating a first order statement into a second order one, but without changing the meaning.
e.g.
Snow is white
= “Snow is white” is true
— Me@2012.10.05
2013.11.05 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Event Realism 3.2 | 事件實在論 3.2 | Cumulative concept of time, 17.2
being conscious
~ having one’s own past information
~ having memory
~ having self-interaction
~ entanglement between past states and the present state
~ some of the past states keep existing through memories and records
~ past-self-and-present-self entanglement
— Me@2013-11-01 7:02 AM
2013.11.03 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
You must be logged in to post a comment.