Assume that your existence is a property of X. Then in order to create you or annihilate you, X has to change the corresponding property.
For example, “having beard” is a property of me. In order to destroy that beard, I have to be willing to change my property of “having beard” to “having no beard“.
— Me@2013-06-11 2:30 AM
2013.06.24 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Copy Me, 4
Being conscious is being able to form memories.
forming memories
~ forming an identity
~ forming a causal chain of thoughts
To form memories, one needs to access and then store its own states.
But due to metadox (paradox), no one, or no single part of the brain, can access its own now-here state directly.
That is why different parts of the brain have to communicate and coordinate in order to be conscious.
— Me@2013-05-30 1:47 PM
2013.06.23 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
So, after all, what is the meaning of “a quantum eigenstate”?
One way to resolve the circular definition is to define
a definite state
as
a state whose measurement result can be predicted with 100% certainty provided that the initial condition is given with 100% accuracy
Another way to resolve the circular definition is to realize that
1. a classical state, as a macroscopic definite state, is experimental or observational;
2. a quantum eigenstate, as a microscopic definite state, is conceptual.
A classical state is what we, as macroscopic observers, can see directly.
A quantum eigenstate is what we cannot see. Moreover, it is not absolute. For the same system, there are more than one choice of state vector bases, in the sense that different sets of measurements can get different sets of eigenstates.
The concept of “quantum eigenstates” exists because we insist to express quantum states in terms of daily-life (classical (macroscopic) physics) language.
— Me@2013.06.22
2013.06.22 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
But there is a problem. The definition of “quantum eigenstate” seems to be circular:
an eigenstate = a definite state = a classical state
a quantum eigenstate = a microscopic state corresponding to a macroscopic (classical) state
The phrase “quantum eigenstates” is defined in terms of “classical states”. However, classical states exist only because of the decoherence of quantum states of a lot of particles. The universe is fundamentally quantum, not classical. The classical world exists only as an approximation to the quantum universe.
Also, we cannot define a quantum eigenstate as a collapsed quantum state, because in reality, there is no wave function collapse. Collapse is only an illusion due to quantum decoherence.
So, after all, what is the meaning of “a quantum eigenstate”?
— Me@2013.06.18
2013.06.18 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
A (macroscopic) classical state is due to the decoherence of quantum states of a lot of particles.
A quantum state is a quantum eigenstate or a superposition of quantum eigenstates.
a classical state = a macroscopic definite state
a quantum eigenstate = a microscopic definite state
a definite state = a state whose measurement result can be predicted with 100% certainty
— Me@2013.06.16
2013.06.17 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
There is no direct self-interaction.
An observation or measurement is an interaction between the observer and the observed, involving two objects. So there is logically impossible to have direct self-observation.
— Me@2013-05-29 12:09:46 AM
You cannot see yourself directly from your own point of view. Instead, you can only see your mirror, photo, and video images. In other words, you can only indirectly see yourself.
— Me@2013-01-20 01:08:34 AM
— Me@2013-05-31 10:45:49 PM
2013.05.31 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
A new dimension is a transcender for the old dimensions. For example, in order to see all of one dimension at once, you have to go to the second dimension.
Every new event can be a new dimension for you to interpret your whole life so far.
— Me@2013-05-12 2:03 AM
2013.05.13 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Dying is a meta-ing process.
— Me@2013-04-15 9:02AM
2013.04.18 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
I’ve been bored at work for many reasons at many different times, but three things stand out as real killers:
1. working on the same project with the same people for years and years,
…
These are the symptoms of a problem, not the cause, and I think most jobs will have elements of them. But surprisingly it turns out that – for programmers at least – boredom is a choice. Recently, I chose not to be bored. I chose to think one abstraction level higher. I chose to play the metagame.
…
— Work Is Fascinating: The Metagame
— Mark O’Connor
2013.03.28 Thursday ACHK
over ~ finished ~ transcended
— Me@2013-02-01 01:54:02 PM
Finishing is one of the two methods of transcending. For example, once you have earned enough money, you would never have to worry about money anymore.
Finishing is more time-consuming and should be avoided if possible. But sometimes, it is necessary.
— Me@2013-02-03 02:02:07 PM
2013.02.04 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
無我 4 | Mirror selves 4
有時，人會能醫不自醫。
有時，人「能醫不自醫」原因是，人不能在自己的「主觀世界」中，看到完全的自己。
人只能從別人的主觀世界中，間接看到自己。
正如，任何一部相機，都不能直接為它自己拍照。
— Me@2010.12.13
— Me@2013.02.02
2013.02.02 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
多重小宇宙 1.2 | 二次元時間 2.6 | Dimension 1.3.6 | Two dimensional time 2.6 | A little bit of yourself, 2 | 心靈互聯網 2 | Mind Internet 2
這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 3 日的對話。
但是，記住，那只能作比喻，而並不是實情，因為所有的「主觀時間線」，都會同時影響和受制於同一條「客觀時間線」。任何兩個人，即使從不相遇，兩條「主觀時間線」永不相交，他們的人生歷程，也不可能百分百互不相干。任何一條「主觀時間線」，都不如我所講的「平行宇宙」一般，有機會獨立存在。
不過，你這個講法雖然不是鉅細無遺，但是極度有用，因為它帶出了一個超級重點。現實世界的時間，雖然只有一個次元，但那一個次元，就已經足夠難明了。
剛才我把「一次元時間」講成一條「時間線」或者「因果鏈」，只是為了方便簡化。實情是，「時間」是一個「因果網絡」。意思是，「因」和「果」並不是一一對應。一個「因」，可以引發多個「果」；而一個「果」，又可以來自多個「因」。比喻說，一個學生，會有很多老師；而一個老師，又會有很多學生。「一因多果」和「一果多因」，可以統稱為「多重對應」。
你「現實版二次元主觀時間」的講法，雖然不是分毫不差，但是可信可用，因為，現實世界的「因」和「果」，是「多重對應」的。
— Me@2013.01.21
時間者
因果網絡也
— Me@2007.09.17
2013.01.21 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
無我 3
You cannot see yourself directly from your own point of view. Instead, you can only see your mirror, photo, and video images.
You exist only in other people’s world. You do not exist in your own world.
— Me@2013-01-20 01:08:34 AM
2013.01.21 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Looper, 2.2 | 二次元時間 2.4 | Dimension 1.3.4 | Two dimensional time 2.4 | 孖生宇宙 2.4
這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 3 日的對話。
而《Looper》作者自己的時間線，則可以視為《Looper》故事本身的「第三個時間次元」。一般而言，由構思故事到完成劇本，通常也不會一筆過，而會反覆修改。換而言之，那是一個演變的過程：
《Looper》故事版本一 –>（影響）《Looper》故事版本二 –>（影響）《Looper》故事版本三 –> … …
製在《Looper》這部電影時，作者很多時會和製作人員討論劇情。指清故事中的事件時，作者就需要講明，他所討論的那個事件，發生在「哪一個版本」中的「哪一個平行宇宙」中的「哪一點時間」，例如：
（故事版本二，宇宙三，2017 年 5 月 10 日）
亦即是話，作者需要有三個時間坐標數字，才可以「設置」，或者「定位」一個事件。
— Me@2013.01.18
2013.01.18 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Anatta 2 | 中道 4
In Buddhism, the term anatta or anatman refers to the notion of “not-self” or the illusion of “self”.
— Wikipedia on Anatta
Thus, in Theravada Buddhist soteriology, there is neither a permanent self nor complete annihilation of the ‘person’ at death; there is only the arising and ceasing of causally related phenomena.
— Wikipedia on Middle Way
The Buddha attacked all attempts to conceive of a fixed self, while stating that holding the view “I have no self” is also mistaken. This is an example of the middle way charted by the Buddha.
— Wikipedia on Philosophy of self
The following is a completely different point, but still relevant to the “not-self” topic:
The Buddha’s concept of “not-self” does not mean “there is no me“, just as “a camera cannot take a picture of itself” does not mean “the camera does not exist“.
A hand cannot hold itself, but it still exists.
— Me@2013.01.14
2013.01.15 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
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
2013.01.14 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Recursion 12
Self-reference may not be paradoxical, as long as there is a terminating condition / boundary case.
As long as there is a terminating condition, the self-reference is not really “hundred-percent-self”-reference. In other words, it is just self-similar, but not self-identical.
 |
| Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License. |
Being self-similar is possible, but being self-identical is logically impossible since it creates infinite regress.
— Me@2013.01.12
2013.01.13 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
A time to fear, 4 | Recursion 8
人害怕「不確定性」，簡稱「未知」、「未定」、或者「不安」。「未知」是知識狀態；「不安」則是情緒起伏。「未知」導致「不安」。
人腦的特定是，時刻都想確定，下一步應該怎樣做。「不確定性」導致人腦，不能立刻決定，下一步的行動是什麼。那樣，人腦就會處於，一個「不斷企圖做決定，但又做不到決定」的無限循環（infinite loop）、跳上跳落的躍動狀態：
要做決定 –> 資料未夠–> 再試 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> 要做決定 –> 不行 –> …
所以，「未知」導致「不安」。
對電腦程式來說，要打破一個「無限循環」，要麼到達「終止條件」（terminating condition / boundary case）；要麼乾脆把它，從程式碼中刪除。
對人腦心靈而言，要結束一個「煩惱不安」，要麼有新的資料，導致做到決定；要麼索性把它，從思考中忘記。
簡而言之，要麼「解結」，要麼「斬結」。
— Me@2012.03.08
— Me@2012.12.31
2012.12.31 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Universe 2.1
“All” is “所有” in Chinese. Literally,
all = 所有 = the place has
The definition of word “universe” is “everything” or “all the things“.
universe = all the things
However, this definition is not 100% sharp, because the meaning of “all” is relative to a list or a place. In order to give a meaning to the word “all“, you have to provide a list or a place in the sentence it appears.
When referring to a list, for example, the meaning of the phrase “all of A, B, and C” is the same as “A, B, and C“.
all of A, B, and C = A, B, and C
However, the definition of “universe” does not specify a list, such as
universe = all of A, B, and C
When referring to a place, for example, the meaning of the phrase “all the people in this house” is:
You keep looking for people in this house. Whoever you can find, include him or her onto your list of people. Once you cannot find new people in the house anymore, your list will have “all the people in this house“.
In other words, in order to give the word “all” a meaning, you have to provide a range for searching. However, the definition of “universe” does not specify a place, such as
universe = all the things in X,
unless we define the word “universe” as
universe = all the things in universe
However, this is a circular definition.
— Me@2012.10.16
— Me@2012.12.11
— Me@2012.12.20
2012.12.21 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Nothing is better than having a good wife.
Having a toothbrush is better than having nothing.
—
Therefore, having a toothbrush is better than having a good wife.
Nothing is better than having a good wife.
{} > {good wife} (wrong)
{x : x > good wife} = {} (correct)
Having a toothbrush is better than having nothing.
{toothbrush} > {}
The is‘s have two different senses here. The first “is better than” is for comparing objects. The second “is better than” is for comparing sets. An object and a meta-object should not be put together for comparison.
— Me@2012-04-02 10:46:22 AM
2012.12.15 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Physics Town 
You must be logged in to post a comment.