地獄之路 3

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

靈感天線

Amazing Gags 4.3

這段改編自 2010 年 10 月 14 日的對話。

.

其實,根據剛才的討論內容,這個理論本來,可以叫作「種子靈感天線搞 gag 間書太極謀事在人成事在天可遇不可求有心栽花花不香無心插柳柳成蔭踏破鐵鞋無覓處得來全不費功夫原理」。

今年三月時,我和一位朋友,想為這個原理,起一個簡潔的名字,因為沒有的話,每次要提起它時,也十分麻煩。

一個可能可用的名字是「天線原理」。 例如,如果要「搞 gag」(弄笑話)的話,不刻意去弄,就不會有笑話。但是,如果刻意去弄的話,又只會弄到冷笑話。那怎樣辦呢?

那就唯有要,開著「靈感天線」,將自己的心理狀態,調節到適當的天界頻道,企圖去接收,來自未來的訊息。有時接收得到,有時接收不到,不可強求。

你在作其他事情時,就有時會接收到。相反,如果不作他事,專心弄笑話的話,大概可以保證,一定接收不到。

弄巧反拙,寧拙無巧。創意呢家嘢,可遇不可求——沒法勇敢爭取,只能大方接收。

把手緊握 什麼都沒有

把手放開 你得到一切

— 臥虎藏龍

— Me@2022-02-15 01:03:23 PM

.

.

2022.02.15 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Final Fantasy X

深淵 4

.

Shortly before arriving, Tidus learns that he, Jecht, and the Zanarkand they hail from are summoned entities akin to aeons based on the original Zanarkand and its people. Long ago, the original Zanarkand battled Bevelle in a machina war, in which the former was defeated. Zanarkand’s survivors became “fayth” so that they could use their memories of Zanarkand to create a new city in their image, removed from the reality of Spira. Once they reach Zanarkand, Yunalesca—the first summoner to defeat Sin and unsent ever since—tells the group that the Final Aeon is created from the fayth of one close to the summoner. After defeating Sin, the Final Aeon kills the summoner and transforms into a new Sin, which has caused its cycle of rebirth to continue. The group decides against using the Final Aeon, due to the futile sacrifices it carries and the fact that Sin would still be reborn. Yunalesca tries to kill Tidus’ group, but she is defeated and vanishes, ending hope of ever attaining the Final Aeon.

— Wikipedia on Final Fantasy X

.

.

2022.02.04 Friday ACHK

魚目混珠 1.2

Pure evil does no harm, because if someone is purely evil, everyone will know that and avoid him.

It is the evilness of a good man that creates big harm.

The evilness of great man creates the biggest harm.

.

An organization cannot be purely evil.

Anything purely evil cannot be big, because being big requires consistency, which requires good.

— Me@2011.10.11

— Me@2022-01-08

.

.

2022.01.08 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Book Underlining Principle

間書原理 0

.

When you are reading, you would underline key words. At one extreme, you underline nothing. So you wouldn’t know which parts are important. At the opposite extreme, you underline everything. Then you also wouldn’t know which parts are important. So the effect of underlining nothing is exactly the same as underlining everything.

This is an example of the principle that

The extreme of Yin is Yang

The extreme of Yang is Yin

陽之極為陰 陰之極為陽

That is why I call the principle the Book Underlining Principle.

The source of this principle is that when you push something to one extreme at the object level, that action may also push it to the opposite extreme at the meta level.

For example, when you underlining all the words, at the object level, it means that everything is important. However, at the meta level, “being important” must be relative to something else. You need to distinguish the important words from the unimportant ones. When you underlining all the words, there is no such distinction. So “being important” has become meaningless.

— Me@2021-12-13 11:08 AM

— Me@2021-12-26 03:39 PM

.

.

2021.12.26 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Eternal return, 2

A “perfect copy” is not a “copy”, because if a copy is perfect, it would be logically indistinguishable from the original.

In other words, we would not be able to determine which one is the “copy” and which one is the “original”, even in principle.

There would be no meaningful difference between the meanings of the labels “copy” and “original”.

— Me@2013-08-11 1:38 PM

.

.

2021.12.21 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

太極滅世戰

機遇創生論 1.5

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 18 日的對話。

.

這個大統一理論的成員,包括(但不止於):

精簡圖:

種子論
反白論
間書原理
完備知識論

自由決定論

它們可以大統一的成因,在於它們除了各個自成一國外,還可以合體理解和應用。

下一個定律,就是「間書原理」。

「間書原理」的意思,其實是「陽之極為陰;陰之極為陽」。但那不易理解,所以,我在十多年前,舉了「間書」的例子:

我們平日看書時會間書:用紅筆間低重要的句子。

間書的一個極端是一句也不間。那我們就不知哪些是重要句子。

間書的另一個極端是句句間。那我們也不知哪些是重要句子。

— Me@2003-2004

其他例子有:

順其自然:在生活中百分百地「順其自然」,是一件十分不自然的事。

不要執著:要求自己在任何情況下也「不要執著」,本身是一個執著。

— 改編自李天命先生

知道這個原理後,你在生活處世,凡事就自然不會走得太盡,因為你知道,企圖走得太盡的後果是,輕則過猶不及,重則物極必反。

間書原理 水清則無魚

另外,運氣太好時,你會格外小心,因為,好事可以引發壞事,而大好事可以引發大壞事。運氣太差時,你亦不要過份擔心,因為,只要保命,運氣比「太差」更差的話,隨事引發大好事。

我一直以為,尋尋覓覓,兩把年紀,仍然未找到另一半,不幸也。但是,在 2019 滅世戰開始後,我發覺仍然單身,是極大的福份。

或許,到 2021 時,地球和我都仍然存在的話,宇宙會把我一切的夢想,化身成人,和我一同去創造,無限個嶄新的世界。

好事可以變好事

壞事可以變壞事

好事可以變壞事

壞事可以變好事

不要奢望,你可以控制到事情,向這四個方向中的哪一個去發展。你只可以引導,你只可以鼓勵,你不可以控制。

這正正呼應我剛剛講的「種子論」。你可以控制起點,卻不可以控制結果。

.

當你對「間中原理」深刻心領神會後,你不會輕易羨慕別人的「運氣」或者「天份」,因為通常,凡事有代價。看到別人好時,你反而會問:「他付出了什麼代價,作出了什麼犧牲?」

當你對「間中原理」深刻心領神會後,有時,你更可以主動使用。

例如,以前的眾多考試中,有時,有溫習的那一次,成績反而比沒有溫習的那一次低。

其實,原因並不是「有沒有溫習」本身,而是你「是不是太過刻意」,去奪取成績。

不如,你試試積極溫習,然後,不理成績地,盡情發揮。或許,你有意想不到的收穫。

(問:「不理成績」而又要「盡情發揮」?自相矛盾也?)

你只能提升獲得佳績的機會率,所以,要試前積極溫習,試試盡情發揮;但是,你卻不能直接控制,將要奪得什麼成績,所以,要「不理成績」。

又例如,你下次失眠時,你試試躺下,然後張開雙眼,嘗試迫自己清醒。或者,不知不覺間,你會睡著了。

再例如,如果你由於怕做得不好,而遲遲拖延著一些必須事務的話,你不妨反轉心態,試試在你的能力範圍內,把該事做到最差。或許那樣,你不會再拖延,反而會極早基本完成了該事,剩下了時間,給你改善那「草稿」。

間書原理 置之於死地而後生

.

主動版的「間中原理」,其實就是「種子論」。

把手緊握 什麼都沒有
把手放開 你得到一切

主動版的「間中原理」,可以戲稱為「耍太極」。

1171e-yin_and_yang

Wikipedia
public domain image
陽之極為陰 陰之極為陽

— Me@2020-04-13 06:58:18 PM

.

.

2020.04.16 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

The problem of induction 3.3

“Everything has no patterns” (or “there are no laws”) creates a paradox.

.

If “there are 100% no first order laws”, then it is itself a second order law (the law of no first-order laws), allowing you to use probability theory.

In this sense, probability theory is a second order law: the law of “there are 100% no first order laws”.

In this sense, probability theory is not for a single event, but statistical, for a meta-event: a collection of events.

Using meta-event patterns to predict the next single event, that is induction.

.

Induction is a kind of risk minimization.

— Me@2012-11-05 12:23:24 PM

.

.

2018.12.28 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

The problem of induction 3.1.2

Square of opposition

.

“everything has a pattern”?

“everything follows some pattern” –> no paradox

“everything follows no pattern” –> paradox

— Me@2012.11.05

.

My above statements are meaningless, because they lack a precise meaning of the word “pattern”. In other words, whether each statement is correct or not, depends on the meaning of “pattern”.

In common usage, “pattern” has two possible meanings:

1. “X has a pattern” can mean that “X has repeated data“.

Since the data set X has repeated data, we can simplify X’s description.

For example, there is a die. You throw it a thousand times. The result is always 2. Then you do not have to record a thousand 2’s. Instead, you can just record “the result is always 2”.

2. “X has a pattern” can mean that “X’s are totally random, in the sense that individual result cannot be precisely predicted“.

Since the data set X is totally random, we can simplify the description using probabilistic terms.

For example, there is a die. You throw it a thousand times. The die lands on any of the 6 faces 1/6 of the times. Then you do not have to record those thousand results. Instead, you can just record “the result is random” or “the die is fair”.

— Me@2018-12-18 12:34:58 PM

.

.

2018.12.18 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

The problem of induction 3.2

The meaning of induction is that

we regard, for example, that

“AAAAA –> the sixth is also A”

is more likely than

“AA –> the second is also A”

 

We use induction to find “patterns”. However, the induced results might not be true. Then, why do we use induction at all?

There is everything to win but nothing to lose.

— Hans Reichenbach

If the universe has some patterns, we can use induction to find those patterns.

But if the universe has no patterns at all, then we cannot use any methods, induction or else, to find any patterns.

.

However, to find patterns, besides induction, what are the other methods?

What is meaning of “pattern-finding methods other than induction”?

— Me@2012.11.05

— Me@2018.12.10

.

.

2018.12.10 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

The problem of induction 3

.

In a sense (of the word “pattern”), there is always a pattern.

.

Where if there are no patterns, everything is random?

Then we have a meta-pattern; we can use probability laws:

In that case, every (microscopic) case is equally probable. Then by counting the possible number of microstates of each macrostate, we can deduce that which macrostate is the most probable.

.

Where if not all microstates are equally probable?

Then it has patterns directly.

For example, we can deduce that which microstate is the most probable.

— Me@2012.11.05

.

.

2018.11.19 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

神的旨意 2.4

魔:為什麼「全能」者不可「全惡」?

甲:你如果是「全能」,就毋須問我這個問題。

.

如果你是「全惡」,你的構成部分,就不能相處。而「你」,作為一個整體,並不會存在;必須散落成一大堆,獨立的部分而存在。而各個分部,各自內裡必有善部,才可能凝聚,不再分裂。

.

魔:即使我不是「全惡」;即使我有所謂「善部」,你難保我「惡部」的法力,大於「善部」?

.

甲:

第一,即使假設是那樣,那也沒有大意義,因為,你總不能完全忽略,你善部的旨意。

如果你的惡部,完全不理善部地作惡,那就即是,你的善部名存實亡。沒有善部,「你」必會分裂。

.

第二,除了你存在以外,我也存在;其他生命體也存在。

善的會合作,那是定義。善的會合作,去抵擋你的惡。

雖然,惡部有「破壞容易過建設」的優勢,但是,善部也可以應用「破壞容易過建設」,去破壞惡部的破壞計劃 。

.

第三,惡人自有惡人磨:

相似的人,因為各種原因,傾向身處相近的地方,簡稱「物以類聚」。

壞人的身邊,通常是其他壞人。壞人最怕的,往往是其他壞人。

最終對付你的人,是你自己。最終對付你惡部的人,是你自己的惡部。

— Me@2018-09-02 03:05:45 PM

.

.

2018.09.02 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Creative constraints

Imagine you were asked to invent something new. It could be whatever you want, made from anything you choose, in any shape or size. That kind of creative freedom sounds so liberating, doesn’t it? Or … does it?

If you’re like most people you’d probably be paralyzed by this task. Why?

Brandon Rodriguez explains how creative constraints actually help drive discovery and innovation.

With each invention, the engineers demonstrated an essential habit of scientific thinking – that solutions must recognize the limitations of current technology in order to advance it.

Understanding constraints guides scientific progress, and what’s true in science is also true in many other fields.

Constraints aren’t the boundaries of creativity, but the foundation of it.

— The power of creative constraints

— Lesson by Brandon Rodriguez

— animation by CUB Animation

— TED-Ed

.

We cannot change anything until we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses.

— Carl Jung

.

.

2018.02.17 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Twelve-step program

A twelve-step program is a set of guiding principles outlining a course of action for recovery from addiction, compulsion, or other behavioral problems. Originally proposed by Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) as a method of recovery from alcoholism, the Twelve Steps were first published in the 1939 book Alcoholics Anonymous: The Story of How More Than One Hundred Men Have Recovered from Alcoholism. The method was adapted and became the foundation of other twelve-step programs.

As summarized by the American Psychological Association, the process involves the following:

– admitting that one _cannot_ control one’s alcoholism, addiction or compulsion;

– recognizing a higher power that can give strength;

– examining past errors with the help of a sponsor (experienced member);

– making amends for these errors;

– learning to live a new life with a new code of behavior;

– helping others who suffer from the same alcoholism, addictions or compulsions.

— Wikipedia on Twelve-step program

.

We cannot change anything until we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses.

— Carl Jung

.

.

2018.02.17 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

深淵 2

與魔鬼戰鬥的人,應當小心自己不要成為魔鬼。當你遠遠凝視深淵時,深淵也在凝視你。

— 尼采

.

勇者鬥惡龍,小心勇者變惡龍。

.

As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.

— Christopher Dawson

.

.

2018.02.16 Friday ACHK

Utopia

何有之鄉
 
 
d_2018_01_23__21_48_52_PM_

So why bother with all this pessimism?

Because at their heart, dystopias
are cautionary tales,

not about some particular government
or technology,

but the very idea that humanity can be
molded into an ideal shape.

Think back to the perfect world
you imagined.

Did you also imagine what it would
take to achieve?

How would you make people cooperate?

And how would you make sure it lasted?

Now take another look.

Does that world still seem perfect?

— How to recognize a dystopia

— Alex Gendler

— animation by TED-Ed
 
 
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


 
 
 
2018.01.23 Tuesday ACHK

注定外傳 2.5

Can it be Otherwise? 2.5 | The Beginning of Time, 7.2

所以,討論任何問題,例如「某一件是否注定」時,即使有「推斷到時間起點」的企圖,也沒有可能做到,除非能夠把「量子力學」和「廣義相對論」合體。

我們至多只能追溯到,「普朗克時間」完結的那一刻,然後講一句:「再之前的,沒有資料」。

4. 即使可以追溯到「時間的起點」(第一因),所謂的「可以」,只是宏觀而言,決不會細節到可以推斷到,你有沒有自由,明天七時起牀。

(問:如果因果環環緊扣,即使細節不完全知道,至少理論上,我們可以知道,如果「第一因」本身有自由,那其他個別事件,就有可能有(來自「第一因」的)自由;如果連「第一因」也沒有自由,那其他個別事件,都一律沒有自由。

這裡「因果環環緊扣」的意思是,不會有「同因不同果」的情況;每一件事情,都被之前的原因所注定。)

那會引起一些,奇怪的句子。你不會知道,那些句子是,什麼意思。例如:

「第一因有自由。」

「第一因」根據定義,是沒有原因的。亦即是話,「時間的起點」,再沒有「之前」。而「有自由」,就即是「有其他可能性」。所以,「第一因有自由」的意思是,

「第一因還有其他的可能性。」

但是,既然「第一因」本身沒有原因,誰有那個自由呢?理論上,誰可以引發到,「第一因」的其他可能呢?

根本沒有誰,可以決定到「時間的起點」是怎樣的,因為,根本沒有誰,可以存在於,「時間起點」之前,因為,「時間的起點」,根本沒有「之前」。「時間起點之前」,就有如「北極點的北面」一樣,沒有意思。

考慮一件事有沒有自由,是要以該件事為「結果」,看看該件事的「原因」,然後,推論或驗證,有沒有可能,有「同因不同果」的情況。

但是,「於時間起點發生的第一件事」(第一因),本身沒有原因。那樣,你就不能以「第一因」這件事為「結果」,看看它的「原因」,然後,推論或驗證,有沒有可能,有「同因不同果」的情況。

所以,「第一因本身,有沒有自由」這問題,根本沒有意義。

(問:如果有「造物主」,祂不就是那個誰,可以從宇宙之初的不同可能性中,選擇一個去實現嗎?)  

那只是因為你,一時忘記了,「宇宙」這個詞語的意思是「所有東西」。所以,如果「造物主」存在,祂也是「宇宙」的一部分。

那樣,我們又要再討論,「造物主」有沒有自由。如果「造物主」就是「第一因」的話,根據剛才的解說,「造物主(第一因)本身,有沒有自由」這問題,根本沒有意義。

再者,即使你故意忽略「第一因有沒有自由」這問題,我亦可以質疑,

「因果是否真的『環環緊扣』,有沒有可能,有『同因不同果』的情況?」

那要再詳細研究,而剛才我們已經討論過了,請回顧。

— Me@2016-03-15 08:43:58 AM

2016.03.31 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

注定外傳 2.3

Can it be Otherwise? 2.3

如果沒有明確指出,那個『必然』,是相對於哪個『觀測準確度』(觀察者解像度)而言的話,問一件事是不是『必然』,是沒有意思的,因為,無論那一件事,是在過去還是未來,往往既可以解釋成『必然』,又可以解釋為『非必然』。

除此之外,剛才亦提到:

對於過去的事,例如,在剛才甲和乙『這次數學考試我不合格,是不是必然』的討論中,當一方說那件事是『必然』時,另一方可以立刻,走深一個層次, 到達下一個『觀測解像度』,把同一件事,說成是『偶然』的;然後,原方又可以再走到,再下一個層次,把那事說成是『必然』的;如此類推。

對於未來之事,都有類似的情形,例如:

甲:明早我可以選擇七時起床,亦可以選擇不七時起床。那就證明,我有自由。

乙:不一定。你沒有那樣的自由。例如,如果你之前一晚,深夜兩時才睡,你可以肯定,你想七時起床也起不來。

甲:我可以選擇,之前一晚早一點睡。所以,我還是有自由。

乙:未必。假設你有要事,例如,明早有畢業論文要交,但尚未完成;那樣,你也沒有自由,去選擇早一點睡。

甲:但是,在再早一點之前,我可以選擇,早一點開始寫論文,早一點完成。那就可以避免,趕工夜睡的情況。

然後,乙又可以指出,甲並不是想早一點開始寫論文,就一定可以早一點,因為,甲會受到其他事務的牽制;如此類推。

這是一個沒有意義的討論,因為沒有止境,不會有結論。

每當甲指出,做某一件事(事件一)有自由、有選擇時,乙總可以質疑,那件事會,受制於之前的事件,例如事件二。然後,甲再指出,之前的事(事件二)本身,其實甲有某程度上的自由,所以,間接來說,甲對事件一,都有選擇。但是,乙又可以再質疑,事件二都會,受再之前的事件(事件三)的影響,其實事件二,也不算是自由的。

因為沒有指定,追溯到哪一件事,或者哪一刻為止,所以討論會沒完沒了。

— Me@2016-01-06 03:17:54 PM

2016.01.06 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK