Category Archives: next | 無限旅程

Single-world interpretation, 6.2.2

Posted on by

Information lost, 5

In the Many-worlds interpretation (MWI), when we say that “a + b” collapses to “a”, there is a shift of definition of “you”.

MWI is in one sense correct: choice b version of you still exists. But the trick is that he is not in another universe. He is in the environment of this universe.

And perhaps in reverse, you are also part of the environment of him.

— Me@2011.11.20

This environment theory is not totally accurate. For example, in the photon double slit experiment, during the wave function collapse, 

sqrt(2) | left > + sqrt(2) | right >

–> | left >    ,

| right > as the unchosen choice, or the lost information, goes to the environment.      

However, the macroscopic reality of | photon goes left > requires not only the state of the photon but also the state of its environment, including the lost information | right >_micro. Just the lost information itself is not enough to form a macroscopic reality.

— Me@2012.04.03

2012.11.16 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Freefall

Posted on by

.

* We’re in a freefall into future. We don’t know where we’re going. This are changing so fast, and always when you’re going through a long tunnel, anxiety comes along. And all you have to do to transform your hell into a paradise is to turn your fall into a voluntary act. It’s a very interesting shift of perspective and that’s all it is… joyful participation in the sorrows and everything changes.

.

— Joseph Campbell

.

.

.

2009.05.15 Friday ACHK

A. J. Ayer, 2

Posted on by

A prevalent fallacy is the assumption that a proof of an after-life would also be a proof of the existence of a deity.

…

He took the view that this world was very nasty and that there was a fair chance that the next world, if it existed, was even nastier.

— What I Saw When I Was Dead

— A. J. Ayer

2012.11.11 Sunday ACHK

A. J. Ayer

Posted on by

Near-death experience

In 1988, shortly before his death, Ayer wrote an article entitled, “What I saw when I was dead”, describing an unusual near-death experience. Of the experience, Ayer first said that it “slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death … will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be.” However, a few days later he revised this, saying “what I should have said is that my experiences have weakened, not my belief that there is no life after death, but my inflexible attitude towards that belief”.

In 2001 Dr. Jeremy George, the attending physician, claimed that Ayer had confided to him: “I saw a Divine Being. I’m afraid I’m going to have to revise all my books and opinions.” Ayer’s son Nick, however, said that he had never mentioned this to him though he did find his father’s words to be extraordinary, and said he had long felt there was something possibly suspect about his father’s version of his near death experience. 

— Wikipedia on A. J. Ayer

2012.11.09 Friday ACHK

見仁見智

Posted on by

談情以外，還要談仁談智，愛情方會長久。

如果在對方身上，見不到仁，或者見不到智，愛情較難維持。

— Me@2012-10-27 10:38:16 AM

.

.

2012.10.28 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Perfect Ending

Posted on by

The problem of a perfect result is, there is no future, there is no next step. The story cannot continue.

「完美結果」的壞處是，沒有未來，沒有下一步。故事無法繼續。

— Me@2012.10.25

.

.

2012.10.26 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Writing it down

Posted on by

Remember kids, the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down.

「玩耍」和「科學」的近乎唯一差別是，「科學」有紀錄，可以累積經驗。

— Adam Savage

— Me@2012-10-19 06:07:40 AM

科學，就是記錄玩耍。

— Me@2012-10-19 06:13:58 AM

2012.10.19 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Mirror selves, 2

Posted on by

說到底，愛情就是一個人的自我價值，在別人身上的反映。

– 愛默生

.

After all, the desire for love is the desire for a lifelong intellectual partner.

— Me@2012-10-11 12:29:17 AM

.

.

2012.10.14 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Scalable

Posted on by

next ~ scalable

— Me@2011.12.02

Anything not scalable cannot make sure its own long-term survival.

— Me@2012-10-13 11:26:12 AM

Information survives by people copying it.

– John Baez, mathematical physicist

2012.10.13 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Existence, 2

Posted on by

Existence is not a property of an object. It is a property of properties.

For example, when we say “X does not exist”, we do not mean that “there is an X and X has a property of non-existence.” Instead, existence is a property of the collection of other objects.

Existence is a property of the system that X is in. 

X exists

= the system has the component X

= the system has the property of “having X”

X doe not exist

= no systems have the component X

= no systems have the property of “having X”

— Me@2012.10.11

2012.10.12 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK