My shitposts (2)

Disclaimer: I know these ideas can’t be scientifically, or at least philosophically, precise and well-structured claims like required in academic level, but they’re merely ideas of my internal large language model that doesn’t shut up.

On Physics and Metaphysics

Einstein might have meant, by “God does not play dice”, that the way the quantum mechanics work looks random to us as observers, but it might be deterministic from outside the universe (if you can postulate an outside observer), not as a simple determinism like people often think. In this way of interpretation, that quote is a metaphor of the hidden variables theory.

And even if the local hidden variables theory has unfavourable experimental results, the ‘hidden variable’ might not be a separate ontological entity in our universe, but intersections with another dimension of the actual universe that we can’t observe, with the manifold fabric of the universe we’re living in. This can be a metaphysical claim rather than actual scientific claim since it’s very hard to either verify or falsify, but if we design the experiment very well it might be possible like a tomography of the 4D manifold to reconstruct how it looks in higher dimensional space, or at least an indefinite integral to see what to look for.

This means, again, the supposedly 3- or 4-manifold fabric of the universe we’re living in might be a partial derivative of the whole, actual universe in a sense that ‘hidden variable’ can be the integral constant that gets lost to derive the ’equation of our observable universe’, not a simple scalar constant but whole another polynomial that gets treated as a constant in partial differentiation.

And if our observable universe is a partial derivative of the actual universe, this idea can be integrated with the block universe theory; The ongoing history of the universe we observe might be a partial derivative of the deterministic universe traversing on the time dimension, and the universe might be trying every possible combination of partial derivatives like a Monte Carlo simulation, and by that I mean not anthropomorphistic intention of the universe but it’s just what the universe does. This can further integrate simulation hypothesis, without a need for an external anthropomorph with human-like intentions to run the simulation like Bostrom’s original version.

A further hypothesis can say the cognitive experience and personal timeline of human or any conscious beings is a wavelet of the entire traversal of the universal vector, which effectively makes us not ontologically independent objects but wavelet transforms of the universal vector, or in reverse the universal vector being a path integral of our wavelets. This idea can explain the anthropic principle of cosmology, because if so the existence of conscious observers is entailed in the universe itself. This links to Buddhist concept of anatta because then the self is merely a performative and iterative recursion of a part of the universe like how gender is to Butler, which goes back to the Mahayana idea of “One particle has the whole universe inside (一微塵中含十方)”.

On P-NP Divide, Complexity, and Disability

Think about how relays work, let’s say, in blinkers on cars. Most people don’t know the sound of the blinkers you hear is the relay working. Engineering is technically mostly P problems, especially for engineers and scientists, but for the vast majority of ordinary people, modern engineering is practically NP problems. You can validate whether it’s working or not, but you can’t construct it bottom-up. I think it might suggest the P-NP divide is dependent on one’s cognitive ability.

Hence, it suggests the divide depends on the complexity of the algorithms (as knowledge or models) you have. Like RSA, while being technically a P problem always, if you postulate a Turing machine with infinite or very large resources, was almost unbreakable before Shor’s Algorithm, but theoretically not anymore.

I mean I still think there will be NP-by-principle problems, like the problems only solvable in polynomial time when you have uncountable infinity of resources, when the best you can theoretically get is arguably a countable infinite amount from the whole universe. But what I mean is that the boundary is much more blurrier than most mathematicians think.

So the integrated hypothesis is, mathematically it is P==NP but since we can’t transcend the universe, it’s P!=NP for us practically.

This can be further linked with social model of disability, as opposed to medical (deficit) model of disability. There is no non-diabled/disabled divide ontologically; There’s merely a physical or mental status that does not need or with adequate help and those with inadequate or no help. Being shortsighted was a disability in history or prehistoric world, because then you can’t participate in human survival activities like navigation, hunting, or social face recognition with it. The physiology did not change when the glasses were invented.

Just like P-NP divide might be much weaker and arbitrary than we have thought so far, the boundary of disability can be the same. The invention of glasses did not magically made the underlying medical condition disappear, but no one says someone is disabled because they wear glasses or contacts. Rather, it became a self-expression tool as you can see in statements like “That girl looks hotter in glasses”.

But something like wheelchair or cochlear implant did not reach the glasses-level of social acceptability yet, because, let’s say, comprehending the fact that the need for those assistive devices and the same cognitive ability to those observers can coexist is an NP problem to them. They might be able to see it once they’re given (and accept) a solution, just like the validation of NP problem can be done in polynomial time, but they might not practically be able to construct the world model where those apparently disabled people are just same people as them.

This means both P-NP divide and the concept of disability might rely on an arbitrary and relative complexity of building a model, a tool, or an algorithm that explains the observable phenomenon, aka comfort. The disability discrimination heavliy relies on the sense of comfort in the discriminatory person’s mind, and it is actually because the model that explains both their existence and the disabled people’s existence is too complex for them that prevents them from constructing it in polynomial time without just right algorithm.

Furthermore, the research and casual experiments with AAC, such as button boards, with dogs or cats show that the communicational boundaries among species might be the same. That suggests inter-species communication can be achieved with the same approach as we try to communicate with non-verbal autistic individual (and by that I do not mean ABA). And those tools are sort of disability assistive devices, if we can strip the judgemental meaning from the term.

Real Shitpost

K-culture suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. K-culture is a sigh of oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the fentanyl of the people.
– Marx, Karl. 1844. A Contribution to the Critique of Bang’s Philosophy of K-Pop: Introduction. (no it’s not)