Thoughts from my Blog

God I sound dumb.

Instead of having the cars drive themselves, what about having the cars be driven by random people online with video game controllers.

Random people driving random cars.

It might just work.

I remember a MythBusters episode where Jamie and Adam RC-ed a taxi and joked about having the taxi pick people up with no one in the front seat.

I can't find the episode.

I find time travel much easier to understand if you look at it from the environment's perspective instead of the traveler's perspective.

Here's an example from a house's perspective :

- There is a house, it is empty.
- Someone from the future suddenly appears and says hello.
- That person disappears and goes back to the future.
- The younger version of the person enters the house through the front door.
- That person disappears and goes back into the past.
- The person comes back from the past.

If you look at time travel from the environment's perspective, there are no paradoxes.

If you look at time travel from the traveler's perspective, some people will imagine two pasts :
- One where the guy from the future is not there.
- One where the guy from the future is there.

This messes everything up.

Oh, and I find completely retarded the theory where every choice we do as a human creates a parallel universe.

Even if you make a choice, the chemical reactions in your brain can have only one outcome.

The way I see it, there is only one path and everything can only go one way.

Remember that Facebook is competing the Internet and is not a part of it.

It is not a website.

They have a website on the Internet only to give people access to their Internet-competing "network".

It annoys me when people use the term "Internet" instead of "Facebook".

They used to talk about "Internet addiction" when in reality they were talking about "Facebook addiction".

"Social media" annoys me too. Can't we be honest and call things what they are.

Don't say "social media", say "Facebook".

I wonder if the astronauts stepped over the first step.

I suppose the first step would be very close to the ladder and would be easy to step over and mess it up.

I just found the episode I was referring to a few days ago.

http://www.mythbusters2003.net/mp4/Season%202004/Episode%205%20-%20Buried%20in%20Concrete.mp4.video

14:45

I don't get the point of trying to differentiate "real" and "not real".

Personally, I don't need the concept of reality.

I don't need to know what is real or not.

The way I see time, things can only happen one way.

To me, there are no parallel universes.

I believe that even when you make choices, you could only have chosen what you chose in the end.

The theory that humans create parallel universes with their mind is completely retarded.

To me, again, what happens in your mind can only happen one way. No choices.

I spend most of my thinking in places where I can't write it down.

Outside, in the shower, in my bed, etc.

The only things I remember are the conclusions I ended up with.

Those conclusions are what I write on this blog.

We often put this invisible mental barrier between out skin and the environment.

I personally prefer to not have this barrier.

We are mixed up with the environment. Our body exchanges molecules with the environment.

Matter goes in, matter goes out.

We might as well not say "in" and "out" anymore.

Also, I find it weird that we also want to mentally separate our internal and external organs from their surroundings.

Like the heart, lungs, legs and hands.

I like to see things as one ginormous blob that encases everything in the universe.

I also find it difficult to understand how scientists separate living organisms by specie.

All living things differ from one to another. Why say that some difference is within the same specie and some other difference is part of another specie.

Like the chicken and egg. Which came first :

This white oval thing that some day, we suddenly recognize as an egg.

This meaty feathered animal that some day, we suddenly recognize as a chicken.

There is a point when the egg becomes an egg and a point when a chicken becomes a chicken.

It starts as not being an egg. You move one molecule and suddenly it becomes an egg.

It starts as not being a chicken. You move one molecule and suddenly it becomes a chicken.

The answer is which is recognized first as an egg or a chicken.

No separation. No bodies. No organs. No species.

I find it annoying that we have to think in "states".

We think one way. Something happens. We think differently.

I see this constant change and I would like to be able to constantly adapt to it.

Instead of being in one state at once, I would like to "go up one level" and "game the system".

But what happens is that I just would get into another state. The state of being ready to new states.

Then we are back to square one. Even that state (of being ready to new states) can be replaced with a new state.

Context :

In Doctor Who episode Extremis, a way to know whether you are part of a computer simulation is mentioned :

If two people choose a "random" number at the same time, the numbers will be the same.

Supposedly, this is because when computers generate pseudorandom numbers with the same seed, the sequence of numbers is the same.

I do not agree.


If you are making a computer simulation of the world (say, at atomic level), the simulation of a brain has no use for a PRNG (pseudorandom number generator).

When you are choosing a "random" number, there is nothing random in your brain.

When saying "three", there is no "three" in your brain.

Therefore, there is no need for a PRNG. So there is none.

So, if you are part of a computer simulation and two people choose "random" numbers, they should often be different.


Another thing that annoys me, is that they also say that you can escape the simulation by suicide.

Even if you die, the simulation continues, your body is still there and is still interacting with the environment.

You cannot escape the simulation.


Another thing that annoys me, is that they also say that every person is a separate program in the simulation.

This is ridiculous, to me there is no separation between the body and the environment.

It therefore does not make sense to separate the body and environment by making the bodies programs. To me, the entire simulation should be a single program.

You can read one of my older blog post :

http://log.philippe97.ca/2023-10.html#1698436761

Unless the sleigh itself can fly, I would think that the sleigh would be hanging vertically from the last pair of reindeer.

In an atomic-level simulation of the world, many many many atoms are required to store information about a single atom.

For example, when storing a single bit on a hard drive, lots of atoms are used.

So the simulator is bound to be much bigger than the simulated world. No matter what it uses as information storage.

Unless you have a black hole or something, where you would take a whole world and compress it.

This also applies to teleporters and cloning machines : The hard drive must be much bigger than the person.

If you are inside an invisibility cloak, how are you going to see if light does not enter the cloak ?

Why use a time-machine to try to change the past in order to change the present.

Just change the present, no time-travel required.

If you :
- are sitting on a swing set
- your feet are not touching the ground
- you are perfectly immobile.

It is impossible to start the swing.

No matter what you do with your arms and legs you cannot start the swinging.

You need an initial swing that you can then amplify with your legs.

You need an external force to initiate the swing (usually by touching the ground with your feet or by being pushed by someone).

How can a blind person tell if the toilet is clogged ?

It assumes that aliens can see, hear and do math.

It also assumes that they have the same atomic model as we do.

You don't need microchips or radio waves to control people's minds.

There are much easier ways to control people, like video and audio.

Artificial intelligence cannot reproduce everything neurons can do.

Neural networks cannot reproduce everything molecules can do.

Molecular-level simulations cannot do everything atoms can do.

And so on.

What if you truly believe what you say ?

So much that, to yourself, you're not lying.

Would you pass the test ?

Today's disorders don't /have/ to be disorders.

To me, it's a matter of opinion. Some people may view something as a disorder and some may not.

Some people may base their opinions on criteria or what they like or don't like to see.

But to me, that you base your opinion on something does not mean it is not an opinion.

To me, the concept of dying does not make sense.

Even after you "die", the body is still there and continues to change and interact with the environment. It does not stop.

To me, the fact that the criteria for death have changed over time means it is not a fixed concept.

I don't personally understand or need the concept of death.

I'm wondering where my point of view in this world is coming from and where it will go in the future.

Since I believe that being born and dying are not limits, this means that my point of view was there before I was born and will be there after I die.

But then, how come I have only memories from after I was born ?

Maybe my memory is just another way to see the world, like seeing, hearing and feeling. It would start at birth and in the following years stay available to me and allowing me to recall the past.

Another thing that bothers me, is that I cannot know if others are feeling the same thing as me on this point of view thing. Maybe I am the only one to have one and the world is just a big show made for me.

I am also wondering what is the link between my point of view and my body. I believe that the limit between my body and the environment is artificial and was created my man, and that everything is one single giant blob with no inner boundaries. I wonder if my point of view is attached to some atoms in my body (even though I do not believe the world is made of atoms).

I might be trying to make sense of something that should not make sense.

Maybe someday, I will be looking at the world from a leaf in a tree over my grave.

Since a lot of websites use React, it means that Facebook can decide which browsers can and cannot view those websites.

This is not good.

Even if we could communicate with our minds, we would still need some form of language.

So it would not allow us to do more than we already can with our mouths and hands.

It's funny how almost every animal on land is based on the same model.

Two eyes, a nose, a mouth and an anus.

Dust comes from people.

In movies, you can see rooms that no one has been in for years and yet, there are inches of dust on everything.

If there is no people, there is no dust.

I get the feeling that someone reading my blog would think I have a mental disorder.

I believe saying someone has a disorder is just a way to alienate that person and separate them from others. To refuse what that person is saying.

But I am not asking to accept what I say.

I believe this is also how disorders are created.

A doctor looks at someone. He does not like what he sees. He wants the person to fit within what he sees as normal.

So he makes a list of what he does not like, calls them symptoms, and makes up a name for it.

And then, bam! You've got a new disorder.

Then, he puts it in a book. The DSM. It gets published all over the world and every doctor reads it.

Then, you've got a ton of doctors who all share the same opinion. They all decide to agree to think the same on what is or is not a disorder.

Those doctors are very annoying to talk to. They so strongly believe in their beliefs that they no longer see them as beliefs.

For the past few years, I have been having daily panic attacks.

They are not caused by anything. They just come out of the blue.

Every. Single. Day.

When they happen, I am completely paralyzed. I can't do anything and I am in excruciating mental pain.

I want to shake violently, but I keep it inside to hide it from others.

I never know how long the attack will last. It can be seconds to hours.

When it is about to come, I can feel it in my arms.

It sometimes happens in the morning or early afternoon. But it always happens just before I go to bed until I fall asleep.

It also prevents me from going to sleep immediately. I have to wait for it to go away first.

I sometimes let it out by punching the wall in my bed. There is now a hole in the wall, as I was not hitting a stud.

I sometimes cry. I want the pain to go away.

I do not want to kill myself. I believe that even if I died, the pain is not guaranteed to go away. So I might as well finish this life first.

It's a password you leave everywhere and that you cannot change if someone makes a copy of it.

It sucks.

Yeah sure, the ipa is on your own server. But since you have to ask permission from Apple to make it available for installation, it is pretty much just a second App Store.

It does not make things better.

You have to submit to a lot of rules and accept a bunch of conditions. Apple may also revoke your app in the future and make it unable to be installed.

https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/

Apple is in control of everything related to installing apps "from websites". So it's pretty much App Store 2.0.

What would /really/ be interesting is if you could install an ipa from a website /without/ having to ask Apple to allow it.

<a href=app.ipa>Install my app</a>

There's no good reason for things to be any more complicated than that.

Apple should not be in control of what can and cannot be installed on the devices we bought.

The theory that stepping on a butterfly in the past will change the present is completely retarded.

The way I see it, the present was already affected by what you will do in the past. You cannot change anything.

I just finished Doctor Who episode Space Babies.

They also try to avoid changing things or creating paradoxes. What's wrong with changing things ?

In cégep, my electricity professor posed a simple test to know if we will be able to travel through time :

We just have to remember to come back in time to that particular date. Since no one appeared, it would mean that people from the future cannot travel back in time.

The test was invalid.

I guarantee you that two days later, everyone forgot about that. For the test to be valid, we would have to remember that date and time for many, many years.

My mom at last christmas : I wish we could see how the past was like.

Me : It's called a picture.

I believe things can only happen one way.

In Canada's Worst Handyman, the kitchen was not finished. Andrew asked the team if the kitchen could have been done in less time and they said yes.

To me, if the kitchen was not done, it means it cannot be done.

To be able to see the laser, the light would have to go sideways at various angles. Lasers only go straight unless a mirror/object is in their path.

Plus, you've got the absurdity of having the laser stop at a certain distance from the handle.

For each, you win with one and lose with the other.

Rock : win with scissors and lose with paper

Paper : win with rock and lose with scissors

Scissors : win with paper and lose with rock

It's all balanced.

I'm watching Doctor Who episode "The Pyramid at the End of the World".

The Monks are able to see into the future.

What does not make sense is that that future changes while events are happening in the present.

At first, everyone is going to die.

Then, the Doctor starts the timer on the bomb. This causes the doomsday clock to go backwards and nobody is going to die.

The, he can't enter the combination on the door's lock. Now everyone is going to die again. (with a different everyone)

You're supposed to have only one future. One that is the final result of everything that has been done before, even the "future watching".

Also, the future they see would be the result of seeing it. A nice little loop.

How would the watch know where is the separation between our skin and the air ?

The skin and air are mixed together. Matter goes in and out. "In" and "out" no longer make sense.

Our bodies have an awful lot of atoms.

Questions :

- How would you separate the skin from the air, since the two are intertwined ?

- How would you digitize the position of those atoms ?

- How long it would take to send the informations about all those atoms through a fiberoptic cable, one atom at a time ?

- Where are you going to find the atoms to create the copy ?

- How are you going to put those atoms together ?

- What do you do with the original body when the copy is made ? Destroy it ?

It's much more efficient to take a car or plane.

Every once in a while, I think.

I create new thoughts. Learn things by myself. Arrive at conclusions. Change my way of thinking.

I don't write about it all. I only put a small amount on this blog.

But over time, I notice that the reasons behind those conclusions have been forgotten. They become part of me and I take them for granted.

This bothers me.

Instead of letting your subconscious self move the rods, you can practice finding what you are looking for consciously.

That is, instead of seeing the rods move, you would point to where you think it is with your finger.

We made them up. They're not there. The body was before and will be after.

Memory is external. To me, it's just one more way to view the world (like seeing and hearing).

The big question is, what happens to the "link" between my "point of view" and my body when I "die" ?

Will I still be "attached" to my ashes ?

At least, I will possibly lose my memory.

I have said this before with more words :

http://log.philippe97.ca/2024-03.html#1711141371

I previously thought that my "Point of View" would have no reason to "disconnect" from this body when I "die".

It would mean that I would stay "attached" to my ashes.

But what if I could move from body to body voluntarily ?

I believe that my body can work fine without me while I'm gone. That is, the memory would still be "recording".

Unfortunately, I would not be able to know if I moved to another body because the only memory I have is the one in my current body.

I believe that my point of view cannot control my body.

It cannot control what I say and it cannot control what I do.

It is a spectator only.

What I do or say is the result of my body's past. It is not from my point of view.

No such thing.

Electricity is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

Then, they are burned together back into water.

Basically, it's an electric car that uses water as power transfer.

You don't fuel the car with water. You have to fuel it with already separated hydrogen and oxygen, that the car would turn back into water after burning them.

If you really wanted to use water, it would be a closed loop in the otherwise electric car.

...is gross and degrading.

I don't want people to treat me like I'm some sort of a complex machine.

Where did they get the seeds ?

I believe that the body can work fine with the "point of view" gone and its memory would remember stuff when it's back.

It means that it would not be impossible that we all share a single "point of view" that would either continuously jump from body to body or be attached to all bodies at the same time.

Plus there's the big question of why I feel my point of view to be inside my body when there is no real separation between my skin and the air.

To me, the brain is not the center. There is no center. But then, why/how do I feel my "point of view" to be inside my body ?

You're not going to be replaced by AI as long as people who need intelligence use people over machines.

How did matter in the universe start moving in orbits ? How do things start spinning ?

The big bang theory says that matter went straight away from a central point.

Is that sufficient to create orbits ?

Maybe it's not a big bang and more like a big slingshot.

This orbit thing also looks fractal to me.

Galaxies, solar systems, planets, moons, atoms. And are there orbits smaller or bigger than that ?

A few months ago, I noticed that the forces and movements currently described as a set of straight lines can also be described as a set of orbits.

If someone throws a ball, it can be described as (at least) two lines : one forward and one towards the ground.

But it could also be described as an orbit around the earth with slight orbital influence from nearby and less nearby objects (other balls and the moon for example).

I wonder if they are still useful now that the water in bathrooms is no longer grounded.

The supply lines are made of PEX and the drains of ABS.

This means that, if you were touching the live wire and water at the same time, the outlet would not trip because the water is not connected to the ground (and not completing the circuit).

Oh wait, now that I think about it, some electricity can flow through the water in the PEX pipe. But is that enough to trip a GFCI outlet ?

To me, existence does not apply to God.

No "God exists." No "God does not exist."

You can't rely on the model being accurate.

You have to experiment and modify the model until it fits the experiment.

Never stop experimenting. Never stop changing the model.

I'm thinking of MythBusters.

Doctors are thought how :

They see the disease.
They fix the disease (probably with pills or therapy).

They are not, however, thought why.

I get the impression that for most doctors, the why is so overlooked that it comes from deep within.

Most doctors I've seen seem to want the world to fit within what they see as normal, or "what they like". How they want the world to be.

Everything outside of that, "what they don't like", they want to "fix" and change.

We end up with a system where some people with messed up (or missing) ethics are put in a position of control over other people with full legal right to do whatever they want.

It reminds me of the time I was interned at the asylum.

We are defined solely by the opinions of others.

When choosing causes for something, you've got a lot of choice.

From very close to very far away.

(butterfly causing a tornado)

I remember an old MythBusters episode where Adam made a gun to shoot a nail into a concrete wall. Expecting to zipline on the cable attached to the nail.

Impractical.

When you hang on the cable, it pulls the nail out with a lot of force.

To get the nail in in such a way that it would not come out, you need a lot of force.

That force comes from the bullet in the gun.

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

The gun would go backwards into the guy who shot it. With a lot of force.

That would hurt. Even if you made the gun heavier.

It basically requires aliens to make a television and not be blind or deaf.

They should have just printed pictures and used flip books for video.

With a computer, you have to choose a model to base your simulation on.

Some choices :

- Physical objects
- Molecular
- Atomic
- Quantum

To me, that we can experiment on models smaller (atom) or bigger (planets and stars) than us, means that we are not in a simulation.

I believe this model thing is fractal and we will never stop finding models for things smaller and bigger than the current models.

Computers cannot simulate models they have not been programmed to simulate.

Plus, the computer would have to be much larger than the simulated world. Bigger than the universe.

(For example, with an atomic simulation, the computer needs to have many, many atoms to represent a single atom, making it way bigger).

The belief that applying the scientific method will make the world better.

I don't know if it can be done, but I doubt it.

With an invisibility cloak, you cannot see from the inside if the light does not enter the cloak.

You would have to "copy" the light. Send it both inside and to the back.

If you see someone, I believe you can always be seen back. A camera can be seen.

I don't know.

Even if the cellphones inside the airplane are turned off, the ground antennas and other cellphones are still transmitting.

Radio waves are still going through the plane.

To know if there is something beyond us and what are its attributes.

Is it good ? (God) Is it logical ? (science)

It can be both.

I wanted to say more last night but forgot it all. I should have written then.

Knowing allows people to become intelligent.

People who know are seen as intelligent.

Having money means that others have a debt with you and are ready to do things for you for that money.

The alternative would be to get people to do things for you without the money.

To me, it's just a way of letting your subconscious express itself.

When you are above where you think it is, you move your hands.

If it works, it's because your subconscious was right.

Personally, I prefer practicing using my conscious self : just point to where I think it is with my finger.

It basically requires aliens to build a TV :

- They have to know about math.
- They have to know about electricity and use it the same way we do with wires.
- They have to have an oscilloscope.
- They have to know about pixels.
- They have to be able to see and hear.
- Their sight has to be able to understand the strange shapes we drew on the disc.

I'm pretty sure if romans or egyptians got that disc, they wouldn't know what to do with it.

Although it dosen't say much about us to aliens, it does say how we want to be known. That we're not alone. That there is something bigger than us that could bring us together.


Mathematicians and physicists want the world we cannot see to be logical. Be made of rules. That natures follows some logic.

The same way religious people want the world we cannot see to be good and bad.

To me, God is just a personification of nature's goodness. That good drives the world and benefits us.

And science is trying to find a model that is as close as possible to what we can see. Logic for the invisible.

The world can be both good and logical. It's not one or the other.

When I look at the past, I see the constant change :

Nope, we were wrong, this is right.
Nope, we were wrong, this is right.
Nope, we were wrong, this is right.

It's like people want there to be a single accepted theory used by everyone.

I believe we will never find a theory that can explain everything that can be experimented. That there is not some "master theory of the universe".

Or even a "theory of theories" (a theory that would explain how to get to other theories).

The 'one theory for everyone' is pretty useful. Science is also useful. That does not mean it is right.

Me : "I could read what others have written, or I could have fun and come up with my own ideas."

Aside, I also believe the world is not made of rules or logic or randomness. It seems to me that we invented logic and theories and that they do not fit in with nature.

I wonder if it will still be possible for me to think, reflect and make new ideas like I used to be able to do.

Am I getting old ?

I fear I will be stuck with my current way of thinking for the rest of my life. I like changing my mind about things like I have so many times.

Is my current dumbness temporary or if it is too late and the change is permanent ?

Please be temporary.

It's hard to make sure all of your ideas fit together when you can only think of a few at a time. So you try to make those ideas fit together and make sense, but they may not fit with other ideas you have.

Personally, I gave up. I'm fine with being inconsistent.

What's the point of having a car alarm if everyone ignores it ?

"Oh, I hear a car alarm."

The thief has plenty of time to shut it off.

Same thing for home security alarms.

The question is not so much how we modify what we perceive, but rather if there even is something beyond what we perceive.

I have trouble putting a number on some things.

How do you feel on one to ten ? I just never know what to answer. I don't think like that.

Science cannot tell good from bad.

It can tell you "smoking causes cancer".

But the link between "having cancer" and "this is bad for you" is done by a person.

You do need something to differentiate good idea from bad idea so that you don't end up believing in crazy shit.

Some people require ideas to be "proved" (whatever that means) or go with "I take as true anything an expert says."

Personally, I use my gut.

But there are good ideas where "being proved" does not make sense.

I don't like that it's considered a "disorder".

As if we're supposed to be wired the same way. Or be different within "accepted" ways.

I don't know if I "have" autism. A previous psychiatrist who hated me thought I had "severe autism", which is false. Close enough.

I like possibilities.

But I do know that people who are will try to impose their ideas on those who are not. So you have to pick something and go with it when talking with them.

Note : I don't actually talk to anyone. I just stay home all day long and I do not communicate on the internet. This is theoretical.

If it was up to me, autism wouldn't even be a condition.

But now it is entrenched, unremovable. All I can do is work with it.

Similar to how people have changed the meaning of terms that were used to insult them into something to bring them together, I want "autism" to become a positive thing.

Drop the "disorder" part. We can't be wired the same or be different only in "allowed" ways.

"Oh, this difference is normal, but this one is not. They should feel ashamed for being targeted by us. Those are people to be sorry for."

Instead of making complexity easier to use, what about making things simpler ?

When siamese twins die or are killed, does it count as one or two deaths ?

When I think about it, if you were at the center of the earth, you would be pretty much weightless. You would be pulled in every direction by the earth.

But I think you would also be crushed, although I'm not sure.

Rock : beats scissors, beaten by paper
Paper : beats rock, beaten by scissors
Scissors : beats paper, beaten by rock

It's all balanced.

If every gasoline car was replaced by an electric car, I'm not sure Hydro-Québec could handle the extra load to charge all those cars.

I believe in neither.

It seems to me like it's not going to be BANG you're born and BANG you're dead. I'd rather go with something more gradual.

No beginnings, no ends. Just constant change and movement.

Whatever makes us perceive must be there before we're "born" and after we "die".

Aside, I believe memory is just part of the body and adds depth to the other senses. It develops, changes and rots. No such thing as starting and ending.

To me, after all the ills AI brings to society, the fact that AI companies keep their servers online and do not shut them off, means that the ills are intentional.

As the years go by, I feel my mind stiffening up.

I was previously able to think and reason and be flexible, but no longer.

I no longer remember the thinking that brought me to now. Only shadows of the results. Fuzzy thoughts and poorly-sounding philosophies is my now.

I believe things can only happen one way. That all through the size spectrum, from our human choices to the minuscule worlds of atoms and molecules, there is only one path, one way.

One past, one future, no forks. Choice is not randomly choosing something out of possibilities. Choice is just a result of the past. The past made us now.

The way I see it, when we look at the world, things do really happen one way. We follow and see one path.

I do not believe in parallel worlds or those "but what if <something> had happened differently ?" My life is how it is and it could not have been different.