Malkom

To understand what a master, for example, is talking about, you need to start small. So, maybe they're equal, and yet they're not. For example, I've stopped writing about many things because it feels like casting pearls. Besides, it's not appropriate to prove anything to anyone, even if they're a complete nobody. For example, the head of NASA, appointed by Trump, for some reason started proving his point to Kim Kardashian on Twitter. Why did he do that? Hahaha. It's completely pointless. He could have gone to a sectarian forum and started explaining things to them, or even a sedition YouTube channel. We should just leave it as is—let them stew in their own juices, since they're not ready yet. From a biological perspective, we all have the same origins, and we're all equal. This requires context.

Disgust is one of the most basic instincts. Well, if you think you're smarter than nature, you can eat rotten meat.

What you're describing is called "complex panoramic hallucinations." There's no need to look for meaning in them. Sometimes schizophrenia begins harmlessly—at first, you feel discomfort, general discomfort. Then you might start to experience discomfort in your body. It's as if something's getting in the way, or something else. And then this something starts to develop, and it feels like it's separating from you. This is a later stage of schizophrenia. And schizophrenia isn't necessarily negative; there are periods with positive emotions. If it's not treated promptly, it will progress, and it will get worse. And it's also impossible to convince schizophrenics of their fate; I'm not the only one who's experienced this.

Dude! Run to the doctor immediately! And get an MRI! This looks a lot like schizophrenia. We need to rule out any possible organic brain disorders first.

I already told you not to write to me. That's the first thing. Second, you can't discuss something you don't understand; you need to learn the basics first, and only then will you have a clearer structural picture. It's just a matter of fact; ego has nothing to do with it; it's just your ego that's being hurt. All you can do is philosophize, or rather, pseudo-philosophize. I already wrote that I've already abridged everything, and abridged it to the point of indecency. Your problem is your own laziness. Like many philosophers, you get stuck in illustrations and meta-theories; you seem to understand something, and yet you don't. And don't write on this thread anymore; don't clutter it with your presence. I don't need your irritation. I don't care at all who's smarter, and I don't strive to be smart; that only matters to you. And don't write to me anymore. If you don't understand something, you could have simply asked a question instead of spewing your venom. I don't like you, bro. So just move on. I don't read your posts or comments at all. If I see something you've written in them, I just skim them. You're not revealing anything new to me. And you should do the same.

This is very strange, bro

I'll start at the beginning, and it's unclear. Some things can't be shortened or simplified, because they're already maximally simplified, even if they're long. I recently started reading Prokhorov's book, and it's strange that this scholar asks questions that he claims have no answers. Why not? I disagree; perhaps he wrote this book during the era of political materialism, so he adjusted everything to avoid going to prison again. But there are answers, for example, how classical probability theory and quantum mechanics relate to each other, or rather, the mathematical apparatus of quantum theory. In my opinion, everything is simple here: quantum mechanics is a kind of generalization of probability theory. Instead of a probability distribution function, a wave function is considered, and the square of the absolute value of the wave function yields the probability distribution. Essentially, probability theory can be derived from quantum mechanics, but not vice versa. But what kind of physical reality corresponds to a wave function? None. The wave function is the observer's subjective knowledge of the system, and that's all. The world isn't divided into quantum or classical everyday life. There's no such thing, whether microscopic or macroscopic, to which quantum mechanics can't be applied. But the quantum world divides the world into the observer and everything else (the external system). The observer is a distinct object, or more accurately, a subject, from the perspective of quantum mechanics. When observing an external system, some aspect of it, the wave function or state vector that describes it collapses into one of the possible alternatives, which is realized in reality. This action applies specifically to the "observer," and by "observer," I don't mean a measuring device or even any of the observer's senses—the eye, the ear, whatever. By "observer," we mean the observer's consciousness. When information about which alternative was realized enters the consciousness, the wave function collapses into precisely that realized alternative. This may seem to hint at some kind of solipsism inherent in quantum mechanics, but in fact, this is not the case. Although the observer has a distinct role, as we know, everyone can consider themselves an observer. As an observer, you cannot view others as observers because, for you as an observer, everything else is simply a system. From the standpoint of quantum mechanics, you have no right to view everyone else as observers. If you do, you will create all sorts of contradictions. If you apply the observation postulate not to yourself, but to other observers, you will create a contradiction. This is not allowed in quantum mechanics. But some people think that an observer is a rather complex system, a macroscopic measuring device, for example. If we collect many, many molecules, which individually can be considered quantum mechanically, then collectively we can consider this system an observer. But this is incorrect. No matter how large the system, even black holes, which can also be considered quantum mechanically, do this. And how can all this be reconciled without resorting to solipsism? Let's say we have a particle, and it can be either "here" or "there." Let's write it as a quantum-mechanical superposition of "here + there." And we have a person, let's say, who observed this system and, from their point of view, this particle was, say, "here." And you might say, "Well, that's it, this observer collapsed the state vector, and I have no choice but to confirm that, yes, this particle is "here." But in fact, that's not true. You must consider this particle and this person not as an observer, but as part of the system, and their measurements of this particle should be described to you as an observer as an entangled state of "particle-observer." The particle is "here" because the person measured that it is "here," plus the particle is "there" because the person measured that it is "there." You might say this is a contradiction, since he doesn't see it as "there" and "here." And if we don't consider the freakish many-worlds interpretation, where the universe is split into two branches, then there's a contradiction here—why can I consider myself an observer, but not him? Well, look, purely hypothetically, all these formations of entangled states are reversible, just as the Schrödinger equation is reversible in time. Only measurement is irreversible in time. And if I, as an observer, perform some actions on this external system, including both the particle and the observer who observed this system, perform these actions in such a way that evolution reverses. This is permitted in quantum mechanics; entangled states can be formed, or, conversely, untangled. All these actions are reversible. So, we can, as it were, reverse the measurement of this external observer to the moment they performed this measurement. And on the one hand, it turns out that for them, from our perspective, the measurement postulate is inapplicable because we can reverse it. But our own measurement as an observer is irreversible, which is precisely why time has an arrow. Quantum mechanics is not truly symmetrical with respect to time—the past is not the same as the future with respect to me as an observer. But if some super-advanced civilization were to come along and perform quantum actions, gates, unitary ones that would reverse this entire evolution, just as that person supposedly performed a measurement on the device, then everything would be erased, including their memory—not exactly erased, but simply nonexistent. The universe would have no information that they had ever performed or measured anything. If such information doesn't exist, then, in essence, they didn't measure anything. Quantum mechanics is subjective because only I, as an observer, can say that I saw a particular alternative, and from that moment on, it is irreversibly fixed. Everything else could theoretically be reversed in time because it's all an external system. It's difficult because entropy increases over time, like putting a broken glass back together, but it's theoretically possible. Here, too, we could theoretically reverse the measurement of an external observer because they aren't an observer in relation to me, an external system. All of this is symmetrical, and I, as an observer, will never have any contradictions with another observer. If they measure a particle as being "there," I'll later measure it, and it will still be "there" and not "here," and our measurements won't agree. But as I wrote, it's impossible to create an observer of some combinations, qubits, for example, or particles, or macroscopic devices, because that's not an observer. The observer is you and your consciousness, the you that applies quantum mechanics. But philosophers in the comments will tell me that quantum mechanics describes not our world, not our universe, but rather the observer's knowledge of the system, like a "shadow" in Plato's cave. It doesn't describe the very essence of things, but some other thing. The universe itself, in fact, has a description unrelated to the subject; science simply hasn't yet reached the point of describing this entire universe. But when such philosophers say this, they imagine this universe, just as Newton imagined it, as some kind of mechanical device, some kind of complex machine. The human brain simply can't conceive of the universe any other way. But as experiments have shown, the universe cannot be this complex mechanical machine. Therefore, if you say that quantum mechanics doesn't describe the universe, and the universe operates according to strictly defined rules, but we simply don't know what they are, then you're implicitly imagining some kind of mechanism. But experiment shows that such a mechanism cannot exist. Continuing... Are we living in a simulation? (This is the question of what is more fundamental: the discrete (divisible) or the Whole?) The structure of the universe is always linked to the level of development of civilization, technology, and science. When humans' primary occupations were hunting and gathering, animals were the center of humanity, and accordingly, the world was imagined as standing on elephants and turtles. When Newton created his classical mechanics, the worldview changed once again, and the world began to be seen as consisting of gears, a kind of classical Newtonian mechanism. Even theorems were proven that the world is a classical mechanism, that everything is deterministic and defined—the so-called Laplace determinism. Laplace imagined a being who knows all the states, coordinates, and velocities of all the material particles of Newton's points. This being can predict all the future and past dynamics of the system, how it will develop billions of years in the future and billions of years in the past. Essentially, this demon is God. No one doubted that the world operated on gears, down to the smallest scale. Even Maxwell, when he developed his theory of electrodynamics, conceived of electromagnetic wave propagation as these mechanical gears (you can read Maxwell's original work and be horrified). Computers have become so commonplace in our lives that everyone suddenly started thinking the world is a computer simulation. And that the world is actually discrete (digital) – there are tiny intervals of time, tiny intervals of space, pixels, voxels, and some computer simulates all these changes, essentially like a computer game. There are countless YouTube videos dedicated to this nonsense – we live in the Matrix. Elon Musk even speaks out on the subject. We won't go into detail; it's complete nonsense, the stupidity is beyond belief. Of course, there are a number of genuine scientists who believe we live in a simulation. Seth Lloyd, for example, says we live in a computer. And such people always exist, even among scientists. But we'll focus on the scientific arguments, which basically tell us that we DO NOT live in a computer, and the world CANNOT be discretized (divided) in principle. Discrete structures aren't fundamental in modern physics; rather, they're fundamentally continuous things, which are fundamentally impossible to model with classical computers. "God created the Whole, everything else is the work of man" – Leopold Kronecker. But even when Kronecker was alive, this was already being questioned. Now, it's the other way around – it's believed that integers emerge from continuous structures. Take the Schrödinger equation, where the key is the wave function, not the numbers. This discreteness – the quantization of energy levels – emerges from the Schrödinger equation, which describes a continuous wave function. In other words, integers emerge from continuous structures, but not vice versa. Although quantum mechanics was initially created as an attempt to discretize classical continuous equations, Bohr's quantizations and the like, hence the name "quantum mechanics." Later, as it developed, it became clear that, on the contrary, continuous things are more fundamental than discrete ones. It's said that while standard models as we know them most accurately describe our reality, scientists still don't know how to discretize them, to create a discrete version for computer simulation. This is likely impossible in principle. Although there is currently no precise formal proof, there are attempts to make field theory discrete. However, all these attempts have only been successful for the simplest field theories, which are not directly related to our reality. The Standard Model, meanwhile, falls into the category of being impossible to force into a computer—a lattice field theory version. Even the very same Lorentz invariance, which Einstein discovered with the Lorentz transformation, says that these discrete intervals of time and space cannot exist. If a discrete time interval existed, we could find a frame of reference where this interval would be not small, but arbitrarily large. But also, due to Lorentz contraction, these spatial pixels also have different sizes in different frames of reference. Experiments on quantum entanglement also cannot be simulated with a classical computer. In quantum mechanics, of course, a matrix appears—seemingly discrete, but a matrix as such usually comes complete with a wave function. The same Pauli spin matrices were obtained when Pauli attempted to generalize the Schrödinger equation to account for spin. These spin matrices still come with a wave function, meaning you can't take spin and separate it from an electron, so to speak. The degree of freedom of spin is described by these three matrices, but you can't obtain a spin unbound to any physical object, any particle, which in turn is described by continuous functions. Instead of a single wave function, Pauli obtained two wave functions related by these matrices, and Dirac later discovered the relativistic wave equation, which includes 4x4 matrices, which are related to the wave functions by four components; they can't exist separately. Therefore, all these discussions, even about quantum computers and qubits, are somehow out of touch with reality. In practice, a qubit is always embodied by some real entity, which, in addition to the discrete property associated with qubits, also has a continuous aspect. Qubits cannot describe everything in the world. Perhaps proponents of simulation will say that those simulating us have some kind of super-technology, and that the laws of physics are completely different from ours. In the world they're simulating, everything is completely different, and we'll never really know what's out there. But that's a matter of faith or psychiatry. In psychiatry, there's a syndrome called derealization and depersonalization, where a person feels like the world is unreal, and they themselves are unreal. This is now considered a mental disorder. If you feel like you're living in a virtual world, you should consult a psychiatrist instead of writing comments or posting videos somewhere, like on YouTube. Philip K. Dick apparently had this syndrome, possibly acquired through substance abuse. Basically, just as the ancients believed the world rested on elephants and turtles, the Middle Ages believed the world was made of gears, and now people believe the world is a computer, but I think all of this will pass with time. There are many videos about how space is curved, allowing one to travel faster than light by compressing space itself. Space is NOT curved in ANY WAY; all we see and feel is gravity, because this curvature affects the observer. To talk about real curvature, about observable curvature, we need to go beyond this space. Moreover, the theory of relativity implies that it makes no difference whether the world is moving or you are moving. It turns out that the theory of relativity is relative, that is, subjective. Quantum mechanics is also subjective, as I already wrote. Now let's take mathematics – in set theory, you can construct a statement that is either false or true, but you cannot prove it. That is, you can derive an axiomatics where one statement is false and it does not contradict common understanding, and where this statement is true and it also does not contradict common understanding. Gödel, studying set theory, derived the incompleteness theorem. If we take a hypothetical "alien" with a different mind, say, and without numbers, they would use a different mathematics. This means that mathematics acquires the status of anti-realism, which is also nominalism in philosophy. In mathematics, the important thing is not what is true or false, but self-consistency within itself. Recently, crazy sets have been discovered—ultraexacting and exacting cardinals—where the axiom of choice and the continuum hypothesis are not unknowable; they have the status of both proven and refuted, but do not have the status of unprovability as in ordinary fundamental mathematical axiomatics. This suggests that mathematics is based not on order, but on chaos (in the good sense). Max Tegmark hypothesizes a level-4 Multiverse (this is beyond any theory of everything), where everything that is not forbidden within the system is possible, and that means literally EVERYTHING. For example, our world is quantum, but the Multiverse could allow for a super-quantum world, and even a super-super-quantum... It turns out that the theory of relativity is subjective, quantum mechanics is subjective, mathematics is subjective. Our entire world is SUBJECTIVE. Object = Subject, Duality = Non-duality. Besides this intuitive knowledge, it is also given a formal form, and this is very important, since it becomes REALIZABLE or EMBODIED. Consciousness (qualia) is the only objective thing in the world. P.S. There may be some nuances and inaccuracies in the translation.

What you write is how it arises. There's a point here where you're separating Objectivism from the Subject itself. Objectivity doesn't exist without a subject.

Maybe so. But if you somehow gained access to the Multiverse, say, level 4, according to the conventional classification, that is, to the Absolute Ensemble, then any reality is possible, but your imagination will definitely be lacking. Grab this piece ahahaha Maybe it will feel like inspiration; any fresh idea, when the whole puzzle comes together, feels like that, even if it's nonsense.

In reality, I've been told that I have very strong energy and seem to radiate something unearthly and mysterious, as if I were the messiah. Of course, that's not true, and I can easily demonstrate it in any situation, and the illusions will be dispelled. These are just projections of their imagination. They may sense something, but there's nothing supernatural. Moreover, this works on people with a certain way of thinking; some will interpret it differently and more specifically. Also, when someone senses your energy, you can be dangerous to them, and here the situation is the opposite—there's something extremely unpleasant about them. If a messiah existed on earth, most likely, part of them would sincerely hate him, while the other part would love him.

As if there's some truth to that. People always sense your state. Not just your appearance, but also your inner state, which creates unconscious movements, facial expressions, voice, intonation, reactions, body posture—it's all read on a different level of "intelligence." Everything is "intelligence." It's not just good looks, charismatic, it's DYNAMICS—it's a complex combination of both appearance and your expression. That's why I don't like photographs. Haha, just kidding, of course.

I'll continue with the third point; it seemed incomplete to me. So. 3. Manipura and a playful connection with the P&NP Millennium Problem (in cases of inequality, which they are not, and the infinite density-hierarchy of the complexities of intermediate problems (NPI, It is known that these tasks exist and within them there is an infinite DENSITY (precisely density, not continuity), what these tasks are, no one knows, but they know that they definitely exist, but we do not see them as "dark matter"). The gist: Between problems that can be solved quickly (P) and the hardest problems that cannot be solved quickly (NP-complete), there is an infinite number of intermediate levels of difficulty. Complexity is not a chasm, but an infinite ladder. In any field, there are infinite levels of mastery. You don't instantly go from beginner to guru; you climb an infinite hierarchy. There are problems of intermediate difficulty (NPI) that require unique approaches. By abandoning the idea that everything is either "easy" or "impossible," you acknowledge the subtle gradations of reality's complexity. This can be used to develop patience, recognize the existence of multiple levels of skill, and find unique solutions to the "in-between" challenges that make up so much of our lives. Perfection is unattainable, meaning there's always room for improvement, and that even the smallest details matter in creating complexity. You can infinitely "zoom in" on the gap between two difficulty levels and find new, even finer levels (infinite density). This means absolute perfection in anything is unattainable. Since there are infinitely many problems between P and NP-Complete, there's always room to create a unique niche that's harder than competitors, but not so hard that it's insurmountable. Because difficulty levels are infinitely dense, even the slightest changes to a problem or algorithm can move you to another difficulty level. Details matter. The "infinite density" principle of Ladner's theorem teaches us that perfection is a process, not a goal. This can be used to embrace the endless process of improvement, paying attention to the smallest details, and finding unique niches, knowing that the world is full of nuances and gradations of complexity. 1) Action: Apply hierarchical thinking to learning a new skill, career, or physical fitness. Value every intermediate level. Example: Learning to play the guitar. Level P—you can produce a sound. Level NP-complete—you can play any composition ever composed. Ladner's theorem says there are an infinite number of levels in between. Don't despair that you didn't become a guru in a month. You just reached a level. 2) Action: Recognize unique mid-level tasks in your life that are neither trivial nor impossible. Universal methods won't work for them. Example: Managing your time. It's not as simple as brushing your teeth (a P-problem), but it's also not as difficult as building a rocket (NP-complete). It's an NPI problem. It requires a unique approach. Don't try to solve it with a "universal" solution; find your own unique NPI algorithm. 3) Action: Avoid binary thinking. Most problems fall somewhere in the middle and require proportionate efforts. Example: Relationships aren't "perfect" or "terrible." They occupy a specific level of complexity on Ladner's hierarchy. Recognizing this helps you apply the appropriate amount of effort to improving them, rather than giving up or assuming they're perfect. 4) Action: Pay attention to the fine-tuning and minute details in your work or relationships, because they determine your precise "level of complexity." Example: Cooking. The difference between a "good" and a "great" dish lies in the smallest details: a pinch of spice, the precise temperature, the timing. The principle of "infinite density" says that these details change the quality of the outcome. Don't ignore the little things; they make all the difference. 5) Action: Find your unique niche in the market or profession. There's always an opportunity to create a product or service that occupies its own unique level on the complexity hierarchy. Example: In a market where everyone is doing simple things (P) or trying to create the impossible (NP-Complete), you find your "NPI-niche" (intermediate problem) that is more difficult than your competitors, but which you can solve in a unique way.

I don't know why, but I felt a marijuana vibe. I remembered a long time ago, when my friend and I got high at home and started looking at celebrity caricatures. It was really funny. And I also need to update my Black Afghano cologne.

If we take the 7 Millennium Problems, we could, for fun (or perhaps even truly), create a playful model of the connection with the 7 chakras. And how this works not just in practice, but more specifically, in everyday life. I won't describe their mathematical properties—don't worry about it—but I'll go straight to the analogy. Here's an example: 1. Muladhara's playful connection with the Millennium Problem—Yang-Mills Theory and the existence of a mass gap. (I chose this for Muladhara; it's very appropriate.) The essence: The energy of a system cannot be zero; there is a minimum threshold (mass gap) that ensures stability and prevents particle decay. Without this "gap," the world would be unstable. Particles in Yang-Mills theory have mass (even when not moving), meaning they contain internal energy (E=mc²). Stability and existence require energy and constraints. In everyday life, this can be used to set clear personal boundaries, focus energy, and recognize the value of inertia and self-restraint to prevent chaos and achieve sustainability. Action: Use the "mass gap" principle to create personal stability and inertia in your systems. Establish a minimum threshold (the gap) below which you will not fall. Example: Your personal boundaries are your "mass gap." If you set a rule like "I never work after 7:00 PM" or "I sleep at least 7 hours," this creates an energetic threshold that prevents your energy from "disintegrating" and burning out (instability). This gap gives you stability. Action: Use self-restraint and discipline to focus your energy within "project boundaries" or "task boundaries" rather than scattering it uncontrollably. Example: Instead of trying to do 10 things at once (loose gluons that create no stability), you "lock" your energy and attention to one task for an hour. This focused energy creates a stable, tangible result (a proton/neutron), not just chaotic noise. Action: Recognize the value of stillness and inertia. Rest and pauses are not "doing nothing," but rather accumulating potential (mass/energy). Example: When you rest, read, or simply reflect (restful energy), you don't waste time. You create a "mass gap," accumulating internal energy for future action. 2. Svadhisana: A playful connection to the Millennium Development Goal: A unique and smooth solution to the Navier-Stokes equation (there isn't one). The point: This hypothetical situation teaches us the principles of managing chaos, embracing uncertainty, and focusing on resilience rather than precise predictions. In complex, three-dimensional systems (work, family, economics), smooth and predictable solutions do not exist. Turbulence (chaos, crises, failures) is the normal state of the system. If the solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations are not unique, this means there is no "one right" path that leads to a predictable outcome. If it is impossible to accurately predict the weather a month from now due to turbulence, we focus on building weather-resistant houses and ships. teaches us that the world is full of turbulence, and attempts to find a "smooth and unique" solution are often futile. If it's impossible to accurately predict the weather a month from now due to turbulence, we focus on building weather-resistant homes and ships. Wisdom lies in embracing this chaos, planning for uncertainty, and creating resilient systems that thrive in an unpredictable reality. Action: Stop expecting a "smooth" and predictable course of events. Plan for glitches, delays, and surprises. Example: When planning a budget or project, don't assume a perfect scenario. Allow 20-30% of the budget for "turbulence" (unforeseen expenses, delivery delays). Action: Stop looking for a single "perfect" solution or "one right way." Accept that there are many equally valid but different paths. Example: When choosing a career path or a method of raising children, there is no single, unique answer. Use a "trial and error" approach, and be prepared to change course, as there is no "smooth and unique solution" for your life. Action: Focus not on accurately predicting the future, but on creating systems that are resilient in the face of chaos. Example: Instead of trying to predict the behavior of the financial market, you create a resilient system: a diversified portfolio that can withstand any "turbulence." Your goal is not to predict the wave, but to stay afloat after it. 3. Manipura's playful connection to the Millennium Prize problem—the P&NP problem (99% is not equal, but the difference between them is not 0% to 100%, but within 87% to 100%). There is a fundamental gap between the ease of verification (checking) and the difficulty of synthesis (creation). Verification is a polynomial problem (fast), while creation is exponential (slow). For NP-complete problems (such as perfect planning or optimization), there is no fast, perfect algorithm. Finding the perfect solution would take the entire lifetime of the universe. Life is full of fundamental barriers between the ease of judgment and the difficulty of action. In everyday life, this can be used to focus on realistic, approximate solutions (heuristics), to respect the labor of creation, and to avoid the trap of facile criticism. Action: Recognize the vast difference in resources required for criticism and creation. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the ease of testing (criticism) makes you think that creating something is just as easy. Example: Criticizing a website design by saying "it's bad" is easy (Problem P). Creating a functional, beautiful, and user-friendly website from scratch is an NP-hard problem. The Principle of P Not Equal to NP teaches you to respect the work of creators and be constructive, recognizing the complexity of the process. Action: Refuse to search for a single, ideal, optimal solution in complex life situations. Instead, use heuristics—approximate, "good enough" methods. Example: Planning the perfect itinerary for a trip with 10 friends, ensuring everyone is comfortable and within budget—is an NP-complete problem. You will never find the perfect solution. The Principle of P Not Equal to NP says to use heuristics—propose 2-3 options and vote on them. This is a good enough solution, arrived at quickly. Action: Appreciate the effort put into creating something complex, even if the result seems simple. Example: A good tip or solution to a problem may seem simple and obvious. But finding it (creating it) may have required years of experience and effort (exponential time). The P not equals NP principle teaches us to value this complexity of creation, not just the ease of verifying the result. 4. Anahata is a playful connection to the Millennium Prize problem – the Poincaré-Perelman theorem. The principle of simplification, the search for a basic form, and the smoothing out of complexities. The gist is: Complex shapes and deformations (problems, complex situations) can be reduced to their basic, simplest form if they have no irreparable flaws (fundamental "holes"). If space has a "hole," you can't turn it into a sphere; it will forever remain a torus (a donut). Perelman used "Ricci flow" – a process that slowly and consistently smooths out all geometric curvatures. Action: Apply "Ricci Flow" to complex situations. Ask yourself, "What is the underlying, spherical form of this problem?" Example: A project at work has grown, become complex, and ineffective (distorted form). The Poincaré-Perelman principle says it can be simplified to its core essence (sphere). You cut out all unnecessary functions, return to the original goal, and "smooth" the process, making it manageable and understandable. Action: Distinguish between superficial problems and fundamental flaws. Superficial problems can be "smoothed" and simplified; fundamental ones require radical change. Example: Small habits (superficial irregularities) can be "smoothed" with Ricci Flow (self-discipline). But if you have a fundamental "hole" in your character or worldview (e.g., burnout, deep cynicism), simple "smoothing" (temporary motivation) won't suffice—you need to completely restructure your system. Action: Apply slow, consistent improvement to yourself or your projects. Don't expect instant results. Example: Instead of trying to change your life overnight (the "big bang"), use "Ricci Flow": small, consistent improvements every day (reading 10 pages, exercising for 15 minutes) will gradually "smooth out" your life and bring it to your desired baseline. 5. Vishuddha is a playful connection to the Millennium Prize problem, the Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer (BSD) hypothesis. The gist: To understand a difficult-to-measure property of a system (for example, whether an equation has rational solutions), it's not necessary to "break" the system. It's enough to look at an easily measurable, indirect indicator. The BSD hypothesis concerns rational solutions (fractions that can be written as numbers), not abstract or irrational ones. Action: Apply indirect diagnostics to complex problems that are difficult to analyze directly. Example: Instead of trying to directly measure customer or employee "satisfaction" (which is difficult), you look at the system's "L-function"—indirect indicators such as purchase frequency, number of missed workdays, and level of participation in team meetings. The BSD Hypothesis states that these indicators will accurately tell you whether there are "rational decisions" (success) in your system. Action: Focus on finding specific, measurable, "rational" decisions, not abstract "feelings" or "intentions." Example: In personal finance, your goal is not to "feel rich," but to have specific, rational decisions (numbers in an account, specific investments). The BSD Hypothesis reinforces the idea that only tangible, numerical decisions matter for the system to function. Action: Use different languages and approaches to solve the same problem. Example: When negotiating, use both "analytical" language (emotions, intuition, empathy) and "algebraic" language (logic, numbers, facts). The BSD Hypothesis teaches us that both approaches are needed to fully understand the truth. 6. Ajna's playful connection to the Riemann hypothesis (about chaos and order). The gist: If even such an orderly field as pure mathematics (prime numbers) obeys the laws of quantum chaos, then unpredictability is not a system failure, but its fundamental property. If randomness is fundamental, then our "hunches" or intuitive probability estimates can be just as important as rigorous deterministic analysis. The paradox of the Riemann hypothesis is that chaos (the intervals between zeros) coexists with perfect order (all zeros lie on a single line). This is a "rational" chaos that obeys a higher law. Action: Structuring Chaos - In a complex or chaotic situation, look for hidden "universal patterns." Example: In a busy work schedule (chaos), you can find a "critical line"—the 20% of tasks that produce 80% of the results (order). Focus on this structure to manage the apparent disorder. Action: In any chaotic situation, identify your "Critical Line"—your central, unchanging principle or goal. Example: In business or career, chaos is changing markets, competitors, and new technologies. The "Critical Line" is your mission, your fundamental values, or a key skill you are developing. Let your daily actions be chaotic and flexible (like zeros), but always stay "on line" with your primary purpose. Action: Allow yourself and your system to be chaotic at a local level if it helps maintain global order. Example: In creativity or team management: don't control every step and every minute of the workday (local chaos and freedom), but make sure the entire team is moving towards a single, clearly defined end goal (global order). 7. Sahasrara's playful connection to the Hodge Hypothesis. The essence: The Hodge Hypothesis teaches us to seek concrete, tangible causes for abstract problems and build bridges between seemingly incompatible areas of life. Abstract problems have concrete, tangible roots. There's no need to fight abstraction; we need to find its "algebraic cycle." The Hodge Hypothesis builds a bridge between two different mathematical languages (topology and algebraic geometry). It states that these languages describe the same reality. All "holes" in space must have a clear, algebraic explanation. Action: If you're facing an abstract problem (e.g., "feeling dissatisfied," "team communication issues," "lack of motivation"), don't try to solve it with abstract talk. Look for its concrete, tangible manifestation. Example: "Dissatisfaction" (a topological "hole") can be caused by a lack of physical activity, lack of sleep, or a lack of concrete communication. An algebraic cycle is a 30-minute run, 8 hours of sleep, or a call to a friend. The Hodge Hypothesis states that this cycle must exist. Action: Look for connections between seemingly incompatible areas of knowledge or skill. Combine them. Example: Combining music and programming (creating algorithms for generating music), or psychology and marketing. The Hodge Hypothesis suggests that the deepest truths lie at the intersection of disciplines. Action: In communication and negotiations, demand specifics and tangible facts. Don't let the discussion remain in the realm of abstract "feelings" and "opinions." Example: If someone tells you, "Our team is ineffective," that's an abstraction ("hole"). Use the Hodge Principle: "Give concrete numbers and examples (algebraic cycles) that prove this statement." For the especially "gifted" and other idiots, blockheads, and complete failures who will write about AI (I've already written about AI and the translator, so I won't repeat myself. And I made the bold font myself in the message editor ), I ask you to do one kind and unselfish (no-egoistik) thing: shut up and move on. Thank you.

A long time ago, when I was imprisoned, I encountered telepaths and psychics. I've never seen anything more vile in my life. For some reason, these people project their thoughts onto others, complete their thoughts for them, as if they're hallucinating, while sometimes having no connection to reality. I knocked one such telepath out cold - knockout. Only then could he finally truly listen to me, instead of spouting nonsense and pretending to read my motives. He's incapable of this, if only because he likely doesn't possess the same level of abstract thinking as I do; he'll only be mired in his own low energies. And mind reading isn't necessarily necessary; for example, if you're more intelligent than your opponent, and also more experienced in a particular matter, it will seem like mind reading. Who wants to attend a retreat called "Prison"?