Shortcut to Nirvana

While I was trying ways to ward off recurrent thoughts, I hit upon this elegant method to do it. I do not know if the method is portable to other minds, but here it is:

Use the recurrent thought as a marker or a breakpoint for recollection of how you arrived at it, and what started it. Essentially it amounts to remembering your stream of consciousness backward. This reveals the potential branching points in the stream, that lead you to the recurrent thought. Over time, you can avoid the branching points because you know where it leads.

At least in my mind, the stream of consciousness runs through a landscape designed by a “force”, an unconscious desire to reach a final cause, a telos. Often the telos is some unresolved decision with a potentially disastrous expected value for a single decision or lack thereof. And the something unconscious is reading the stream of thoughts much like I am becoming aware of it. This unconscious part of me nudges me from thought to thought to the unresolved decision it wants me to look at.

Keep in mind that this method has only been tried situations in which my unconscious is unsatisfied with my conscious assessment of the decision I made. But I guess that cannot be avoided. There are situations in which all decisions have a permanent taste of dissatisfaction to it.

I have a disclaimer though: I do not know if by pushing these unresolved issues into my own Jungian shadow I might create compensatory behaviors in dreams and so on. But I am working on it.

Systems > Goals

I’ve never been able to achieve any of my goals. But every system I have followed has given me results.

Systems promise an expected value for actions. Whereas goals are about getting our wishes granted.

A system follower does not have attachments to the goals and is content with whatever goals are attained.

A system follower only measures the properties of the system, not whether its state matches the goal.

The properties of the system are: progress, expected value and in rare cases win rate.

There is no final cause. I will take whatever comes my way.

How modern compilers optimize

So I wrote this C program and compiled it with,-O1 -O2 and -O3 flags on x86-64 gcc 6.3 just for fun (notice the unused function argument):

int square(int num) {
    int sum = 0;
    for(int i = 0; i < 10; i ++) {
        sum += i;
    }
    return sum;
}

With -O1 flag:

square(int):
        mov     eax, 0
.L2:
        add     eax, 1
        cmp     eax, 10
        jne     .L2
        mov     eax, 45
        ret

With -O2 flag:

square(int):
        mov     eax, 45
        ret

With -O3 flag:

square(int):
        mov     eax, 45
        ret

With Clang, and any -O flag will result in:

square(int):                             # @square(int)
        mov     eax, 45
        ret

Seems like compilers are willing to run side effect free code at compile time, and calculate the values to be returned.

Update:
icc was even weirder, instead of moving 0s to registers, it XORed the registers with itself. I think that is faster for the i7 processors I was compiling for.

rustc 1.9 keeps emitting slightly shittier code because it doesn’t figure out the unused argument need not pushed to the stack. This happens despite it using the LLVM code generator:

pub fn square(num: i32) -> i32 {
  let mut sum:i32 = 0;
  for i in 1..10 {
    sum += i;
  }
  return sum;
}

emits with -C opt-level=3 flag:

example::square:
        push    rbp
        mov     rbp, rsp
        mov     eax, 45
        pop     rbp
        ret

D-language compiler gdc 5.2.0 emits code which is as good as clang, but with a lot of metadata, which is not surprising, because of the LLVM code generator

int square(int num) {
  int sum = 0;
  for(int i =0; i < 10; i++) {
    sum += i;
  }
  return sum;
}

emits

int example.square(int):
        mov     eax, 45
        ret
void example.__modinit():
        mov     rax, QWORD PTR _Dmodule_ref[rip]
        mov     QWORD PTR _Dmodule_ref[rip], OFFSET FLAT:__mod_ref.3526
        mov     QWORD PTR __mod_ref.3526[rip], rax
        ret
__mod_ref.3526:
        .quad   0
        .quad   _D7example12__ModuleInfoZ
_D7example12__ModuleInfoZ:
        .long   4100
        .long   0
        .string "example"

x86 gccgo 4.9.1 on -O3, also emits optimized code with lots of metadata and a main function:

main.Square:
        cmp     rsp, QWORD PTR %fs:112
        jb      .L4
.L2:
        mov     eax, 45
        ret
.L4:
        xor     r10d, r10d
        xor     r11d, r11d
        call    __morestack
        ret
        jmp     .L2
__go_init_main:
        cmp     rsp, QWORD PTR %fs:112
        jb      .L7
        ret
.L7:
        xor     r10d, r10d
        xor     r11d, r11d
        call    __morestack
        ret
        ret
main.Square$descriptor:
        .quad   main.Square

My foolish thoughts about solving Reimann hypothesis after watching 3Blue1Brown

Essentially it boils down to:

Map real numbers to complex numbers and vice versa using a Hilbert (or another) space filling curve and then encode non-trivial zeroes of the Reimann zeta function on the real number line

Has anyone tried anything like this?

Role of food entropy in weight loss

I have lost ~12 kilograms in 2.5 months. My rule of thumb so far has been to avoid anything that can be made into white powders or be made from white powders. e.g. sugars, grains, foods that grow under the ground, fruits, etc are avoided.

My current opinions about what works for weight loss are:

  • Exercise without dieting is useless and maybe even harmful.
  • Dieting without exercise works. In other words, diet is more important than exercise
  • Dieting with minimum exercise seems to work the best for the later stages of weight loss.
  • Dieting without protein intake leads to muscle loss.
  • Dieting without fiber intake leads to constipation.
  • Dieting without water intake leads to darker urine, and may cause renal issues.
  • Calories In Calories Out (CICO) is thermodynamically sound but psychologically it is harder to practice for some type of diets. e.g. a carbohydrate centric CICO diet is harder to adhere to without a lot of self-control.
  • Carbohydrate centric CICO diets e.g. an Indian vegetarian diet requires a lot of small meals per day. For people who have many meetings per day or labor outside this is impractical.
  • Protein-centric CICO diets require fewer meals per day (as low as 1 meal per day). This is because proteins give satiety faster than carbohydrates, and require less self-control or conscious management of food intake.
  • I do not think fat-centric CICO diets are possible because it makes people drowsy. But if such a diet exists let me know.

My favorite formulation right now is the role of food entropy. The more information you need to completely describe the molecular structure of your food, the better it is for weight loss.

For example, a crystalline substance usually requires very low information to completely describe its molecular structure compared to say a piece of meat. While both a crystal of sugar and a piece of meat can have the same amount of calories, meat has a higher entropy i.e. lower usable energy available in it. More work needs to be done, to create order out of the mess that is meat. For this reason, it is better for weight loss. Even within the meats, a nicely minced meat has more uniformity and hence higher bioavailability than a block of meat cut from an animal. Hence a steak is better than a hotdog for weight loss.

I am going to test this hypothesis after reaching my ideal weight. I plan to use low entropy meat to gain muscle.

The nature of my mistakes

When I am in a new platonic realm e.g. the realm of vectors as opposed to numbers, I am lost in the minutiae instead of being aware of my surroundings. I do not realize the bigger changes happening like how matrices are changing the whole space I am working in.

I make that same mistake in relationships and in any type of interactive discovery e.g. chess. I get so involved in my own platonic abstractions of my own plans that, I lose track of what the other person’s abstractions and plans.

Why don’t Liberals practice “real” liberalism?

Liberalism is premised on the idea that people are inherently good in some sense, and therefore worthy of liberty and equality in some domains. This applies to modern liberals who only care about social liberties and social equality (a.k.a social justice), classical liberals who agree with everything modern liberals say, but they additionally want economic liberty and equality as well. Anarchists can also be considered a type of liberal arguably because the only difference between them and the liberals is that anarchists don’t think there should be an agency which reserves the right to violence in all affairs (a.k.a a state) which is a form of inequality.

The reason liberalism is hard to practice is that there are contradictions between liberty and equality. As people have more liberty, they are free to prefer some people to others for various reasons. This leads to various forms of inequalities depending on the type of preference being exhibited. If the preference is by merit we have meritocracy which leads to people of merit being unequal to people without merit. If the preference is based on race it leads to racism in which some races are unequal to others in certain human endeavors. If the preference is by sexual orientation we get homophobia in which some sexual orientations are unequal to others. If the preference is by wealth we get various forms of inequality in forms of justice, political power, education, healthcare etc.

So liberals resort to various illiberal requirements like enforcement of equality of opportunity (e.g. Social justice extremism, affirmative action) and even enforcement of equality of outcome.

Liberals also end up in a purity spiral in which the more they care about minor infractions of their ideology the greater standing they have in their community. So much like Catholics who avoid condoms are more pious than Catholics who avoid murder, liberals who use preferred pronouns are purer and have a higher standing than a liberal who avoids murder/rape.

BTW this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to difficulties of liberalism. For example, many forms of liberalism believe in the ability of laws and lawmakers (a.k.a legislature) to handle all governance scenarios including the foreseen and unforeseen. However, laws cannot work when the unforeseeable happens so even liberals allow illiberal ideas like allowing one individual (a.k.a the president/dictator) to suspend the law, and rule by whim and extra-legal force until normality has been restored. This is yet another contradiction that happens when people try to establish liberal governments. People show this desire for extra-legal heroes in superhero fiction in which one person acts for the good using extra-legal force.