Chinese: 吳爾軒的後設猜想
English: Narvis the Cloud's Metahypotheses
Japanese: ナルビスのメタ予想
Latin: Narvis Nubes Metahypotheses

本網站內容之使用,請參閱著作權聲明書。
To use the contents on this website, please read Copyright Statement.

2017-10-25

康托爾集似之人生
Life as the Cantor Set



恆知過去、現在、未來,而不知過去之何以成現在,現在之何以成未來,如是人生即雖完備而無處稠密,巨觀之空虛,委如康托爾集。 For a person always knowing past, present and future but knowing neither how past became present nor how present becomes future, his life is complete but nowhere dense, appearing to be macroscopically empty, as the Cantor set.

2017-10-16

不應製造最終取代人的東西
Shall Not Produce Things to Replaces Humanity in the End




康德所提出的絕對命令的第二形式表明:應以人作為最終目的而行動。 Immanuel Kant declared in the second formulation of the categorical imperative that: we shall act in such a way that we treat humanity as an end.
然而,在唯物主義盛行的今日,人們隨波逐流,想方設法地製造最終[1]「取代人」的東西。人們背離康德的結果,已帶來嚴重危險。 However, nowadays with widespread Materialism, most people drift with the tide and endeavor to produce things "to replace humanity" in the end[1]. This violates Kant's categorical imperative and brings about serious danger.
所幸,後設猜想認為,一旦人全部被取代,則絕對命令的那個「人」字亦可被取代,而全新命題即將誕生。 Optimistically, the Metahypotheses predicts that, once all humanity has been replaced, a brand new thesis can be made by replacing the word "humanity" in the categorical imperative.



Notes:

[1] 請注意,「最終」二字,是指一人被取代,而無他人替補的情況而言。 Note that "in the end" means the case that no person fills the vacancy after a person is replaced.

2017-10-12

後設猜想是狂妄與謙遜之調和
The Metahypotheses is the Mixture of Arrogance and Modesty



「後設」二字,是狂妄地意圖以全知觀點觀察及描述一切現象;而「猜想」二字,則是謙遜地留有以其他觀點觀察及描述一切現象之餘地。故後設猜想,就字面而言,是狂妄與謙遜之調和。 Hence, The Metahypotheses is literally the mixture of arrogance and modesty

2017-10-11

後設猜想之常見情境
A Common Situation in the Metahypotheses



後設猜想喜歡營造出下列情境,就是你屬於要麼情況A、要麼情況B、要麼情況C等,而這些有限列舉的情況涵蓋所有可能性,使得你客觀上不能、主觀上也不想去否認這樣的歸類。 The Metahypotheses likes to declare a situation that you are limited to one of the case A, the case B, the case C, and so on, wherein the countable cases cover all possibilities, so that you objectively cannot and subjectively do not want to deny such classification.
藉此,後設猜想將一個議題定案,然後尋找下一個議題故技重施。 In this way, the Metahypotheses gives a conclusion to an issue, and then it searches for a next issue to play the same trick.

2017-10-10

注音文
Using Bopomofo in a Sentence



注音文很幼稚,乃是社會通念,所以過去我也忌諱使用注音文。 Using bopomofo in a sentence is commonly deemed an immature behavior, so I avoided doing so.
不過,自從追蹤幹幹貓的粉絲專頁,我發現注音文既方便又有趣,於是乎,像是彌補過去的缺憾般,瘋狂使用它。 However, since I followed Fuck Fuck Cat's fan page, I found using bopomofo in a sentence convenient and interesting, so I begin to use it frequently, as if I wanted to make up for my lost part in the past.

2017-09-25

公民覺醒之闡明
A Specification of Civic Consciousness



公民覺醒,須事實上且法律上覺醒,始堪稱之。 Civic consciousness must be built on factual and legal bases.
主張事實上不能實現之法律,或認同法律上不能允許之事實者,皆不能謂已公民覺醒。 A person who claims a law that is factually impracticable, or approves a fact that is legally impermissible, is not deemed having civic consciousness.

2017-09-11

進步性審查之正確態度
Proper Attitude to Examine the Inventive Step



審查發明專利的新穎性,是觀察先前技術的「單一」實施例是否揭露該發明的全部特徵。這種觀察是很客觀的。 To examine the novelty of an invention patent is to observe whether a "single" embodiment of prior art discloses all features of the invention. Such observation is objective.
審查發明專利的進步性,是揣摩先前技術的「複數」實施例的結合是否完成該發明的全部特徵及全部功效。這種揣摩是很主觀的。 To examine the inventive step of an invention patent is to imagine whether a combination of "plural" embodiments of prior art discloses all features and all effects of the invention. Such imagination is subjective.
我們知道,任何主觀的論述都見仁見智,不可能完全服人。因此,無論怎麼修正進步性的審查基準,意圖讓審查看起來很有原則,終究是徒勞無功的。 We know that, every subjective discussion is debatable, and is impossible to persuade everyone. Therefore, it will be eventually futile to amend the examination guideline of the inventive step to make a principled examination.
科學技術人員應該自豪於實事求是的態度,強調客觀的觀察,避免主觀的揣摩。因此,專利審查品質,以可否檢索出「單一」的準確引證文件為斷。 A scientific technical person shall be proud of his down-to-earth attitude, emphasizing objective observation, avoiding subjective imagination. Therefore, the patent examination quality is determined by the ability to search out a "single" accurate cited document.