Moonshines, Reflective Memories

After a while of using Newtonian formalism for physics, many saw its disadvantages and the cumbersome tasks of making it work for dynamically complex system. Fortuntately, someone indeed stood up and gives us the \(\mathcal{L}\): the Lagrangian.

Straight to the point (maybe) because I am so sleepy (which I really am god damn it) and I want to sleep now.

QOTD (Question of the day)

• Everything will have bottlenecks. It is one observation that I recently realized, albeit not conformally with ample, detailed sources, but rather imperative and subjective observation. Still, even in a de-centralized system, there are still needs for a centralized part, which in turns, make it a potential bottleneck of the whole system. If possible, will there be anyway to prove this paradigm characteristic? And theoretically, what is a strong (in other words, total) de-centralized system of operation? And how we can make it?
• In category theory, it is perhaps the main purpose to generalize in a broad term, and fit everything in a framework of structured sets, either algebraic or not. And inside it, there are different type of sets. But then really, what is different in category theory than in order and set theory? A note is also for comparison with abstract algebra, because abstract algebra also kind of drift along the homology and categorical approach in category theory.
• Analytic functions are functions that can be used to describe infinitely differentiable function which can be expressed in the form of a convergent power series. Then, what is the best power series for standard convergent series representation?
• How to calculate the moon phase? It seems to be as directly a 3-body problem (Earth, Sun and the Moon) but actually how to implement it?
• I wonder, why Jazz and Lofi feels so… nostalgic and at ease?
• We visualize curvature of space-time as a 2D fabric with 1D alteration of shape (which is why only Z-axis changed during the process of imagining). For such, to full visualize it, how should we make it possible? And what is the frame of reference, spatial “bending” of it?
• How lights travels around the house with minimal losses?
• Are humans’ selfish? Because even though regarding “save the nature” movement is presented, it seems and feel a little bit altruistic because somehow, the feeling is weird - it all comes from our greed and superiority complexes, and the striving reality of wanting to live, as for any other organism will want? ### TOTD (Thoughts of the day)

Now, I really do not want to bring this up again, but somehow, Harari get me bad. He argues that the Agricultural revolution is a mistake, and an example is given: > Can a girl 2000 years from now, dying from starvation because her father had a bad harvesting season, said that because thousand of years from now, people will be far more better, abundant food, then my sacrifice is worthwhile? (PS: It is not, according to Harari)

An indeed weird a misinterpreted observation. Agriculture Revolution does not only come with the “materialistic” approach as you often criticize in the text, perhaps quite ironically. Instead, it brings stability. Nutritionally worse, but the stability is better. It allows for society to flows, thus making it quite a crucial way for people to live and grow. It allows for far better opportunities in terms of investment and properties, and as such, quality of life.

One other observation that is indeed stupid somewhat, is the negligence of social and natural correlation between species and species. Which is why he said that wheat tamed human instead. Quite weird, and actually misinterpreted, as most things that came from him.