thibault

This is kind of the trap of this problem. It seems deceptively easy, like you should immediately know the answer. Yet it is one of the hardest problems in computer science. For the TSP we have polynomial time approximations that can solve it in polynomial time most times. The problem is we don't have an algorithm that can solve it in polynomial time every time. Furthermore, the real difficulty of NP-complete problems like the TSP is the infinite variety of the problem. Whatever algorithm you come up with, I can come up with an edge case that your algorithm can't solve efficiently.

Hey thanks for the reply, I think we're on the same page for much of the reasoning. One thing about the P and NP classes is that they refer to problems that can be solved in "polynomial" time and whose solution can be checked in "polynomial" time respectively. This means pretty much, for an input size x to a given problem, the algorithm takes x^k to solve or check the solution. There are problems like the boolean satisfiability problem or the traveling salesman problem for which we have polynomial time algorithms to check the solution but only exponential time algorithms to solve them (for input x, they take e^x time to solve).

@Leo Gura, I've been inspired by your latest video about being wrong to share an intuition which I've had for some time and am unable to budge on being wrong about. P vs NP as those of you who are familiar with computer science may know, is the most fundamental problem of that field. Essentially it asks whether all problems whose solution can be efficiently verified by a computer (NP) can also be solved efficiently by a computer (P). If this is true then P = NP, if not P ≠ NP. I have a deep intuition that eats at me from the inside that this problem can not be solved. In Gödelian terms, we could say it is undecidable, but since we are talking about comparing two sets of problems, I prefer the term incomparable. I know it is arrogant to think I know the "answer" to this problem (that there is none) and even more so to think I can formally prove it, knowing I did not even complete my bachelor's of computer science. Yet I can't help but research it trying to find a way to tell the world "stop working on this, you will never find the answer". Here's how I think about the problem and my justification for why it's bogus: We know that all problems that can be solved efficiently by a computer (P problems from now on) have solutions that can also be efficiently verified by a computer (NP problems from now on). This is because you would just need to solve the problem yourself on your computer and compare against the solution that was given to you. The problem arises when we find NP problems for which we have no efficient algorithm to solve. A classic example of this is the Traveling Salesman Problem. "Given a list of cities and the distances between each pair of cities, what is the shortest possible route that visits each city exactly once and returns to the origin city?" We can check a solution to this problem easily: check that each city is visited once and calculate the total distance traveled, but it's not obvious how we can efficiently find the shortest possible route. Solving P vs NP in this case would mean proving that either we can efficiently find the shortest possible route or that we can't. I propose we can't definitely prove either! There are an infinite number of city and distance configurations that can be made and proving P vs NP would mean being able to write an algorithm that works efficiently in all those configurations. Unless you allow room for an infinite algorithm that is infinitely complex, then we can't ever account for the infinite diversity of problems that can be created within this framework. But also, our inability to write and execute this infinite algorithm means that we can never prove one way or another whether we can or can't actually write and execute it. If you have one guy who thinks yes and the other who thinks no and they start the process of writing the algorithm to prove each other wrong, they will die, and even if their descendants continue their work, humanity will die long before it is completed considering it is... infinite. I did my best to summarize my current understanding of the problem and put it in layman's terms. Ever since I started looking into this problem, I have been disappointed that many think it will one day be solved one way or the other. I'm curious to be challenged and proven wrong myself, because I know there's no good reason I would have the "answer" to a problem that has been stumping every expert in the field for years but I feel so deeply that this is the truth of the matter. Would love to hear from any and everyone what they think about it.

Hey man there's two separate issues in your question : First I'm sorry to hear that watching Leo's video has triggered some intense feelings in you and I advise you to take care of yourself and maybe try to avoid these kinds of topics for a while. If I told you that you were only real when skydiving but you had a massive fear of heights and would actually hate skydiving, you probably shouldn't go at least for a while until you've gotten over your fear and are comfortable with the idea. To be honest who cares what is real or not, if it is not bettering your life. Now to answer your question. YOU have not gone through all this suffering and you will not. That is because you are not identified with God. If you were, you would find all this suffering beautiful. Why do you think suffering exists? Only so we can know what love is.

True open-mindedness requires closing your mind to the paths that don't lead to an open-mind. It's paradoxical just like everything in life.

Do you see the subjectivity in "something that happens", real vs unreal, and mind vs body? If I suddenly remember the name of an old friend from school, is that not a real event? Yet it's happening entirely in my mind. When you ask "Can something create itself?", are you looking to answer this question on a foundational level or for a specific case you have in mind? If you want to start somewhere, ask yourself "Do my thoughts create themselves?".

Look inwards. You can't ask potentially fake people about whether they are real or fake. The only answer you can find is in you, not in us.

"When can we schedule your haircut?"

What is an event? What is a real event?

To your brother who went to the high gravity planet, there is 140 hours of experience in between these two moments. The fact that you insist on this or that being "true"/"undeniable" reveals your fear of observing reality as it is and your need to conceptualize it to reassure yourself. Accept that the past and future are concepts, you have never been in the past or future, only ever the present, so how can you be so sure that they exist? Take DMT and contemplate the past, I'm sure you will come back with a much different understanding of what it is.

What about the possibility that reality is more subtle? Take only the word "before" from your post. Let's say your bother left on a journey to a super-massive planet with very high gravity. Being in a high gravitational field increases the passage of time. In this case let's say 10 times faster. Do you think you and your brother would have a different understanding of the word "before" in those circumstances?

It is not right, it is not wrong. It is an illusion. You are pretending things happened before now because you like it. In reality, there are ways in which there is a past and ways in which there isn't. The definition of past is limited. But it is good enough to give you a survival advantage. Which parts of your life would crumble without a conception of "things happened before now" ? What I'm pointing at is not whether or not there is a past, that is entirely irrelevant. However notice that when you ask the question, you ignore the most serious implications of truth seeking. You assert there is a past when in fact you are closed to the possibility that there is none, what is the point of asking the question if you are only ready to hear one of the two possible answers? EDIT: If you need some edge cases to challenge your definition of "past", try defining the "past" in a black hole.

My view is not that there is no past. Your view is that there is a past.

This is only how you choose to see it. This has nothing to do with the Truth. Why do you need there to be a past ?

As you are reading this reply that I'm writing, notice that you are carrying in an infinite number of assumptions about what is currently happening. You imagine there is a man writing a message on a keyboard located somewhere on Earth and that this message is transported through fiber cables or satellites to your computer. Then you read that message on your screen which is composed of pixels shining light onto your retina. Some parts of your brain are then used to interpret that message. These are a small sample of the assumptions that you layer on top of life to benefit your survival agenda. If I were to ask you why you assume any of these things, you would generate an infinite number of justifications for them about electricity, science, the brain, etc... The reality is that these assumptions which you take as fact are only illusions. When you cease to assume these things, reality ceases to exist in the way you currently experience it. There is only a past because you need a past to survive. If you could survive using only instincts then you would have no need for a conception of time with past, present, and future so why do you assume your predicament in which coincidentally you NEED a conception of time to survive/exist is the truth ? Could it be just a gentle lie you tell yourself so you can keep existing ?