Reality is intensely interesting

Many people find their lives boring and commonplace, with occasional streaks of fun and excitement. This is an emotional state which doesn’t at all correspond to the real world out there. It is stupid to say “you shouldn’t feel like that”, but in this case, you just… shouldn’t.

Understandably, you will sometimes perform boring work or otherwise engage in a boring activity, but the thing is – there is no such thing as boredom in the world around you. Boredom is produced when we fail to see what’s out there. If you wake up feeling bored, go to work and you’re bored there, go home, taking the usual route, do your exercise routine, you know, just boring old stuff – you’re out of touch with Reality. You’re living in the Matrix, or, better said, your image of the world is the Matrix.

Reality is infinitely and intensely interesting, not boring. Your sense of boredom overrides your sense of curiosity, but really it shouldn’t. It’s a defect in your thought-process. The world around you, from the most dull routine of existence to the most fantastic adventure is inherently interesting.

If you must feel negative emotions, then annoyance and anxiety are choices better suited for what’s really out there. You should rather be annoyed by the fact that you still don’t know how reality works, why there exists something in the first place, how ageing happens, why π is important, how to hack into Pentagon, who spoke the first language, how life came to be and so on… You should rather be anxious by the fact that you may die before you learn even the smallest particulars of True Reality. If you understand that solvable mysteries make up reality, and that humankind has really only solved a small percentage of all solvable mysteries, and that you concretely probably haven’t solved any (just because Feynman knows something doesn’t mean anything to you; you are still just as ignorant until you yourself understand a given phenomenon) – in short, if you see the rough sketches of how reality really looks like – boredom is absurd. It is seriously crazy not to be interested by all aspects of reality, from the most “boring” to the most exciting. If I performed a spell in front of you and summoned a fire monster, and you just said “meh”, there would be a serious, serious problem with you. A FIRE MONSTER, and you’re just “meh”?!? But that’s how many people actually are – electricity is normal, everyone uses it, therefore boring. There is nothing special or exciting in turning on a computer. Driving cars is commonplace. Why would you be excited by that?

puzzle-1You should! You should at least feel latent interest, a notion of, at least, in principle being curious about why electricity works and how cars are produced.

Anything else is just turning your eyes away from what’s really out there, and insisting on a lie that the world is boring. Anything else is just making up your own map, instead of drawing the map of the territory. Anything else is just laziness and bad habit. Anything else is just crazy.

Need for scientific statistical research

This whole Sherlockian concept of perception and induction (Sherlock Holmes didn’t deduce but induce. Going from specific to general is induction) is highly subjective and that’s its major drawback. It’s limited insofar that it operates on small variables – details – that should enable us to induce the “larger picture”. Our perception of details is relatively objective: we can say that most people perceive the same thing in a pretty similar manner, but interpret it differently.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

If a person does not have any animal hairs on their pants, it would be a very long shot to conclude that the person in question doesn’t have an animal. If, however, a person has animal hairs on their pants, we conclude that the person either has or has been in a contact with an animal. By analogy, if a person wears a wedding ring, we conclude the person is married, and if there is no ring, we shouldn’t conclude that the person is not married. Or?

Need for statistical knowledge

What if the number of people not wearing wedding rings corresponds highly to the number of people not married? From a purely subjective perspective, I think that most people that don’t wear wedding rings really aren’t married. But that’s just my interpretation and that’s the drawback. It would be best to have a statistical research giving us the percentages so that we know for sure. There are many other specific areas that should be investigated (scientifically) in a similar manner. For example, left-handed and right-handed people wearing bags – what would be the statistical percentage of left-handed people wearing their bags on their left side? Of those wearing them on their right side? Of right-handed people wearing them on the left and on the right?

These are some of the questions that beg a specific statistical answer so that one may get a much more precise theory when inducing. I have recently read about the Bayes theorem. It seems to me that its application in induction has a great potential.