无数学不信息，无信息不科学
物体有不同的状态，信息的交互决定量子态崩塌到何种程度，可以用数学方程式描述，不同的观测方式（一种信息交互的形式）决定物体的表现形式，比如用电子显微镜看到的一个苹果和用人眼看到的一个苹果不同，就是因为观测方式的不同，或者，观测者强弱的不同（这里，人借助电子显微镜获得了更多的对苹果的描述，这就是信息交互的程度的差别，这里不妨把信息交互，观测者，观测方式三者定义为一个概念，就是信息交互）
并不是说观测就是一般观念上的直接观测，比如你用电子显微镜看一个苹果，一般观念上的直接观测就是大脑的感官处理机制用眼接收处理电子显微镜给你的信息这一过程，把人类器官的感官和辅助人类器官的观测工具区分开了，但观测实际上是这一信息交互，可以把电子显微镜看成是你的义眼，又如无人监视的摄像头和有人监视的摄像头，前者没有观测者的存在，信息交互的过程缺少一个强信息交互级别的观测者，而后者摄像机成为人的义眼参与了信息交互的过程，两个情况中的摄像头是不同的摄像头，正如两个情况中的物体不是相同的物体，换一种说法，一个死人的眼镜和一个活人的眼镜的区别就是这里的摄像头的区别，前者是死的，后者是活的，所谓的有生命或无生命的物体其实只是信息交互层次的差别，不接受摄像头在观测者使用时是有生命的这一观点的产生只是因为它不是我们时时刻刻都在用的有生命的自己的眼球，而当你的大脑感官休息（比如睡觉）的时候，你的眼睛也接近死亡，就像盲人的眼睛是死的这一事实 （但是你的大脑中的视觉这一处理信息的机制还是没死，这在后面会讲到）
总之，信息交互的不同决定了物体的存在状态，量子态的崩塌还是对物体数学描述的一种，无信息不物体，无描述不信息，也就是无描述不物体，物体的存在状态本身和信息交互是一体的——bit，仙农的工作开启了一个认知的新纪元
形而上学是无法用于认知的，解决问题的关键是描述，比如数学的描述，人类的科学体系就是描述的体系，是信息交互的文字和数学描述的积累，描述之于观测者即信息交互，这就是科学的意义
最后说一个问题，就是盲人是不是弱一个级别的观测者？注意，大脑本身有感官这一机制，并不依赖于感官器官而存在，这是由我们的DNA决定的，试验说明对大脑特定部位的电刺激可以引起视觉，即使是先天的盲人，也就是说，大脑中视觉这一处理信息的机制不会随着感官器官的缺失而缺失，盲人也可以通过其它感官比如听觉和触觉得到某种语言（人类语言或盲文）对于视觉信息的描述并且用大脑的视觉这一信息处理机制模拟出对应的视觉信息，这个角度来讲虽然观测级别有差别，但是差别不大，正如你梦到的羊和你视觉看到的羊差别不大，你知道苹果由原子构成这一结论和你用电子显微镜实证得到的信息差别并不是很大，也就是说，描述传递给我们的信息和实际观察并无数量级上的差别，所以我们认为使用科学这一描述体系是和自己实际观测一样可靠的
可以这么说，我们的世界是我们感知的世界，和苍蝇的世界，和静物的世界都不一样，而我和你的世界却因为观测级别差别不大而不存在太大的差别，而我和16世纪某人的世界也是不一样的，我们的科学体系就是这么一个描述体系，借由这个体系，我和你的世界才没有太大的不同
人工智能也就是描述人脑这一观测强度级别的科学，人工智能的本质意义并不是对人脑机制的机械再现，比如神经网络等等模拟人脑的电子电路（这只是试图建立描述的研究方法和副产品），而是对人类的信息交互的描述，对人类的观测强度级别和更高的观测级别强度的描述才是人工智能这门科学的实际意义，最终，信息学会给自我意识和智慧一个描述
破除形而上是科学和时代的必然，离开了数学，没有精确的描述，就是扯谈
1，笛卡尔的“客观的上帝”不存在，是否说明我们的科学体系也是不存在的？
没有客观的科学，只有个人的科学，而我们人类的大脑类似，所以造就了在既有的科学体系之下相似的以各自为观测者的科学
你的说法就是有一个脱离实质的观测者（就像三体运动庞加莱假设的灰尘一样不影响体系其余部分的行为）在观测一个体系且不造成影响，但是我们的科学就是观测者的科学，描述的是观测到的现象，脱离了观测者一切都失去意义，你只能从既有的数学表述推及没有观测者的情况
总之，不存在客观的科学，只存在观测者各自的科学，不存在普适的科学体系，只存在人类大脑这种观测者的科学体系，正是人脑信息获取渠道的类似（人类DNA）造就了一个看似普适的科学体系，从信息学的本质分析，一目了然
2，按照你的表述，既然没有普适的科学，也就没有公认的形而下了
完全可以导致形而下，尽管现在还处于形而上和形而下的过渡阶段
“客观的上帝”超出了观测者的存在，本身就不可描述，在没有被描述前，甚至不能用于描述其它物事
3，假设我们有一千个人，看一个和尚，照你的说法就是一千个和尚？
在这里，“我们”超出了观测者的范围，和尚是被观测的对象，一千个不同的人得出一千种不同的对和尚的观测，为什么似乎有那么一种客观的观测存在呢？比如我建立一个学科，我扮演着客观的上帝在假设学科体系中出现的种种现象，但是其实那都是我这个观测者的大脑的观测结果，即使你认为这个过程我不是观测者而是客观的上帝，我还是用自己的大脑实现信息交互的（最简单的假设，研究钟摆，我假设一个钟摆，这个钟摆是不是客观的呢？不是，这个钟摆是我这个观测者的，为什么可以客观呢？），因为我们都是人
而在分析和建立体系的描述的过程中也是这样，只有个人的分析和描述，但是，人类DNA造就了它客观的假象
“客观的上帝”是不可描述的笛卡尔时代的经典论断，现在已经被否定了千八百遍了，关键就是无论是实证或者证伪学派，追求的都是建立在“可描述性”上的论断
那么，猩猩和外星人是否可以和人类实现信息交互呢？
观测级别（强度）高的必然可以领会较低层次的观测级别的科学体系，前提是掌握了翻译这一信息处理机制
换句话说，我们可以理解猩猩的科学，比我们文明程度高的外星人可以理解我们的科学
也就是说，高观测强度的智慧生命的DNA产生的观测者，假使掌握了翻译这一信息处理机制，就能处理它观测级别以下的观测者的信息
这也可以理解为，一个用电子显微镜的人，自然可以领会猩猩眼里的视觉的苹果（光波范围内的宏观的苹果，我们需要的是转换猩猩视觉的描述，就像语言一样，不同的语种翻译之后可以被不同的观测者用于处理信息为个体理解的形式）
一切未知和未定义，都是观测不够深入的未描述（描述就是信息，未描述就是观测者未取得信息），形而上的错误在于它试图绕开描述进行描述，这就是试图通过无信息取得信息，结果只是徒劳，或者说，即使得出了结论，也是无意义的猜测罢了
任何脱离了已知的，未经验证的，假设，都是未知——除非给出描述，而这个描述本身不能包含任何未描述的形而上的内容，即使是假设也必须是描述的假设，而且需由实际观测到的信息（描述）来验证，唯有通过验证的才能被接受为某种观测程度的可靠的描述
Redefinition of God
I am going to rewrite “Meditations”.
客观的上帝不存在，也就是说，一千个人看一张桌子其实是一千张桌子，甚至可以说，本来就不存在普适的一张桌子这个说法，只存在桌子这个微观粒子群集的概率云，而观测者的观测强度决定它的量子态崩塌到何种程度，一切都是信息和熵变
I must say that I don’t want to use any clues from metaphysics. My first principle is to make things totally describable. Think about this: when anti-phlogiston theory first came out, many people used metaphysics to attack it, yet after Mendeleev discovered the periodic system of elements, all these staffs from metaphysics collapsed by themselves. If I want to use metaphysics to prove that a thing from metaphysics is incorrect, I will find it the same as to prove one undefined thing using another undefined thing, I will never reach an end. So I must describe them rather than taking “not have been defined” as a certain. If I think my mind is a certain thing that does not need further description, then it would be like “it is it because it is it, because I do not need to know any further knowledge, because it seems so certain”
In this short article, I would totally ignore Descartes’ thoughts. Don’t ask me to use undefined things as a certain I will later give all description including mind and god. Maybe Descartes was right, but now I don’t know if he was right. Yet at last I will come to a conclusion that Descartes’ god is wrong, or, Descartes was wrong from his first step because of his lacking of description.
First, I will give a description of our mind. It is the mechanism of our brain. It is physiological. For example, dopamine has influence on our emotions, we can control a person’s emotion using some medicine, and what we see is information that our retinas take from light-wave and pass through electric current, they can all be detected and measured, though we has not fully know them, or, we only know a small part of them, yet I can say it is an definite description of mind. Thinking is the handling, the reorganizing, as well as creation of information. Sense is the ways our brain used to deal with information coming from outside through our sensorial organs such as light-wave through our eyes and sound wave through our ears.
So, I now know that sense is part of the ways our brain handle information, no matter see, hear, feel: they are all determined by our brain, or, by our DNA that determines our brain’s structure. And I can also give the description of thinking and abstract thinking. Thinking is the process that our brains handle information, and abstract thinking is the process that our brains reorganize and create information.
Yet the problem of “sheep in the dream” and “a polygon with 1000 sides in our mind” is not solved. Do they exist? What is existence? I must give an description, rather than thinking like “Existence is because I am thinking, it is so certain and without doubt” You might be living in the world of “the Matrix”, and all the staffs are from the operations made by computers, you are just pieces of codes, is that horrible? Yes, and I do not know whether I am in the Matrix since I have not acquired enough proofs (information). So, I may discuss a bit about observation, which can give me the description of existence at last.
Let’s think about the wax. At one moment, the thing “I see a piece of wax” happens. I can also feel it by my hand. Is it the same wax in a fly or a rabbit’s eyes? Is it the same wax in another observer’s eyes? And, is it the same wax when no one is observing it? If no one is observing it, does it exist?
It is quite a hard question to answer, if there is no convincing reason, and then I would give up and came back to Descartes’ thoughts. Yet I am lucky to born in this era that quantum mechanics is found and developed. One common theory is that a thing is not definite it is probability rather than substance. When we observe one thing, we exchange information with it, thus its quantum state collapse and become the thing that we can see or feel. In other words, information exchange is an extremely important factor of thing’s existence. It is ridiculous to say, “It exists only because I see it”, yet it is the truth, we can say “two tables are not exist because both of them are not observers and information exchange is so weak, yet when one people, or one fly sees them, they exist”. But the problem does not end here since I have not give a description of existence yet. I may explain another question first, if I use an auto-camera to take the image of things, later I can see the pictures, the moment I see the picture, the quantum state of the picture collapsed thus I can see the image. Yet the thing is not there, when you see it, it comes up, when you see the picture, the picture comes up, yet when you are not observing both of them, they are all not they are in you feel, they are only probabilities. You may think it not convincing, yet it all comes from the amazing observation of elementary particle such as proton and neutron. A particle is not a particle but a possibility, and the combinations of probabilities give us a lie that matter and substance is certain. No! They are not what they seem to be.
Yet we must define what is existence. It should be defined to be in keeping with our common thoughts. If the definition meets our common thoughts, then a previous certain thing would become clear. I think existence is all the states one group of particles has, or, the total of all the group’s states that allowed by its probability. And I can also define “existence from observer’s eyes”, that is, the macroscopically collapsing quantum state of a group of probability.
So, I have given the description of existence using the same way Einstein used to define quality in his theories. His relativity defined “quality” to meet the common knowledge of the classical mechanics. And then the common knowledge of mechanics meets it as an approximation when things are moving much slower than light do. Yet the certain things such as time, space, as well as quality is no longer “so certain things” but things with descriptions. Now I have finished the first and the most important step: give the description of existence. And I am going to discuss a bit about wax and sense, as well as non Euclidean geometry and abstract thinking at last I may discuss what Descartes’ god is. Yet I have no time to write about the essence of our brain, which will give the description of body and mind. I can give the conclusion here, that is, our living brain is our mind.
注意，每一个观测者都可以得出不同的观测描述，“existence from observer’s eyes”随着观测者而变化，没有客观的上帝，这是始终值得强调的事实
First, let’s review the wax event. I saw a piece of wax it melts yet I know it is the same wax. Why? I think in this way: 1, It is a piece of wax on this table. 2, I know it is a piece of wax because its “existence from observer’s eyes” give me this information no matter by light or other ways such as my touching it or smelling it, and, I learned from the high school that it is made up of molecules, I know it is made up of molecules though my sense cannot reach that level of molecules, yet if I use a electron microscope, I would get the information through this extended sense (that is, it is not our organ, but tools helping me break my sense’s limits). 3, It changes, yet I know its making parts are almost the same as it was. If I want to say, “It miss some molecules, it is not the same that what it was” then nothing would be same. A person is not the same person that he or she was a second ago because he lose or gain some molecules that not belongs to him or her a second ago. No! It is against my common knowledge.
Let’s think again. What we think to be an object is the information a group passed to us how a group organized. It is microscopically defined rather than sub atomic. And we can add some known thing to it, for example, I know that the piece of wax is made up by molecules, so my thoughts, or, the reorganized information produced by my mind (it could be some changes of the nerve cell, I take this as a fact). I keep this information in my living brain (my mind), thus after 1 minute I know it is still the same piece of wax, the same group, and the vapors produced when it was melting is also its part.
I can cheat I can take another piece of wax with the same size and weight and change the previous one with it. When somebody comes back, he would not know it has already been a different one, because it meets the information of the previous one in his mind. That’s a problem, and the cause is the person’s leaving the table and my changing the wax. So, we can see that “the way we observe things” is the decisive point.
So, our “knowing about the objects” is reorganized information containing observed information using our sense and tools (such as microscope) and the disciplines we once discovered and described about the thing we observe (You can say that disciplines are also tools, actually it is as the microscope, it gives us the information).
That is not the triangle case, yet the way to prove the above conclusion in the area of abstract thinking is the same, the conclusion is: the wax, the sheep in my dreams, the polygon with 1000 sides, and anything else is known by us in the form of reorganized information. The information can represent the observation level we make to it. And the limit of the observation level, which contains any possible way to observe and get information from things, is the god. God is the information we know and all the possible undiscovered ways to observe things, or the information “we have a limit of observation, it is the information we know and all the possible undiscovered ways to observe things”.
From above, I described “existence”, then I described, “knowing about objects”, and finally, I described “god”. Every act of “knowing things” is based on the known fact and new observations, and we cannot know the remaining part of god unless we acquired that part of knowledge.
信息交流（也就是混沌和分形的两大要素，初始值和回馈）产生的结果就是世界一切事物的真相
尽管这样的研究还没有得到信息交流的更深层次描述，但绝对是通往真理的一扇门，关键还是在数学的，定量的描述
可以感觉到，时间和信息有某种关联
而无论是哪一门学科，都是通过观测和分析取得信息的过程，比如量子力学的建立，和混沌分型，和生物演化模型，和人工智能都是这样的取得信息的过程
“客观的上帝”这一说法认为，后来人看前面的科学体系发觉自身已经发展了很多之前未知的，推及时间的无限远，就是一个无所不包的客观的上帝，或者说，信息的完全体，可是，在某个时刻前的未知确实在这个时刻前就是未知的，时间和信息确实存在某些关联，甚至可以说有一种描述可以把它们的关系说明出来
总之，描述是关键，信息是关键
