Personal Review of Coherence: 10 minutes of excitement

I recently started to re-member this movie, not its brain-burning plot, but what happens after the brain-burning plot. It doesn’t matter how many people are in the original group at the end of the previous episode, or how many groups there are in total at the end. What matters is that the heroine finds out that there is no longer a possibility for her to return to the original group.

Then, what choice did she make? She found a group that was most beneficial to her, or the situation she wanted the most, and then went in and killed that group herself and took its place. In the whole movie, our perspective has been basically following the heroine, so through the previous episode, we think that the heroine is probably a kind of person? At least should think she is a good person, kind, for the sake of others, not very selfish.

But such a person, when she finds that she can no longer make the right choice, she makes a choice that is completely at odds with her past self. What is the cause of the heroine’s choice dilemma? There are so many options that each identification item they choose, or even each thing they do, will cause a difference in choice, and then each option multiplied by one, is a large and frighteningly astronomical number. In fact, mathematically or theoretically speaking, it is possible for the heroine to reclaim all the people of her world, only the probability is too small.

In fact, everyone will think that a small enough probability can be equal to impossible, only, everyone’s mind the “small enough” standard is different. So if the heroine wants to find her original companion, how is she going to do it? The easiest and most direct way is to find each person and ask them questions one by one: what is the thing we put in the box? What number is on the back of the photo and what color pen was used to write it? What color is the glow stick? And so on and so forth if all the questions are right, then this person is the heroine’s original companion, and then go to the next person. What do you think of here? The exhaustive method, right? About the exhaustive method, I think of two things.

The first is the Bitcoin ransomware virus that raged a while back. This virus changed the way cyber attacks used to be thought of. It used to be that users would set a password and hackers would crack it, and users would keep exploring more secure encryption methods, and hackers would keep exploring more effective cracking methods. Then we studied and studied, and found that the user gradually prevailed, through a certain method of encryption of the password, it is not that it can not be cracked, but the cracking time may take a long time. To what extent is it long? Calculated with the highest available human arithmetic power, calculated until the sun explodes also can not be calculated. Wow, then there will not be no hacker attacks. Hackers directly turn the idea, I give you encryption, you to crack this unbreakable password it. Moral and legal factors aside, that first flash of light, found that since the password can not be cracked, I will give the user encryption of the hacker, simply thinking ability to a certain level of genius artists. This is the first thing that comes to my mind.

The second one is a story I heard in elementary school, which I’m sure you’ve all heard before. Someone invented chess and the king was so happy that he wanted to reward him and asked him what he wanted to be rewarded. He said, put one grain of wheat on the first chessboard, two on the second, four on the third, and so on. The king thought it would be very satisfying, but when he did the math, he found that even if he counted all the wheat that mankind had ever added and could possibly produce, he would not be able to fill the board. What is the similarity between these two events? Both men, the hacker and the inventor of chess, wanted to set up an unsolvable mystery or problem. In the past, it was thought that an unsolvable problem was caused by the inability to find a solution to the problem. Both of them set up problems that had a clear, simple and straightforward solution. But just because there is a method doesn’t mean it can be solved. If the number of large enough orders of magnitude, then even simple as counting such work, will become an impossible task. Seeing this, does it seem to have some connection with a Chinese story?

Yes, it is the Chinese story “Yugong Yishan”. The two big mountains in front of Yugong’s door were trapping his family, so he had to move them away. Is there a way to do it? Yes, it’s simple and straightforward, all the family members work together and just dig. There are no difficulties, there are, the mountain is too high, too few people, the tools are simple. There is no way to deal with it, yes, I have few people, but I can’t stop myself from reproducing. I may have few people in a period of time, and my human strength may be weak compared to the workload of digging the mountain, but if I put it in the history of time, I plus my son plus my grandson, plus my children and grandchildren endlessly, then this strength is a powerful and terrible strength, and it is easy to move a mountain. Yugong’s thinking has also risen to a high level, able to stand in the perspective of time to see the contrast of power, which is simply the ascension of vision. But this also brings out another desperate and suffocating problem. Children and grandchildren say endless, but there is always an end, nothing is forever. People will die, the earth will explode, races will perish, in short, there is no real infinity. If the two mountains in front of Yugong’s house are high enough, then even if the mountains are not increased, it is possible that Yugong’s children and grandchildren will keep digging until the day the earth explodes, and still not remove the two mountains. Never desperate? So desperate that people simply can not face this possibility. Almost all modern educated people will believe in and even revere the power of science.

Because of science, we have gone from being blood-drinking savages to modern people harnessing all kinds of power. We can fly to the nine heavens, dive into the deep sea, explore the universe, and gain insight into the microscopic. We believe that science must be able to take us farther, land on Mars, fly out of the solar system, alien colonization, interstellar travel. Our science fiction films early on to draw a variety of beautiful blueprint. But the question is, what if it does not come true? Wormhole ah, leap ah, curvature engine ah, if not realized? What if the human race is destined to go through the entire process from birth to extinction in its only home – Earth? We have used science as a tool to chip away at some mountains, and maybe we are not far from digging up this big mountain, but maybe those are simply grains of dust on the big mountain, only we humans are too small to take the dust as the mountain, so what? This is a mountain, then where is the other big mountain? In the human heart. There is a mountain in natural science, and there is certainly another mountain in social science or humanities.

If we really cannot move the mountain of natural science, and we humans are really destined to end up on the earth, then we should move the mountain of humanities. Build the earth into a garden of Eden, in which people live in peace, stability, prosperity and harmony, not to say that people love and care for each other, at least they can also take time to think about each other’s perspective when pursuing their own interests. But can this be achieved? God his old man may say at this time, let’s talk about interstellar travel. The philosophers seem to have studied the methods and ideas to solve the problems between people, but again, a method does not mean that the problem can be solved. When the problem is complex enough, or the time required to solve the problem is enough, the problem becomes an unsolvable problem. Finally, back to the movie, the heroine looks at the situation and finds that the ideal ending of everyone being well is no longer achievable. In that case, I should stop caring about other people and just care about myself. I am good, others love to do what they want. This may be the journey of a simple and kind-hearted person into a sophisticated egoist. I dare not condemn, because if it were me, I would probably make the same choice. The comet will not come, but similar choices happen every day. If the ideal option is destined to be unattainable, what choice will you make?