My Philosophy

💭The three things that have influenced me the most are: first, 📌Maoism (including Marxism); second, 📌modern physics (especially quantum physics); and third, 📌computer science (my major). Why do I place computer science last? Because computer science is a practical discipline, and the philosophical ideas it entails are not as profound. I primarily integrate Marxism with modern physics to form my current philosophical and worldview, thereby establishing my life outlook and values.

Firstly, we need to understand what we are talking about when we discuss philosophy. It’s often said that philosophy is the ultimate discipline. However, philosophy has only been a summary of various so-called ultimate theories from the past. In other words, philosophy, as a summary discipline, cannot tell us how to move forward in the future. Whenever a great achievement or innovation appears, philosophy can always encompass it. This is the inclusiveness of philosophy, which covers everything from the universe to a single atom. What I want to discuss here is relatively profound, so it will inevitably be encompassed by philosophy, even if it’s just the philosophy I perceive.

Let’s start with Maoism. Why not call it Mao Zedong Thought but Maoism? Maoism is not commonly used domestically; Mao Zedong Thought is a more official and common term. Maoism, however, has a greater influence worldwide and is a broader extension of Marxism. But due to China’s new era advocating not discussing “thoughts” and blurring the boundaries between socialism and capitalism, the entire “thought” system has been diluted.

Maoism encompasses many contents and has a wide range, based on dialectical materialism and the verification of objective practices. It has become a truly unique theoretical system with Chinese characteristics, especially in its expansion of Marxism - the theory of practice and the theory of contradictions. It elucidates the basic source of spiral ascension in the development of things. One is the absolute nature of contradictions and the unity of opposites; the other is the cycle of theory and practice. These two points can actually be unified from the perspective of physics. Here, I want to mention the one-sided interpretation of Mao Zedong Thought under the guidance of the failed revolution in the late 1970s. This is one of the reasons why I don’t adopt Mao Zedong Thought. It has led Mao Zedong Thought to become one of the weapons wielded by the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, making the masses unable to see the essence of Maoism. (I will continue to discuss this in the next article and won’t elaborate on it here).

The breakthroughs in modern physics began with the relativity revolution led by Einstein in the early 20th century, which overturned the old, deterministic law of universal gravitation. This was followed by the quantum mechanics revolution. Why do I call them revolutions? Because both theories are sufficient to overthrow the entire edifice of physics, involving the fundamental interests of too many scholars. But because of their correctness and verification through practice, they have become mainstream. Relativity, based on Einstein’s causality and deterministic physical thinking, excluded the uncertainty of quantum mechanics. He believed that there could be an exact theory to explain quantum mechanics and that the quantum entanglement generated by quantum mechanics completely broke the theoretical foundation of Einstein’s construct - the limit of the speed of light. After the appearance of the action at a distance in quantum mechanics, Einstein undoubtedly became a guardian of relativity. He strongly opposed the uncertainty of quantum mechanics and engaged in a long debate with Bohr. Speaking of quantum mechanics, we have to mention the wave-particle duality of particles. Using a compromise approach, de Broglie proposed the wave-particle duality, which seems to please everyone but is not specific and cannot be falsified through practice.

So how does Maoism relate to the wave-particle duality? Let’s clarify the logical relationship: the wave nature of particles corresponds to a state where a particle has not been measured (or observed), which corresponds to the state of contradictory opposition as described by Maoism. This is absolute. The particle state corresponds to a state of peace, that is, a state where the contradiction has been resolved. This is relative. The method of resolving contradictions is similar to the method of collapse - specific observation (or practical verification), ultimately reflecting identity, and the particle’s properties are determined - such as spin direction. When we remove the observation, the particle returns to the wave state, which means that contradictions continue to appear until they are observed again, leading to collapse. Through continuous repetition, the essence of particles is gradually unearthed, and our research on particles becomes deeper. Secondly, the cycle of theory and practice corresponds to the two states of particles, uncollapsed and collapsed. The proposal of a theory must be verified through practice to become a stage of correct or incorrect theory. In a limited practice, correct theories reflect identity, and incorrect theories reflect contradiction. The theory is incorrect over a sufficient time scale, i.e., the absolute nature of contradiction.

Here I mention the influence of computer science on my philosophical beliefs. As a tool closely related to productivity, computers and computer science scholars or practitioners often fall into technological determinism, showing an extreme pursuit of technology while neglecting the relations of production (such as how the cake should be divided). With the significant development of neural networks and the emergence of a new paradigm of AI - large language models, using the paradigm of large language models that cannot be explained by exact theory, making models very large, using a large number of parameters to approximate a large amount of raw data, this is still in a stage of quantitative change in philosophy, and it may take a long time for qualitative change to occur. So, although this one-force-breaking-thousands-of-laws method is effective for now, it doesn’t inspire me much. If it does, it strengthens my affirmation of uncertainty.