Yuan Changwen didn't know what else he had to think about, his mind was still in chaos just now, and now he suddenly came to his senses again.

I had no motivation to continue slashing, and the flames of anger just vanished.

I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing.

On the other hand, how can there be bad things? The distinction between good and bad things is only based on the thinking of the characters and the recognition of the right to free choice, so that we can talk about good things and bad things.

If things can only happen like this, and there is always only one choice, then what good and bad things are there to talk about?

From the highest point of view, everything is a certainty. My thinking is based on the knowledge in my head, which has already determined that I don't have any choice at all.

But from the perspective of the character, because I didn't know what knowledge I had, and I didn't know when emotions would appear, I didn't know what I was going to choose.

And this situation is where the illusion of free will lies.

Updated a bug that said that roles are fixed programs. This statement is somewhat misleading, as if the character has already programmed and then runs automatically. Not so, because I simply have no way of determining the existence of time.

And this kind of fixed program seems to mislead "time exists, but my actions are set in advance" and so on. Maybe so, maybe not, time itself is an illusion, and any explanation based on it is not necessary to discuss it.

In other words, I don't know why the other party behaves like this. Maybe the knowledge in your head can make explanations, but these explanations are also only one-sided, and they are just "I think" speculation.

The other party does this because the other party can only do it. Or rather, it's because I perceive that the other person is doing this, and then the other person is doing it. Not a fixed program because time does not exist. So, it's more like an abrupt picture, and these are just the things that are perceived at the moment.

Then, with the relevant memories in the mind, the other person's behavior can be explained, and the character will not feel lost because of it.

I have no idea how or why these perceived elements of the picture appeared. It is true that it can be explained according to the knowledge in the head, "I am holding an apple in my hand because I just came and picked it up from the table".

However, "I just walked over and picked up the apple from the table" is one of the elements of the picture that I remember in itself, and I am also only aware of it. Interpreting picture elements with picture elements will of course appear very realistic.

It's like a painting with a man slaughtering an entire village, and there's text next to it explaining what this person had been insulted by everyone in the village.

So, why did this man slaughter the whole village? Of course, it can be explained by the text on the picture next to it, but in fact? Is there really such a person living in this village? Is it true that he has been insulted by everyone?

are all perceived elements of the picture, and there is no reason to believe in one of them.

How do I know when I don't see a friend?

When I met a friend a week later and they told me about their experience of the week, how did I know that these things were real?

I just realized that the other person said these words at this moment, and judged that the other person had actually experienced these things, was it too arbitrary? Or, self-righteous?

Acknowledging the existence of the other person is simply to make it easier for the character to understand the whole world. If you treat the world as real, you will naturally treat the other party as real, and it is logical that your role is also real.

Also, I have no way to confirm the existence of "space".

It looks like I'm walking from here to there, and it's obviously three-dimensional. But in fact, I couldn't be sure that I was actually moving from this so-called space. I just remember being somewhere at the moment, that's all.

If I was at point A before, I'm at point B now. However, I can never be sure that I really moved from point A to point B. I can only stand at point B and say that I just remember standing at point A.

Moreover, I am standing at point B at the moment, and I also have no way of confirming that the surrounding environment is three-dimensional. The three-dimensional sense on a painting can also be expressed in three dimensions through two dimensions.

How do I know I'm in three-dimensional space? Looking at the distance of an object, how do I know it's not two-dimensional?

No matter how I move, or measure, these things become the visual elements that I perceive at the moment. The memories in my head were so real that I wouldn't even doubt their authenticity.

"If you go along with it, you will become an adult, and if you go against it, you will become an immortal", how many people know what this "reverse" is reversing?

Of course, I wouldn't say that the whole world is a two-dimensional space, because I can't confirm that either. But I know that the world is false and unreal.

Similarly, the word "true" can be misleading. I've always been bothered by the question, "Why can't A be real, B be real, and then the thing that holds AB is also real?"

It took me a long time to understand the crux of the matter. I think of real as something else, like red or something, and naturally thinks that everyone can be red. But if you change the word, such as "truth", "truth", and so on, you will not have the above problem.

And after replacing it with "truth" or "truth", another question arises, "Why doesn't non-truth (non-truth) exist?"

This problem is also due to the duality that words carry in themselves. What if we replace truth (truth) with "Tao"? It seems that no one will think that "non-Tao" exists. What is not the Word?

In other words, everything is the Tao, which means that everything is not what it is. No one would think that a piece of is the Tao, but the saying "essence is the way" has already admitted that "a piece of" does not exist. Or rather, a false existence.

The limitations and misdirection of the text are really difficult to guard against.

Yuan Changwen was reluctant to continue thinking, death is the best destination. But unconsciously, I thought about these contents again. However, it's quite happy to think that I'm dying.

This kind of happiness is like a madman, because normal people don't think that death is a good thing, so when they can still be happy in the face of death, or when the pleasant emotion of looking forward to the arrival of death appears, they will be included in the team of madmen.

Who's crazy?