Do not accept my teachings merely out of respect for me, but test them for yourself, as if buying gold."
This saying by the Buddha is very straightforward. Last week, while drinking water with a friend, my friend asked: If we believe there might be poison in the water, it's not good to drink it. However, most of the time, we are unsure and skeptical, doubting whether there really is poison in the water. So, how can we determine if the water is suitable for us?
First, let's see how 'verification' is simply defined: Verification and validation (also abbreviated as V&V) are independent procedures used together to ensure that a product, service, or system meets requirements and specifications and that it fulfills its intended purpose. Essentially, it's an independent process to inspect whether a system achieves its original goal.
Of course, today we're primarily examining our personal cognitive verification process, which isn't necessarily systematic. We can categorize verification into three types: secondary, primary, and zeroth.
Secondary verification means verifying an assumption based on the results of an action, like drinking water. If you get a stomach ache afterward, it naturally falls under secondary verification. Primary verification doesn't need real-world results to verify an assumption; it focuses on rational reasoning. Much like theoretical derivations, many mathematical propositions rely on pure theoretical proofs rather than empirical validation. Zeroth verification refers to a way of verification that is neither empirical nor rational. In English, it's often called intuition. In Buddhism, it's similar to enlightenment. Steve Jobs, in his speeches, often spoke of using intuition in product decisions, which falls under zeroth verification.
Firstly, these three types of verification apply to different categories of problems. Secondary verification is widespread in our daily lives. Most of our social life is associated with secondary verification. "Seeing is believing" is the principle here. If water appears cloudy, most people won't drink it, even if they can't determine if it's beneficial medicine or mere impurity. From this perspective, secondary verification is simple, but it often fails when the complexity surpasses its capabilities. For instance, you can't use secondary verification to judge the solidity of Bitcoin's white paper. Investing based solely on secondary verification is problematic. However, rigorous theoretical first-level verification is more suitable for complex systems or assumptions, like early adopters of technology determining the solidity of the Bitcoin or Ethereum white paper. Many investment experts utilize primary verification to make decisions, like Charlie Munger. Still, primary verification can also fail in more complex systems that rationality hasn't fully grasped, like human and societal complexities. Here, zeroth verification might be more appropriate. But note, this differs from feelings. Many feelings fall under secondary verification, while enlightenment, a form of zeroth verification, is distinctly non-emotional.
Secondly, these three types of verification consume different amounts of energy and require different information levels. Secondary verification doesn't need much energy or information, but there's often information redundancy. For instance, to judge an app's quality, immersing yourself in its use is often more accurate than relying on many reviews. Primary verification is medium in energy consumption and requires accurate and genuine information. Philosophers, scientists, thinkers, and politicians often master this verification method. Many interdisciplinary sciences are challenging and time-consuming, making primary verification suitable for medium-level decisions.
Lastly, zeroth verification requires minimal information but consumes a lot of energy, needing consistent and focused attention. The quality of zeroth verification varies, primarily because the energy isn't stable. Many attain their zeroth verification ability through spiritual practices, explaining why some can make intuitive decisions early on without clear rational justifications. On the contrary, many significant decisions arise from zeroth verification.
Once again, these three types of verification often do not appear independently but are mixed in our verification process, especially when facing complex issues. This is actually due to the intertwining of our biological, rational, cultural, and spiritual aspects, making them hard to distinguish when making decisions. In essence, the computational ability of each person's brain varies greatly. But computational ability and rationality might not always align. A scientist's computational prowess often greatly surpasses that of an ordinary person. Socrates's rational power is clearly different from ours. Similarly, the inherent verification strength in the original Bitcoin community might not be the same as that in the Ethereum community. The same goes for the inherent verification strength between a Zen master and an ordinary person. However, often the process we undergo when making judgments is mixed, even unconsciously so.
For different problem domains, we often need to recognize the fundamental nature of the required verification and adjust our verification methods according to our characteristics. For instance, consider three concepts: investment, protocol, and talent. These words relate to the fields of economics, technology, and management respectively. Investments are predominantly the result of secondary and primary verifications. The earlier the stage, the more primary verification is needed, and sometimes even inherent verification is essential. Clearly, the term "protocol" mainly requires primary verification, and using secondary verification could lead to high error rates. From the perspective of "talent," due to the high complexity of systems, relying solely on secondary verification might seem overly conservative. Relying on primary verification can lead to dogma, making inherent verification all the more essential. This signifies that both governance and management have become a sort of "art". Often, for critical decisions, we can start with inherent verification, followed by some level of primary verification, supplemented by secondary verification. If secondary verification fails, it might just mean the system isn't mature enough, requiring cautious optimism. If primary verification fails, a certain degree of conservatism might be needed. If all three verifications succeed, then as Buddha might say, we've found gold - a rare opportunity.
In conclusion, these three verifications can both restrict and complement each other. Inherent verification often makes one appear clumsy in secondary verification. This explains why many masters seem simple-minded. Secondary verification is fast and efficient, but prolonged reliance on inherent verification can unintentionally reduce the frequency of using secondary verification. There's a speed conflict between inherent and secondary verifications. Inherent and primary verifications often conflict in terms of stability. For instance, there's a clash between intuition and counter-intuition in various cognitive domains. Relying too heavily on rationality can be problematic in economic decisions, especially since many economic issues arise from the violation of the rational agent assumption. From another perspective, inherent verification can narrow down the scope of primary verification, allowing us to focus on in-depth, high-quality primary verification in specific areas. The stability of primary verification can save us a lot of time, allowing for more engagement in deep secondary verification experiences in life and society.
Indeed, don't just believe - verify. From the minimal trust philosophy brought by Satoshi Nakamoto, the significance of verification between our objective world and real society has become extraordinary, with demands becoming more stringent. Don't trust me, don't believe what I say, and certainly don't trust what I produce or do - use your methods to verify. In this sense, Nakamoto truly taught us the essence of "bold assumptions and careful verification." This boldness means breaking through our historical and future constraints, breaking through the boundaries of rationality and emotion, and surpassing experience and cognition. Our verification ability will undoubtedly become more robust and reliable over time.
As I write this, I look at the pool beside me, pondering how do we verify that this moment is real? Is it the feeling of the ground beneath our feet? Is it the laws of motion deduced by Newton? Or is it the ripples of quantum entanglement? Or perhaps, in the words of the Zen saying, "It's not the flag that moves, nor the wind, but the heart"?