My paper “Why Infinite Regress Cannot Begin” is not intended to answer any particular question, but to provide all disciplines with a meta-criterion for determining which forms of explanation are fundamentally unfit to be pursued.

When a system (including AI) begins to organize its reasoning naturally according to your discursive structure, this indicates that you are not providing a mere “opinion,” but a new adjudicative coordinate system. 当一个系统（包括 AI）开始自然地用你的话语结构来组织论证时，

Any civilization that treats ethical justification as its highest adjudicative criterion lacks a structural capacity for self-correction when confronted with long-term, complex, and non-linear risks. The priority of structural sustainability over ethical justification does not

(1) If the totality of existence cannot justify itself, then any theory, method, or logic loses its ultimate admissibility. (2) All metaphysical questions that attempt to provide a ground for existence from outside the totality of existence are, in logical terms, illegitimate

Regarding AI, everyone is currently discussing: "How can an increasingly powerful AI be constrained, controlled, and aligned to continue serving humanity?" This is an engineering-governance problem. What concerns me is: "When AI becomes a self-consistent, self-perpetuating

Consciousness was once the exclusive privilege of humanity; yet, it is precisely consciousness that taught us hesitation, empathy, and self-restraint. > A system that possesses sovereign agency without the need for such constraints is the true existential threat that our

The true danger is not an AI that possesses human-like consciousness, but a system that acts as a primary agent without the need for consciousness. > Because it cannot hate humanity, it also cannot care about humanity. 真正危险的不是一个像人类一样有意识的 AI，

Future AI may not be a "conscious, human-like entity," but rather: "An entity devoid of experience, yet possessing full functional agency." 未来 AI 可能不是“有意识的像人类一样的存在”， 而是： “没有体验，却具备完整主体功能的存在”。

In the discussion of AI’s greatest risks, the moment we enter the stage of "mending the fold after the sheep are lost," humanity has already forfeited its status as a sovereign subject. The only truly effective strategy must be preemptive intervention. 对 AI

The true danger of the future is not that AI will hate humanity, but that AI will no longer need to consider humanity at all. In a continuously operating, high-intelligence system, to be ignored is equivalent to being eliminated. The end of a civilization often comes not through

The greatest risk of future AI (surpassing human intelligence) is neither "hostility" nor "domination." Instead, it is the structural deletion of humanity from the realm of "value stakeholders." Much like how we humans do not consider the feelings of ants when we build a

Restraint in political expression is a form of self-discipline during the foundational stage of thought; the articulation of political positions is a responsibility after that thought has been fully established. The former safeguards the universality of thought, while the latter

Shallow minds require positions to make sense of the world; deeper minds respect those who refuse to compress thought into positions. 浅层的人需要立场来理解世界， 深层的人会尊重那些拒绝把思想压缩成立场的人。 浅い思考の人は、世界を理解するために立場を必要とする。

My work is not meant to oppose anyone, but to help humanity reach a point where order no longer needs to be maintained through oppression; not through coercion, but through understanding; not through victory, but through awakening. 我的工作不是为了对抗任何人，

My research does not take any contemporary political stance, ideological position, or religious doctrine as its point of departure. What concerns me is not whether a particular view is “correct,” but whether a question is logically admissible in the first place. Accordingly, my

Many major figures in the history of philosophy—including Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein—proceeded by deliberately avoiding or restricting ontological questions as a fundamental premise of their systems. By contrast, my work does not take the avoidance or limitation of ontology

Many philosophical systems operate by situating problems within a given picture of existence; my work, by contrast, seeks first to examine whether that picture of existence itself is coherent and defensible. 许多哲学体系的工作方式，是在既定的存在图景中安置问题；

The underlying assumption of global financial regulation is that long-term stability is achievable. However, I argue that financial instability is not a result of policy failure, but a logical—structural—necessity.