Dunno why but I kept saying a line by Jim Morrison. Its strangely attractive. He wrote abt his gf:
The most beautiful one dances in a ring of fire & throws off the challenge with a shrug! What words!
I can visualise a very pretty girl dancing in a ring of fire with her head slightly bent back & sholders pulled up in a shrug. Wow. It has an eerie feel of sunsuality & yet its not vulgar in any way. Why wasnt I gifted with such talents? Dont mean sensuality hehe. But Jim's language.
I wrote a line abt Princess Diana some time ago.
The prettiest of them all, stuns me in2 submission with her deeds,
throws her head back and sheds a tear of solitude while the blue quarrel
over her silent free remains that glow with pride in a smokey tunnel.
Makes me wonder.
I just think that unknowingly I was drawing inspiration from Jim's line. Did I read it before I wrote this or after? Can't remember.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Cretor - I
Whether the world was created by a creator or the creator was created by man is a long and heatedly debated issue. Following are my musings.
That there was a creator is a well-received idea all over the world. We can assume that nobody has actually seen him/her and then try to see what could be the reasons behind conceptualizing this creator.
1. Causality: We are so accustomed to the idea of 'causality' that we almost take it as tautology – something that always holds true. In fact we reach such extremes in believing so that we consider every perceivable thing as an 'effect' for which, a 'cause' must exist. Of course, life around us does have a beginning (cause). Most things we use are 'effects' of human creation (cause). It is quite natural to presume that the universe itself is an 'effect' of a 'cause'. Consequentially, we could start from the 'cause' (the creator) and end up explaining the 'effect' (the universe).
2. Orderliness: From the sub-atomic particles to the orbiting planets, the universe seems extra-ordinarily orderly. This orderliness also follows definite cycles regardless of space-time and the nature of matter. Clearly there must be some common underlying principle behind the universe. This common underlying thread may exist because of a common creator.
3. Apparent Impossibility: We do not know and perhaps will never know what is the force that makes the world change. Be it the life cycle of a star, or the evolution from a single strand of macromolecules to the extremely complex life forms made up of billions of cells. It never stops leaving us awestruck, to know that such things do exist. What may be the purpose of the existence of this all? apparently these are impossible events that could not have been triggered unless someone set out to make them happen. Well, what is the possibility that a 2 year old child will paint a 'Mona Lisa' simply while fidgeting with the new pens mom brought it? The possibility of an event stretching from the beginning of the universe to the evolution of intelligent beings on earth is less than ten thousandth of it as per an estimation.From points 1, 2, 3 above, concept of a creator seems to be a logical deduction.
contd.......
That there was a creator is a well-received idea all over the world. We can assume that nobody has actually seen him/her and then try to see what could be the reasons behind conceptualizing this creator.
1. Causality: We are so accustomed to the idea of 'causality' that we almost take it as tautology – something that always holds true. In fact we reach such extremes in believing so that we consider every perceivable thing as an 'effect' for which, a 'cause' must exist. Of course, life around us does have a beginning (cause). Most things we use are 'effects' of human creation (cause). It is quite natural to presume that the universe itself is an 'effect' of a 'cause'. Consequentially, we could start from the 'cause' (the creator) and end up explaining the 'effect' (the universe).
2. Orderliness: From the sub-atomic particles to the orbiting planets, the universe seems extra-ordinarily orderly. This orderliness also follows definite cycles regardless of space-time and the nature of matter. Clearly there must be some common underlying principle behind the universe. This common underlying thread may exist because of a common creator.
3. Apparent Impossibility: We do not know and perhaps will never know what is the force that makes the world change. Be it the life cycle of a star, or the evolution from a single strand of macromolecules to the extremely complex life forms made up of billions of cells. It never stops leaving us awestruck, to know that such things do exist. What may be the purpose of the existence of this all? apparently these are impossible events that could not have been triggered unless someone set out to make them happen. Well, what is the possibility that a 2 year old child will paint a 'Mona Lisa' simply while fidgeting with the new pens mom brought it? The possibility of an event stretching from the beginning of the universe to the evolution of intelligent beings on earth is less than ten thousandth of it as per an estimation.From points 1, 2, 3 above, concept of a creator seems to be a logical deduction.
contd.......
Creator - II
I previously saw some factors that lead me to a creator. I think its time for defining the Creator in detail.
Instead of straight jacketing it in a rigid scientific definition, I prefer mentioning his characteristics in a loosely bound description.
The Creator is a necessary and sufficient condition for all observations that one makes.
If the universe follows any rigid rules (like it does) then the Creator must not have stopped after his creation. i.e. the Creator still oversees the functioning of the universe as the Controller. I think I will fuse these ideas of Creator and Controller and call them collectively as GOD.
GOD being an identity that is external to the universe, no laws of our nature are applicable to him making him almighty, omnipresent, indecipherable, et al. All streams of questioning must stop at GOD. i.e. GOD is not questionable by any of us.
Previously I discussed the necessity of GOD. Here I have attempted to define him. In the next post I will take it further and try to destroy my own conclusions on this issue.
contd..........
Instead of straight jacketing it in a rigid scientific definition, I prefer mentioning his characteristics in a loosely bound description.
The Creator is a necessary and sufficient condition for all observations that one makes.
If the universe follows any rigid rules (like it does) then the Creator must not have stopped after his creation. i.e. the Creator still oversees the functioning of the universe as the Controller. I think I will fuse these ideas of Creator and Controller and call them collectively as GOD.
GOD being an identity that is external to the universe, no laws of our nature are applicable to him making him almighty, omnipresent, indecipherable, et al. All streams of questioning must stop at GOD. i.e. GOD is not questionable by any of us.
Previously I discussed the necessity of GOD. Here I have attempted to define him. In the next post I will take it further and try to destroy my own conclusions on this issue.
contd..........
Creator - III
As I said earlier, I will now try to destroy all my previous arguments in support of GOD to verify if they stand the test of scrutiny. Refer to the first post of this series where I had given reasons why while understanding the universe do we have to assume the existence of GOD. I will use that post as the basis for further arguments.
Causality: Causality is inherently a human concept. Is 'cause' really necessary for any occurrence? In other words, is every occurrence we observe an 'effect'? The answer is no. Probabilistic events are definitely not 'cause'd by anything. Now you may ask what is so special about them? To understand this take the example of an unbiased coin toss. It is certain that repeated toss of a coin yields roughly equal number of heads and tails. However, if in an experiment one observes 90 % heads and only 10 % tails (even this occurrence has a definite non-zero probability) then how valid is it to ask WHY? Such a question is invalid. Why should half of the mass of radioactive elements decay in its half-life? If 10 years is the half-life of such element X and we have 10 kg of X, then in 10 years time 5 kg will undergo decay. Strangely, out of the remaining 5 kg, only 2.5 kg will decay in the next 10 years. Well, again, WHY is not a valid question here. It simply means that one out of two atoms/molecules of such an element undergoes decay in time equal to half-life. Consequentially, causality is not a universal truth.
Orderliness: Although the universe appears neatly ordered to the casual viewer, it is not so. The deeper we probe, the less organized it proves itself to be. There are too many randomly moving astronomical objects such as asteroids, comets, quasars etc. and plenty of massive gaseous clouds (nothing can move as randomly as gas molecules). In the living world, apart from surety of life and death there are no common threads whatsoever. After quantum mechanical uncertainties and dualities, and their probabilistic interpretation of the microscopic world, things appear less orderly at the microscopic level too.
Impossibility: What is the possibility of any event? Well, the answer is not as easy as it may seem. Events seem more or less likely to occur. Some seem certain and yet others impossible. Lets not forget though, that our estimation of the likelihood of an occurrence very much depends upon how many times have we seen it before. e.g. A man in the medieval ages could never believe that most modern machines are true. And yet they have come into being. Clearly, something that was never observed would seem impossible. Note that it need not be impossible. My argument for GOD in previous posts was that an event as impossible as existence of universe must have been triggered by GOD. However, it is equally likely that it was not an unlikely event at all! A great way to express this is by quoting the Weak Anthropic Principle: "We see the universe the way it is because if it were different, we would not be here to observe it." i.e. the very fact that the universe exists means that the formation of it had a finite non-zero probability. Perhaps this probability was one (100%).I think I can safely say that at the moment our perception is leading us away from GOD.
I have played the Devil's Advocate through the 3 Cretor posts. It's not perfectly flawless logic that accompanies such analyses. However, I hope it has helped me throw some light on this highly debateble issue.
Causality: Causality is inherently a human concept. Is 'cause' really necessary for any occurrence? In other words, is every occurrence we observe an 'effect'? The answer is no. Probabilistic events are definitely not 'cause'd by anything. Now you may ask what is so special about them? To understand this take the example of an unbiased coin toss. It is certain that repeated toss of a coin yields roughly equal number of heads and tails. However, if in an experiment one observes 90 % heads and only 10 % tails (even this occurrence has a definite non-zero probability) then how valid is it to ask WHY? Such a question is invalid. Why should half of the mass of radioactive elements decay in its half-life? If 10 years is the half-life of such element X and we have 10 kg of X, then in 10 years time 5 kg will undergo decay. Strangely, out of the remaining 5 kg, only 2.5 kg will decay in the next 10 years. Well, again, WHY is not a valid question here. It simply means that one out of two atoms/molecules of such an element undergoes decay in time equal to half-life. Consequentially, causality is not a universal truth.
Orderliness: Although the universe appears neatly ordered to the casual viewer, it is not so. The deeper we probe, the less organized it proves itself to be. There are too many randomly moving astronomical objects such as asteroids, comets, quasars etc. and plenty of massive gaseous clouds (nothing can move as randomly as gas molecules). In the living world, apart from surety of life and death there are no common threads whatsoever. After quantum mechanical uncertainties and dualities, and their probabilistic interpretation of the microscopic world, things appear less orderly at the microscopic level too.
Impossibility: What is the possibility of any event? Well, the answer is not as easy as it may seem. Events seem more or less likely to occur. Some seem certain and yet others impossible. Lets not forget though, that our estimation of the likelihood of an occurrence very much depends upon how many times have we seen it before. e.g. A man in the medieval ages could never believe that most modern machines are true. And yet they have come into being. Clearly, something that was never observed would seem impossible. Note that it need not be impossible. My argument for GOD in previous posts was that an event as impossible as existence of universe must have been triggered by GOD. However, it is equally likely that it was not an unlikely event at all! A great way to express this is by quoting the Weak Anthropic Principle: "We see the universe the way it is because if it were different, we would not be here to observe it." i.e. the very fact that the universe exists means that the formation of it had a finite non-zero probability. Perhaps this probability was one (100%).I think I can safely say that at the moment our perception is leading us away from GOD.
I have played the Devil's Advocate through the 3 Cretor posts. It's not perfectly flawless logic that accompanies such analyses. However, I hope it has helped me throw some light on this highly debateble issue.
Free
Last week I read a piece about free thinkers' society. The interesting part was that the so-called free thinkers restricted themselves to ONLY unconventional thoughts. I was amused.A few days later I happened to have a discussion with a friend about Mittal's Arcelor bid. She thought it was a hostile bid because should Mittal own Arcelor, a monopoly would form. As always, her views were logical & therefore hard to counter. I argued that nobody can stop Mittal from producing & selling over 10% of world's production through the companies he already owns & therefore we shouldn't mind if he does it by way of mergers. I also said that the entire 'FREE' economy works towards killing competition by various ways such as influencing potential buyers through advertising. In short, it tries to establish monopolies. We both stuck to our views & ended the debate quickly.In a curious way, the free thinkers' society & Mittal's Arcelor bid make me ponder over 'FREE'.Is any kind of thinking 'FREE'? Is any economy 'FREE'? Does 'FREE' exist?Well, what exactly is 'FREE'? Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary lists at least 14 meanings of the word. The most relevant are, 1) allowed to go where one wants, 2) not restricted or controlled. (I am of course ignoring "ek pe ek free!")Why the free thinkers' society sticks to the unconventional is now easy to see. If one has to show he is 'FREE' to think, then he MUST disregard the restrictions / controls imposed by the social norms / conventions. In short the urge to SHOW dominates. Ideally though, 'FREE' thinking ought to be 'FREE' of conventions AND UN-conventions. I hope the UN-queen's English helps me assert the point.They say thinking is a process that must be learned. A child's upbringing helps develop it. And the development never stops. It forms a continuum in time unless external catalysts trigger a radical shift. Therefore, our thinking is never completely 'FREE'. It always carries the burden of past experiences & influences. i.e. Future continuum of thinking is determined by the past continuum and triggers if any.Development of the concept of economy follows almost an identical path except that triggers may be internal as well as external. Russian revolution is a good example of an internal trigger whereas S.Korea's progress is largely due to external triggers. Once again, triggers along with continua* before & after them will always influence future continuum of an economy. Thus there is no reason to believe that a 'FREE' economy can exist.There is more to it. 'Currency', the basis of today's 'FREE' economy itself is the biggest hindrance en route to 'FREE' economy. When we start measuring everything in this world in terms of 'Money', we widen the divide between the HAVEs & the HAVE NOTs. This gap concentrates power & limits choice, in effect negating 'FREE'. I strongly feel that if modern economics was barter based then the Arabs wouldn't be demanding a small fortune for a barrel of petroleum & a sack of potatoes could get you a notebook computer.In short aiming to be 'FREE' is paradoxical since it only leads you to newer restrictions & newer traps. It seems like falling down a rabbit hole not knowing how deep it goes.Conclusion: 'FREE' is non-existent.* datum : data :: continuum : continua ?
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Oooph!
Life is tough & not so tough. How do we determine the degree of life's toughess? Well lets accept that this degree does vary. Of course its all abt how we perceive things. We may feel life's good when the hardships we go thru r much more and vice versa.A good indicator could b how much we enjoy life. Feeling good abt things does mean that we r enjoyin them. These days life is quite simple. At least my life is simple. As in its uncomplicated. Wake up, go 2 work, come back, catch up with friends, spend time online & back 2 bed.So am I enjoying it? Am i getting bored? I dont know. And its this 'I dont know' that bothers me most. Off late there have been too many questions that I answer 'I dont know'. When did I start becoming so self-unaware? I have always understood me quite well. But somewhere down the line things have changed. Where? Again, I dont know. Why? I dont know. How? I dont know. Its high time I put my foot down & stopped this non-sense.I'm goin 2 go back 2 my old days. Going to start doing the analysis of my thinking process coz it looks highly likely that my way of posing questions to myself is misleading me into unknown territory. If I want the right answers then I must ask the right questions. Back to the drawing board.
USSR
For quite a long time I've been wonderin why communism failed. I won't go in2 too many details & give u a big preamble abt Marxism. Lets just say that the gyst of Communism is in the answer 2 a simple question: Who controls the means of production? It may b production of anything including human resource. In layman's terms communism tells us that the state (nation / society) shud have the control. Under communist regime, a nation aims to utilise the resources available to it in the best possible manner.
B4 I go in2 my own reasons 4 the failure of such systems, let me tell u somethin i learnt in physics. The subject was thermodynamics. It deals with the principles of heat exchange. To generalise & simplify cases of heat exchange the fundamental laws of thermodynamics r formulated for certain gases called Ideal Gases. There r 2 ways 2 treat these gas systems.
1. The macroscopic way deals with the entire gas as a single body with certain characteristics.
2. The microscopic way deals with each atom/molecule of the gas separately. Microscopic way is practically better applicable coz no gas made up of discrete particles can behave as a single body.
I guess u must hv got a fair idea of wht i'm goin 2 say next.
U r rite.
I think communism puts the society ahead of the individual. This is where I think it goes wrong. No society can ever make progress by suppressin its component parts. The macroscopic view of the human society can b used 2 determine general trends or patterns. But if we try 2 box up a whole nation of living vibrant citizens in2 a single society then we r bound 2 fail. Simple example? Here it is: What motivation does a worker on a state owned farm have 2 do his best job? Ultimately, it is the state thats responsible 4 its belongings, not the citizens.
Yes yes I do know all abt patriotism & selflessness. But really, those virtues need events of majestic scales 2 bring out the best in ppl. IF world war III ensues, I may b forced 2 join the army. I may even want 2 die 4 the nation. But I won't keep my city clean with patriotic thoughts. 2 keep my city clean I need the motivation of keepin myself desease free.
Secondly, communism kills competition. Competition is the ONLY drivin factor in nature (& we r ONLY a part of nature) that breeds quality. The vast oil reserves of siberia that still lie unexplored r evidence enuf.
Thirdly, communism builds up a beaurocratic system that becomes impossible 2 penetrate. Again, the State is responsible, not the ppl who run it.
The biggest draw back of communism is the lack of freedom. The Have Nots remain Have Nots but even worse they lose the rite 2 complain. A society thats not free 2 smile is a society thats doomed 2 collapse
B4 I go in2 my own reasons 4 the failure of such systems, let me tell u somethin i learnt in physics. The subject was thermodynamics. It deals with the principles of heat exchange. To generalise & simplify cases of heat exchange the fundamental laws of thermodynamics r formulated for certain gases called Ideal Gases. There r 2 ways 2 treat these gas systems.
1. The macroscopic way deals with the entire gas as a single body with certain characteristics.
2. The microscopic way deals with each atom/molecule of the gas separately. Microscopic way is practically better applicable coz no gas made up of discrete particles can behave as a single body.
I guess u must hv got a fair idea of wht i'm goin 2 say next.
U r rite.
I think communism puts the society ahead of the individual. This is where I think it goes wrong. No society can ever make progress by suppressin its component parts. The macroscopic view of the human society can b used 2 determine general trends or patterns. But if we try 2 box up a whole nation of living vibrant citizens in2 a single society then we r bound 2 fail. Simple example? Here it is: What motivation does a worker on a state owned farm have 2 do his best job? Ultimately, it is the state thats responsible 4 its belongings, not the citizens.
Yes yes I do know all abt patriotism & selflessness. But really, those virtues need events of majestic scales 2 bring out the best in ppl. IF world war III ensues, I may b forced 2 join the army. I may even want 2 die 4 the nation. But I won't keep my city clean with patriotic thoughts. 2 keep my city clean I need the motivation of keepin myself desease free.
Secondly, communism kills competition. Competition is the ONLY drivin factor in nature (& we r ONLY a part of nature) that breeds quality. The vast oil reserves of siberia that still lie unexplored r evidence enuf.
Thirdly, communism builds up a beaurocratic system that becomes impossible 2 penetrate. Again, the State is responsible, not the ppl who run it.
The biggest draw back of communism is the lack of freedom. The Have Nots remain Have Nots but even worse they lose the rite 2 complain. A society thats not free 2 smile is a society thats doomed 2 collapse
Prima Donna
Once we accept childcare as the fundamental guiding principle of any social fabric, we can start discussing the social instincts of human beings. Social instincts are different from mob psychology. There is a single dominating instinct that surpasses everything else that we do as humans. Preservation. More importantly preservation of self. All emotions we feel can be proved to be direct consequences of ‘self preservation’. Preservation in strictly biological terms means continuation of life cycle and survival of an individual as well as the species.What interests me more than ‘preservation’ is ‘self’. So what is self? I don’t want to go deep into the philosophical interpretation of ‘self’.‘Self’ is an identity. But it need not mean an individual self. My definition of ‘self’ is made up of several concentric circles, each of which implying a different level of self. The outermost will be the entire human race. Starting from there we could come closer to the center through several rungs of the ladder – country, state, city, area, family. Many other such circles cannot be placed anywhere in the set of circles permanently. This circles can be shifted according to the priority set by the individual around whom the circles are drawn e.g. religion, cast, college, hobby groups, etc.What we practically do is simply dance across these identities as a function of time & circumstances. To elaborate more on this consider a simple case. A group of friends is enjoying drinks at a crowded bar. Member ‘A’ of the group is deep in conversation with member ‘B’. While ‘A’ & ‘B’ are talking about their respective lives, ‘A’ represents the primary identity of his ‘self’ & so does ‘B’. The differences or agreements ensuing through the discussion will be dealt with by both ‘A’ & ‘B’ at their own individual levels. However, the moment ‘A’ & ‘B’ start talking about say the colleges they went to, they cease being their primary ‘self’s & shift to a different level of ‘self’. This new ‘self’ for both ‘A’ & ‘B’ will be their colleges. If they belong to the same institution, they will unite their ‘self’s & vice versa. Birds of a kind flock together applies here too. Now imagine a third member ‘C’ of the same group gets into an argument with a complete stranger. Now ‘A’ & ‘B’ forget all about the previous identities they were representing. They are quickly off to a third identity – that of the whole group that is together.All such identities of ‘self’ exist everywhere, in everyone’s mind though we rarely notice them. In fact we don’t even bother to think if I talk as ‘me’ or as someone else. In truth it doesn’t take long for identities to take control of our mind.Two fundamental questions arise out of this synthesis of identities.1. Are the identity circles finite in number or they can extend to infinity?As long as there is something ‘outside’ the circle, the circle should be allowed to exist. Meaning: Extend the broadest identity mentioned above to a larger one. Say, country extended to continent. Of course we can represent our own continent. Extend it further to the world. We can represent the world too. Lets go from our family to the population of India, that of Asia, that of the world & finally the entire animal kingdom. Apparently the circles are too many to restrict. However, once we reach the universal identity of ‘self’ there is no further that we can go. My conclusion is that the circles are infinite in number but can only expand within a finite space.Clearly, the ‘self’s themselves are cramped & undergo a parallel struggle for existence. Why humans are always at loggerheads with so many things might be explained thus.2. Does the identity of an individual form a circle or does it lie at the ‘center’ of all other circles?This really is a tricky question. Putting it right at the center means that all other identities can at most revolve around it but cannot hold their own against it. I don’t think this holds true. People make compromise to ensure either a win-win situation or peace. Individual ‘self’ is sacrificed at such instances. It may not be put right at the center.However, if we make it a circle like the others, then what do we put at the center? What do all these identities revolve around? I have come across a dead end. But I think the solution is not far away. Well, what we need to do is put the foremost instinct of ‘self preservation’ bang in the center. All other ‘self’s including the individual identity will be circles around this center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
