Saturday, April 30, 2016

Zero

When I was taught numbers I was instructed to starts with, Zero, One, Two ... Whereas many of my contemporaries from other schools were informed that counting begins with "One". It was probably a thing that my kindergarten did irrespective of what other schools in the area were doing. I think it was rather thoughtful of my School to teach us numbers beginning with zero. However, zero was not always a number, but just in recent history.



Today we use Zero in two main ways. Firstly it is a number that signifies a lack of  value and allows us to create larger number without the need to create new digits. Secondly, it serves as a middle value between the negative and the positive number line. Zero has most of the characteristic that other numbers have in the context of arithmetic operations, but not all.

In fact, zero is an intricate "number". I mean, can you divide a number by zero. Say we have three kittens, how do we divide them among zero? What do we get as an answer? Is the answer zero kittens because, well no one got any or is it three kittens because, there were no takers? Some say the answer to it is undefined or infinity. However, Infinity is not a number! it is a concept. The debate of division with zero is the classic mathematical paradox. Dividing by zero has the power to destroy the entire foundation of logic and mathematics.



In modern maths, we have many domains that are bolstered on the idea of zero. Our modern digital technology is possible because of Zero, the digital coding of 0 and 1. Everything, linked to the computer age depends on the existence of zero. When we use Zero in everyday language strikes as a number to us instantly. However, historically, this was not the case. Ancient human started counting to keep track of things and people, (primarily animals (sheep, hens) and their children). They counted using fingers and toes and Zero was irrelevant to their use.




The early civilizations developed simple number systems. The Babylonian used two symbols to arranged in different ways to indicate numbers up to sixty (shown above from around 2000 BC). Mayans and Greek also had their own number system. Moreover, all these civilizations had a rudimentary concept of zero as a placeholder, but it was often considered controversial. Basically, the concept of nothing landed the ancient greeks into existential crises. They struggled with the Idea of "How could nothing be something?" Moreover, The idea of zero and its arithmetic operations lead to a political crisis. In the fifth century, the Greeks Pythagorean brotherhood was threatened by the concept, as it proved that the Golden Ratio was, in fact, a fraction. The fraternity was sworn to secrecy. When Hippasus of Metapontum, a member of the same, said he would tell the truth about the ratio, the brotherhood killed him. (Well, too sentimental for our Maths, aren't we, bros? Those were the true nerds! #Passion. Links for full story here)


While the Western world was rejecting the idea, the Eastern world was embracing it. The early number system of India included nine numbers and a small dot (to represent the absence of number). In the seventh century, a mathematician called Brahmagupta developed conditions for zero in arithmetic operations, though he struggled with the division as we still do. As the trade amongst continents increased the maths of India found its way to the Middle East. It influenced the Arabic cultures and was used in traded by them. However, it was resisted in Europe because of an already established Roman numeral system. In thirteen century European system embraced the Zero-based numeric system, as the mathematicians were "killing it" with the new number system, referred Arabic Numerals System. (Ouch!)




By seventeen century mathematics started including in more abstract concepts such as calculus. Zero acts as the foundation to calculus. Calculus breaks down dynamic systems into smaller units approaching zero but never reaching the value. Zero is now the celebrity of numbers and most crucial one.


Let me know:
How were you taught to count, was zero included or was "One" the first number you were taught? How do you think division by zero should be treated? Do you think Zero was invented or discovered? 

Find me on the following; #SocialMedia

Friday, April 29, 2016

Yanking The Fairy Tale

One of the most influential ideas I ever came across in my life was to demolish the pre-existing Ideas on the basis of rationality. 


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? 
~ Epicurus

One day, about five years ago, I was playing with my Five-year-old and three-year-old cousins with play doe, after all, it is a perfectly adult thing to do. I was shaping them toys shaped Cars, T-Rex, and Witches. My play doe skills are pretty impressive, So I must brag. As we were talking while playing my five-year-old cousin asked me a question. "Who made us?" She asked. "What?" I said to make sure that I caught the question right. She nonchalantly repeated her inquiry. Frankly I was unsure of what I should answer, understanding the delicacy of the question coming from a child. The fraction of second before answering her question, I had a mental argument with myself. If that was a verbal argument it would have lasted about five minutes. However, our brain is pretty fascinating and fast.

Are the ideas of creationism healthy to teach? Science offers a conflicting historical story. I believe in understanding and calculated claims. Say, Quantum physics, we have many missing links in that field, However, the answer or explanation to those "missing links" is Not the "Divine Magic". The unanswered links become a quest and a mystery to be solved and is collectively resolved and iterated. Likewise, I do not think the location of Plant X will be sent across by the creator in a revelation. What impress me about the rational approach, is pushing the boundaries of human understanding. It is not just coming up with fairy tales to fill in the gaps (and adhering them aggressively, because some guy from some random time in history received a direct instruction from the creator).



I strongly believe that all the "Fairy Tales" are specifically unfair to women. Well here for the purpose of simplicity I am assuming only cis-gendered heterosexual people (No offence to LGBT friends of mine I totally know you get the worse of all the worlds and I stand in your support #Equality). Womanhood, related dogmas were something I was unprepared for during early adulthood. Despite being devoted my parents never strictly incorporated the Ideas of women/girls as the property of a male figure ... However, the faith very foxily rubs it on our faces. For instance; If they say, a mensurating teenage girl is impure to enter a building (literary!) in their faith, then I would need a detailed empirical reasoning for the same. Some may say a bleeding woman bleeds out impure blood and it contains toxins, which is not true! obviously! It is the lining of the uterus that comes out of vagina because it has no purpose to serve, as pregnancy was not established. If Period blood does anything it cleans the vaginal cavity and disinfects it. What basis are those convictions standing on, do anyone even care for a reason at all!



Damn! I am starting to get straight on the inferred issue! I had decided I will only "imply" the dreaded issue. Classic diplomat, aren't I? Let's carry on insinuating the argument. Because we all know if I start addressing each and every single issue on the topic this post will be published as Book. Besides, I intend to sleep a little more after finishing and posting it. Science on the issue of "fairy tales" is quite ambiguous, I mentioned in one of my post a thought experiment. In this post, I will point out another one. There is a very interesting new religion in the town called Pastafarianism. I would rather consider that if I must. 


I Identify as an Athiest, a few years back use to call myself Agnostic because I was not sure, I still am not sure about the answer to the bigger questions about the life, universe and everything (42, perhaps). People like past-me Identify as Agnostic because they don't want to hurt anyone's religious sentiments, but the fact is those sentiments are not bolstered by anything at all. The Theists, be it polytheists or monotheists are taught to follow the idea culturally in an Identity specific manner. It is more of a zealous following because let us face it they do not know either! they are doing what they are thought to do. Religion is a hereditary scam with many innocent victims (There, I said it! ). The ideas of divine intervention and exploitation on the basis of same is quite an arrogant thing to do.



When I was younger, I was explicitly told, "God made you". I was told with a beaming certainty that God was actually some distant relative who haven't visited us in a while, so I do not remember him personally because I was too young to remember being an infant. Since all the adults around said the same thing I believed them. (Won't you believe a thing told by masses?) Besides, we often talked about God. I was even told he was always watching us. Honestly, initially it was a little uncomfortable but since he was always watching I got use to pooping while being watched by God.



When I grew up those same adults who told me that, God had made me, encouraged me to look for logic and reason. Irony oh Irony! So yes I questioned all the dogmas asked for evidence and reason in almost anything. If I did not get enough information from basic sources about the topic in hand, I was lucky enough to be a millennial with access to hell load of information on the internet right at my fingertips. I think it is impossible to be ignorant in an era of the internet unless one is clueless about how to spot a reliable information source.




So back to our living room episode, some five years back. No! I wouldn't prefer feeding a young mind with information that I know is not rational. A Generation-Z child is even less inclined to fall for that. I simply told what I knew "We are a product 4.5 billion years of evolution". Well them I was not quite unequipped to break it down in 5-year-old's vocabulary. I was trying to explain in simpler words the meaning of  "Evolution". The child's parents entered the room I got some help from the child's mother as she broke it down [...] "Oh okay!" said the five-year-old.



Find me on the following; #SocialMedia

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Our Ex Planet X


This blog post is brought to you in the memory of Ex-Planet X aka Pluto (Not the Disney dog, he is fine!). Growing up in the 90's we were told we have nine planets. My school teacher told us an acronym. "My Very Educated Mother Just Showed Us Nine Planets-MVEMJSUNP", So the order of planets was on my finger tips. 


Until one day in the August of 2006, the International Astronomical Union declared that Pluto is not a planet any longer. The IAU imposed new rules for a heavenly body to be regarded as a planet.

  • It needs to be in orbit around the Sun – Check!
  • It needs to have enough gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape – Check! 
  • It needs to have “cleared the neighbourhood” of its orbit – Oh Crap!

So, just like that, an era ended. We often find ourselves lost in thoughts, of the time when Pluto was a planet, on the verge of crying. It has been a decay since the "break up", still cannot believe it. *Sigh* Now, Pluto is just a Dwarf Planet.



It is not a secret that many of us haven't quite moved on after our first Cosmic-Solar-Planetary Breakup. In case you are one of those people who has cried a river, watched "Love Actually" thousand times and listened to "Unbreak my Heart" on repeat and still not over the Pluto, then I am here to get you the ice cream, cuddle up with you as we read this post about our Ex PlanetX.





Let us take a walk down the memory lane of our disastrous heartbreak with our misfit beloved Ex PlanetX. Every time I hear a new planet X is "maybe" spotted I roll my eyes and think well it won't be as good as the Ex-Planet X was. Literary engraved with love and loyalty. How could anything ever be as good as our Ex-planet X, Pluto? 



Though we must understand it is over and it was never meant to be ...


Going Down The Memory Lane
It was in 1930, Clyde Tombaugh first saw our dear Pluto. However, in 1978, we made it "Spacebook official" that is, it was formally declared Pluto a Planet of The solar system and it was a hell of a ride. You see, we had a star-crossed prophecy to be united in a relation of Planet-Ship. It was in 1846, a wise man named Percival Lowell, after the discovery of Neptun, made a "prophecy" that a legendary Planet X is to be found. Since the orbit of Neptune and Uranus was wobbly, that indicated there was still an undiscovered planet in the outer Solar System. So, Lowell suggested there was a Planet out there to explain the wobbly orbit and motion of Uranus and Neptun (I totally intend the Pun). He called in a quest to find the "Planet-X", as the naming of a planet is the prerogative of the astronomer finding it. So our beloved Planet was referred as Planet-X in the fable. When Clyde Tombaugh saw a tiny dot of light he thought it was "the One". However in truth, what Clyde had found, was not big enough to explain those wobbling perturbations. Furthermore, they called the search off anyway,  calling that tiny dot "Pluto" and crowning it with the official status of the legendary PlanetX. Pluto was a planet, 1930-2006 (um! not that long time in the context of Planet-ship, though). 



New Horizons spacecraft's Flyby Stalking
In 2015, The new Horizons Spacecraft flew by Pluto. The mission was intended to understand the Pluto's system better. We saw our Ex love and with teary eyes, our heart was filled with love and our internet with memes. What can I say, it is all too fresh you see. We were still struggling to "move on". 



Reconsidering Taking It Back
After the flyby, many considered that we should take Pluto back. Although, with that proposal, we will have to take all the Draft Planets (like pluto) under the wing of Planet-Ship. Honestly, that will also make learning planets of the solar system a complex task. Also reconsidering and taking back an Ex always disappoints, It did not work out the first time for a reason! #ProTip, we learned it the hard way. 

Looking For a Replacement
So the legendary quest to find the Planet X was not over because the "Not-Big-Enough" Pluto was never the legendary Planet X. Theories about the mysterious Planet X is all over the internet. Some claim that the calculations by Lowell were faulty and there was never any "PlanetX". Some say NASA is hiding the PlanetX because the Bible [...] well let's leave the idiosyncratic fairy-tails aside. Long story short there is a lot of conspiracy theories on the internet.

So, recently NASA has announced that they are quite hopeful to find the promised PlanetX. The motion of many asteroids, that gets dislodged from the Kepler belt and fly into the solar system indicate strongly that there is indeed a Planet X. Multiple occurrences of this phenomenon have bolstered the evidence pertaining the PlanetX. Evidence are indicating that the planetX is ten times the size of Earth and have an orbit around the Sun that is about 15000 Earth years. Only the time will tell if Planet X will be found. The scientists studying the phenomenon at the Subaru Observatory in Hawaii believe they'll have an answer in 5 years.

Well, that will be a new start. However, even if the Planet X is a myth and we never find it. We are better off with the memories of the time when The solar System had Nine Planets, and Ninth Planet was Pluto.

Find me on the following; #SocialMedia

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Weirdness of The Colour Spectrum


Visible light, on passing through a prism, gets separated into its component colours of a rainbow pattern. That pattern is called the Spectrum of Visible Light; it includes Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo and Violet. Each colour in this spectrum has a unique wavelength and that is its identity. 



Magenta, on the other hand, is an improbable colour! The weird thing about Magenta is that we do not see it in a the spectrum of visible light, which should technically include all the colours that are in the visible light wavelengths.




We see images due to the reflection of the image in our eyes. As the reflected light enters our eyes the Retina stimulate the brain. To see colours the reflected light stimulate a special kind of cells called cone cells. The cone cells send the signal to the brain and we get to see what colours we see. We humans possess three type of cone cells dedicated to Red, Green and Blue light. When we see an object that is Blue in colour the Blue cone cells are activated and they send a signal to the brain, likewise, when we see Red or Green objects the brain receives stimulus from the respective cone cells. 

Those are the three Primary colours that we see and every other colour is a combination of those colours. So when we see a yellow object Red and Green cone cells are activated and our brain perceives it to be something in between Red and Green on the visible light spectrum. Similarly, when we see Cyan the Blue and Green cone cells are activated simultaneously, as cyan is in between Blue and Green (the primary colours that we are capable of seeing)  

Our eyes cannot measure the wavelength of light directly. So we have three check-post on the spectrum namely Red, Green and Blue. Depending on the stimulated cone cell type we see the picture of objects as our brain perceives it. 

Now let us assume we see an object and our is stimulated by both Red and Blue cone cells. The colour we should be seeing must be something in between the Red and Blue on the above spectrum. However, the colour in between the Red and Blue is Green! But there is no Green colour clearly, as it would have stimulated Green cone cells. In such case, the Brain makes up a colour! That made up colour is (drum rolls please) Magenta! 



On the level of wavelengths, magenta does not exist! it is just the same old white light with the absence of green wavelength! Every other colour we see has a dedicated wavelength but magenta is a construct of the human brain and is purely perceptional. 

So how do we know that we all see the same colour as "Magenta"! or any other colour, for that matter! We all grew up being taught that the Sky is Blue and the Grass is Green. We learned our colours in a way that is highly subjective. We were taught on the basis of what we see. So, how can I be assured that my Blue and your Blue looks the same? Well, the answer to that is: We cannot be assured that we see colours in the same way! Colours are mental perceptions and there is no way (yet) to find out that we indeed see same colours. 

Some experts argue that the inability to explain colours in words is the problem and suggest that it is a lingual failure. Frankly I don't know if that is more comforting or seeing colours personally is more pleasant of a thought! All our perceptions, be it colours, taste or olfactory sense are our own we do not have any way to testify if we all sense and perceive things in the same way. In a way, we are all alone in out brains. However, we find ways to relate and connect and that is the beauty of it, we are all in this together. 




To solve the confusion on magenta not being in the visible spectrum we often use a conceptual representation called the colour wheel. It is bending the visible spectrum in a way that makes Red and Violet meet. Another  cool conceptual representation is this book called the colour atlas. Is it just me or do you also see a little hint on unperceivable higher dimensions? Alright, just me then!

  



PS: If your favourite colour is magenta, get over it! Technically it is not even a real colour.  

Colour Mixing 




Find me on the following; #SocialMedia

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Vincent Van Gogh and his Perception

“If you hear a voice within you say you cannot paint, then by all means paint and that voice will be silenced.” 
- Vincent van Gogh



As far as I can recall, I enjoyed painting. However, I was often rather disappointed with my childhood paintings despite being told I did a wonderful job. The Idea was, I wanted to paint as accurate as a photograph, I admit I use to over react while I use to cry and throw tantrums after seeing the end product of my artistic excellence. No one suffered more agony than my Mum who took charge of the situation by explaining to me that it was a good painting. I would then compare my own five-year-old self's painting to my Mum's grand canvases and accuse her of not being honest to me. (Sorry Mum! ) Despite all those fits and tantrums, she would still console and comfort me. I think it is because of her encouragement that I never stopped trying and now I believe I can paint a decent picture. 

I still do not consider my paintings to be accurate. Speaking of accuracy in paintings will often bring in the name of one man, Vincent Van Gogh. His Pantings are not the carbon imprint of the scenery but a bright fascinating style painted with a vivid urgency. I and my mother, both of us admire the work of Vincent Van Gogh. One of the most magnificent artist of all times. His vibrant colour schemes and his strong grip on self-taught art is splendid. Today he is considered one of the best artists ever. He painted more than 2100 paintings in his lifetime of 37 years and sold just one. 

I being a Whovian I especially enjoyed the episode on Vincent Van Gogh. I think it was one of the best moment in television history when Van Gogh visits his own art at the museum. While watching the show I so wished someone could actually show him how his art is considered iconic after a century. I wonder if knowing this would have made his troubled life any easy. Van Gogh struggled with Mental health issues. Many experts try to diagnose him based on the available information about his sickness. It is difficult to conclude what exactly was the state of his psychological ailment, but it is undeniable that he was chronically depressed during his lifetime. Despite that, his passion towards the people he loved and his roughness towards the same, while he was irritated, was notable. His paintings and his colour selection speak for his psychic state at the time of painting. 




In this post, I do not intend to express how wretched and paralysing depression is, there is no doubt in that. However, there is another aspect of depression and mental health issues that I want of cast light on. In 1889, Vincent painted his most iconic painting the starry night from his asylum cell. He was admitted to the asylum after he had mutilated his own ear in a psychotic episode. In the starry night, Van Gogh had captured the motion of swirling clouds in the canvas. In 2004, many years later when the grasp of knowledge on turbulent flow (of swirling clouds and illuminating stars) had strengthened, the experts were fascinated by the way Vincent had so accurately depicted the motion in his painting. 

Furthur study on Van Gogh's painting's eddying motion effects revealed that the paintings from the stressful and psychotic times in his life had an absolute depiction of luminance in motion. The same was not found in his work of more peaceful times in his life. It is also said that the distortion in some of his works was the distortion he saw as an effect of his mental sufferings. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the way he perceived the world during the phase of his mental agitation was not same as the calmer times. No one depicts the fine line between eccentricities and insanity better than Van Gogh. A self-learned artist who viewed the world from a unique perspective.

Earnest Hemmingway, Virginia Woolf, Sylvia Plath and many more noted creatives were reported to be depressed, I don't intend to romanticise depression in any way. I only want to bring into consideration the perspective of a depressed individual. Depression is a miserable condition but it affects an individual in a sensing level, that has created some of the most wonderful work of arts. Maybe the doomed state of mind gives access to a certain understanding of life and nature, that we do not stop to think over when we are mentally sound and at peace with our emotions.




Find me on the following; #SocialMedia

Monday, April 25, 2016

Unsettling Thought Experiment


We all have a set of unsettling random questions that bothers us, once in a while, when we are about to sleep. Closing shut that book that we have been reading at bedtime or finally putting down the digital device that we stare at more than half of our waking day, seriously more than half a day! Those questions that just pop into existence with an innocent assumption and land us into the deep pitch black existential crises. The thought experiments!



I propose a thought experiment, I like to call "LingualFree State".

Suppose, One day we wake up and there is a sudden change in the world and we are stripped of languages and expressions that are written, gestural and verbal. We do not have any memory of language what-so-ever. However, our brain is still capable of complicated thinking but the language in every form is erased out of out memories along with non-verbal communication such as expressions and gestures. Also, we are not in a state of any hostile situation to began with. We do not have to hunt or protect our self from predators, for that matter we are as safe as we are today in the beginning of our hypothetical condition. We simply lack the source to communicate with the man-made forms of language and the natural expression of emotions. How do you think, things will work out for us? How will we cope and communicate?

What I think about the result of such scenario

First of all, Language is not a universal characteristic and is not absolute we have come to the current state of lingual knowledge over years. Now, We will definitely lose a lot of information about the history and current understanding of the universe. However, there are plenty of information that doesn't include active languages such as the Voyager's Golden Record and LAGEOS1 those are some recorded information in a non-lingual form. Moreover, most of the information saved in the form of understanding in memory will be there (not exchangeable, unless we redevelop language). However, it is bound to fade out with time either by not being recorded or by not being shared at all.




Lack of ability to express our emotions would make us feel alone, undoubtedly. The inability to recognize other people's emotion and expression of emotion may strip us off empathy to a significant extent. We may take people quite carelessly and disregard the human side of other people.  Besides, wondering what is going on inside other people's head is also certain. Though, it will take years to calibrate a core of communication. 

Need to redevelop language would be quite an omnipresent thought. However, the time it will take to develop language from the scratch is debatable. As language has been ever changing and evolving a rudimentary language may take a long time to develop. Moreover, it is a fact that feral children, children who live in isolation from very young age eg Mowgli, in a realistic scenario are thought to be mentally impaired to learn a human language. That could be the case if we are stripped of language and have no memory it. 




Lack of worlds and organised sounds in speech may differ our way of processing thoughts. We somewhat think in words if we try to track in our thought process words pop in here and there. However, language differs but apparently thinking patterns still persist. It is apparent that people who are deaf and mute are capable of thinking without ever using language. So thinking will be in a different pattern but will be there. 

However, If we consider the immediate effects of the premise the most urgent needs won't be fulfilled. Such as food and water there may be eventually an unfriendly state where people will be robbing off supermarkets. A phase of turmoil over basic human needs would be obvious. That will lead to a more hostile situation and may eventually jeopardise the beautiful balance of civilization. 




What I conceive through this thought experiment
This thought experiment highlights the fact that languages are a fundamental tool of civilization and an integral part of intelligent life on the Earth. The essential ingredient of intelligent life is its ability to exchange ideas via various modes of verbal-nonverbal and written methods. 

What do you think will happen in such scenario? How do you think we will deal with it? Do you think the language will reappear down the line or will human race as we know it will be eliminated by this pandemonium scenario? Moreover, can there be any substitute for language in speech or written forms? How do you think aliens from a galaxy far far away, if they exist, would be communicating? 




Find me on the following; #SocialMedia

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Train Of Thoughts

Welcome on Board! 




Hello, This post is brought to you by my own brain, where I have been trapped all my life. Is there no way out of the mind? as Sylvia would say. I guess if Sylvia was from the contemporary days I would have stalked her on all her social media handles and sent her friends requests like a million time. I pretty sure she would have pity followed me back, (I would have been hopelessly persistent on fangirling her!) and then I would have referred her as my "close" friend. 

Ooh, I just had a notification! My iPad just went bing! The sound of my iPad's blink sounds like there is a tiny metallic balloon just exploded with a single sinusoidal jingle. I bet everyone else with the same notification sound can relate. Anybody? Alright, it's just me then. I wonder what the notification is about, though! it totally distracted me and frankly I don't care but I guess my mind is conditioned to be excited about the sound of that blinky jingle. Much like Pavlov's dog! Did I just compare myself to Pavlov's dog! wow, self-depreciation at it's best. I am just kidding I can come up with even better ways to self-depreciate. I just know I am creative and not because I ever do that every Thursday night.




Wonder if other awesome people ever self-depreciate? I bet, J-Law does! So that is settled. It is a good thing, keeps one's ego in check. How about the bad people? Hitler, did he ever self-deprecate? Nope, I don't think so with his year-round-Movember Stache and crazy hand gestures, he seemed he was pretty self-assured. Besides he had a boosting squad "hailing" him. Would I have hailed him, If I was in nazi Germany? Like, I would have had a choice! It would have been quite Anti-National of me. Duh! Though Now in the safe cradle of future and a distant land I can proudly say I never hailed Hitler. However, that don't matter now does it?

That reminds me of the time when I was asked: "If you could go back in time would you go back to kill baby Hitler?". That freaks me out every-fucking-time. I mean Why would anyone kill baby Hitler for the things that he (the child Hitler) hasn't done but the grown up Hitler did. That is just boiling it down to a level where someone being the "Bad-Guy" is their objective truth, that is so not right. But then to contrast it with the nature of "reality" isn't Bread Loaf Theory indicating past present and future is absolute? The Ideal scenario would be sprinkling it with the parallel Universe Theory. So, in that case, Hitler won't be the bad guy in all the parallel worlds. 




Moreover, if we could time travel, bear with me here this is really cool, wouldn't the options to go back and changing the history lead to the origin of more intertwined parallel universes? Because theoretically facing a choice gives rise to the parallel universe. At this point, I must remind myself that this write-up of the stream of thoughts is for the blog and my brilliant ideas about the nature of universe should be recorded in some other place. To those of you, still reading it anyway, you are officially a cool person and I hereby announce you the President of one of the whole parallel Universe, not just that, the parallel Universe you reign over will be named after you. Claim your honour by commenting 'Pineapple' in the comment section below. 




Pine green is one of the colors that I want my hair to be. basically, I think I should try out all the opal hair colors because I can not make up  my mind to pick one. So, I am like HA! fuck it, I will do them all. The joke's on you "God-Of-Choice" I defy your command and do everything. Now that is mutiny, take that rebels!

Anyways, I am so hungry that I could eat a whole T-Rex, unfortunately, I think I have dislocated my jaw also T-Rex are extinct. I am waiting for my jaw to get worse before visiting a doctor because I don't know how to put it nicely ... but I irrationally and aggressively hate Doctors. Because, I am to convince myself that I am capable of irrational hate, no just kidding, I hate them because they are awful and hospitals smell like babies. I don't have anything against babies it is just that I like them on Instagram only and as props on holiday destinations. There they are awfully cute and smell like love. 

Don't holidays just feel like love? The only difference is one can buy holliday package with money but money can not buy love. However, it can buy you a fucking yacht! So sure I will settle for material possession and assuage my need for love via stimulating it with coffee or weed IDK! Maybe a sandwich with lots and lots of cheese or pizza will do for the compensation. I should get myself a sandwich, though. Should wreak my dislocated Jaw to be sure. Besides I deserve some dopamine for typing last few paragraphs! 






Deboarding, The Train of Thoughts, 

Thanks for traveling with us.


Well then. Cheerio Chaps!

Find me on the following; #SocialMedia

Friday, April 22, 2016

Solipsism

When I was a little girl, we (me and my siblings) would rush back home after school to go to the room in our house where the bulky white desktop installed with Windows98 (or was it 95-94...) was kept. We would turn on the computer (that use to take some million years to turn on) and start one of the few things we enjoyed doing on our big bulky machine. We would start up the game we loved, it was called Road Rush or something like that. It was a Motorbike racing game and we were obsessed with it. 

We would take turns to be the player and spectators. My younger sister would often play longer turns and thus, I often got to be the viewer for longer durations. I used to cheer for her and tell her to go faster and faster. The thing was, as she went faster I could see the pixels appear and make up the surroundings. I could see mountains being created, bridges being built and buildings being erected out of nothing and it was fascinating to see. I often wondered what if real life was like that. If we went real fast could we somehow crash into the forming of the world? In the game, it was simply about us and it was only our screen that was the display. Everything else was just algorithms. 

Last year, as I was sitting in the passenger seat while my younger sister drove the car, I was navigating the way with the help of google maps. At that instant, I recalled how comparable our game and adult life was at that movement. I reminded her about the game as we drove, and we chatted about the Good-Old-Days. Thinking back, I am certain that driving fast in a real life scenario would not make the building and bridge ahead appear out of nothing. Seemingly, the real world is not based only on our "display" or conscious for that matter or is it?



We all know the empirically proven theory (or should I say as per our current understanding) of the universe, life, and consciousness. That universe emerged out of a big bang about 14 billion years ago, Our solar system came into existence around 4.6 billion years ago, The earth somehow got a life form that evolved to become human over years. So, here we are reading blogs on some two-dimensional screen. It is such a comforting thought that we have loved once around to love and care for. However, let us assess a contrasting theory of philosophy called Solipsism

Solipsism is the belief that, because we can only verify our own experiences and no-one else's, only the self is real. 

Is reality an illusion, are we in some kind of a "Matrix" like simulation? Is life and surrounding only a  feigning that exists inside only our brain? Our experiences are subjective. What we experience is from our perspective and we cannot undergo the experience of others. So can we for sure say that other people have same thoughts and perception? or How can we say that other people have thoughts at all? or taking it to the subjective extreme, Do they even exist? Solipsism arises due to the Egocentric Predicament 

Egocentric Predicament is the problem of not being able to view reality outside of our own perceptions. All worldly knowledge takes the form of mental representations that our mind examines in different ways. Direct contact with reality cannot be made outside of our own minds; therefore, we cannot be sure reality even exists.



It is known that visual and audial hallucinations can be so "realistic" for many people suffering from schizophrenia and other delusional disorders that they cannot differentiate between reality and fragment of their imagination. This somehow implies that a human Brain is capable of such realistic visuals and sounds. I have never hallucinated but I have often experienced Sleep Paralysis. the experience makes me realize how vivid delusions our brains are capable of. During sleep paralysis: I can feel someone holding me down and whispering into my ears ... my mind is half asleep but I am damn aware that I am dreaming and am unable to move my body. So, It could be entirely possible that solipsist is right! The brain is a wonderful organ after all. It could be that everything around is just a matter of neural foreplay!



The Problems with this idea of solipsism

Explaining Solipsism and convincing anyone about it is paradoxical
While I am writing it I am certain and aware that I exist. Similarly, as you are reading it you are conscious of your existence. In order to convince someone that solipsism is a valid ideology, either I have to give up on my own conscious existence or I must convince the other person that they are not real and are a fragment of my imagination. While addressing this blog to a fragment of my imagination that I may or may not even know exist is utterly unlikely. (Or is it?)

It is standing on the grounds that only one is real
So say, I am a Solipsist (I am not) and I come across someone who is also claiming to be a solipsist then we both believe the other person is a subjective experience and is not real. So it is again a paradox because our perception is only dependent on their shared opinion. Moreover, their mental experience is unattainable so we cannot be sure. (Not quite settled, are we?)

It is quite narcissistic to be a Solipsistic 
Solipsism places emotions and consciousness as a prerogative of oneself and robs off other people from the same. It is implying to an idea that lacking empathy for others is somehow okay which is not very tasteful in my opinion. It gives one a God-like presence that is unhealthy. However, since there is apparently no possible way to turn down this idea in a dispute its likelihood is still debatable. 

The Idea is based on questionable assumption
The idea that the validation of another person's consciousness cannot be made thus it is only "I" that exist and everything else is a bit of "my" mind, to provide me with surroundings. It is not a strong argument. We are aware of the presence of rich History, Science, and Art but we have not experienced it. Moreover, it is not possible for us to experience them all in our lifetime. If only "I" exist then why is there so much of extra information that we cannot possibly comprehend? Besides, one can argue that the unread books and unseen arts and all the unreached knowledge are the props created by our imagination. The debate is still on I guess.



However, problematic the idea of Solipsism finds root in many religions. Still, its foxy tendency to infer that the universe is "designed" for you, is too arrogant.

Soliloquy Of The Solipsist by Plath
I
Know you appear
Vivid at my side,
Denying you sprang out of my head,
Claiming you feel
Love fiery enough to prove flesh real,
Though it's quite clear
All your beauty, all your wit, is a gift, my dear,
From me.


Read full poem here

PS. On the same note, How can you tell that the universe did not come into existence just 5 minutes back and all your memories are just formulated by your brain! 




Okay, I will stop now! 
Doei!

Find me on the following; #SocialMedia