Thursday, July 27, 2006

"In heaven all the interesting people are missing."

I don't know if other people have had this feeling while reading about heavens and utopias- they are all utterly boring, without exception. They life they present is dull, boring, monotonous and without excitement. It may be eternal, or it may be economically ideal, but what the purpose if it seems to lack the very vigour and beat of life?

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Who is a good writer? Someone who better conceals his own identity when he writes, or someone whose words are teeming with his own life and spirit? A better actor is the one who has the ability to adopt a different personality and attitude than his own... to appear something different, to hide behind a mask. This requires talent. But does this criteria of talent apply to the art of writing as well? Is a writer who constantly expresses himself in his works, like an unskilled Puppeteer whose hands are being exposed as he manipulates the puppets?

Monday, July 24, 2006

There is a difference of only one step between love and hate... just a multiplication by -1.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Often i feel as if a good song is a like a beautiful girl. You hear it suddenly somewhere out of the blue, on the radio or TV, and you instantly love it, and then you want to hear it again and again, feeling you can't have enough of it, but soon, the excess of that song renders it ineffective and it barely raises an emotion, and then you start looking for a new song... but after a long time you hear that song again somewhere, and it strikes your senses the same way it did the first time, and you cherish it again, relishing the melody. Is this not similar to love in certain aspects? :)

Thursday, July 20, 2006

I was reading an article by Stephen Hawkings, 'Is Everything Determined' and it was certainly an excellent piece of writings, revealing the author's brilliant insight. One of the ideas that really struck me was his concept of an 'effective theory of free will'. As a Physicist he believes that there exists a 'Theory of Everything', a set of fundamental mathematical equations that would describe everything in this universe, theoretcally. The questions arises, will such a fundamental theory be able to predict human behaviour, because theoretically human behaviour would also be determined by this theory of everything?

The answer is No. Even though human behaviour would be determined by these equations, the human brain is too large a structure for the equations to be applied. Even the very simple Newton's theory of Gravitation can be solved exactly for 2 particles, but when the number of particles increases more than 2, the equations become too complex to the solved, and one has to resort to approximations. And consider human brain with 10^ [raise to power] 26 particles. This is such an enormous number than the fundamental equations would become too complex to the solved.

Secondly, even if such a prediction is made, the very fact of making this prediction would alter the system and therefore lead to a different result. [For example, it is predicted that you'd have a Big Mac for lunch, you might just change your mind on hearing this, and instead eat a Pizza.]

In physics whenever we are dealing with Macroscopic systems, the number of particles is too large to use fundamental equations. So instead we use 'effective theories', which use approximations. An example is Fluid Dynamics. Although a stream of fluid is made of millions of particles, we ignore this fact, and consider the liquid to be a continuous medium, characterised just by velocity, density and temperature. And this theory works in practice, even though it is not true in reality.

Similarly, Hawkings suggests that the concept of free will is an effective theory. Cause we are unable to predict human behaviour, we adopt the effective theory that humans have free will and are responsible for their actions. Now even though this is not true in reality, but it works in practice, and therefore we use it. And it seems that a society that believes in free will and responsibility has much more 'survival advantage' than a society that doesn't.

Think about it.

Monday, July 17, 2006

Bertrand Russell had one very strong reservation against Jesus: he believed in hell. A place where 'sinners' would be condemned to infinite punishment, misery and pain. The concept of such a place educes horror in most people, and certainly the preaching of such a view requires a certain cruelty in character. And besides, this idea goes against the very concept of justice, let alone mercy, of God. A sinner, no matter how wretched, can only commit a finite no of sins in his finite lifespan. And do a finite no of sins deserve an infinite punishment? Most people are really unable to appreciate such obviously inequality of the situation. Perhaps only God with His Infinite Mercy can sentence people to such a dreadful fate.
It is foolish to think of aquiring a perfect state of love right in the first such experience. Love, too, is an art and as with all arts, it requires practice for precision.

Copyright 2013 A Myth in Creation.

Theme by
Blogger Template by Beta Templates.