Modern Physics

Winter School on AstroParticle Physics (WAPP ) - 2009

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:50:32 PST

All those, who have been selected in Winter School of AstroParticle Physics or WAPP 2009, may like to join this community HERE.

The community is for those, who have been selected for the Winter School on AstroParticle Physics (WAPP)- 2009. Those who have already got confirmation for the WAPP-09, or are attending the WAPP, may join this community. The community will help all the students who have been selected, to be in touch, and maintain a direct interaction till WAPP ends, and for future.

For those, who aren't familiar with WAPP, or who lands to this community for some reason, might like to know something more about it. WAPP 2009 is the 4th Winter School on Astroparticle Physics, which is being conducted by Bose Institute- Kolkata and TIFR - Mumbai. The website of the workshop is as follows: http://bic.boseinst.ernet.in/capss/wapp09/ .

Earlier, WAPP has been conducted by TIFR and BI in Darjeeling (where CAPSS of BI is located) and Ooty (where Cosmic Ray Laboratory of TIFR is located).

For any further queries in anybody's mind, feel free to contact me. In general, I would act to be very vocal in answering your doubts, if it exists. Don't suffocate at all.

Siddartha S Verma

Hamlet - The Clown Prince

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:37:22 PST

The play- "Hamlet - The Clown Prince", is a play directed by Rajat Kapoor. Well, he's credited in the industry for producing, and being involved in offbeat arts, like - "Bheja Fry", "Mixed Doubles", "Mithya" and upcoming "Fatso". So, well, he's an actor, director and writer.

The play was organized in Cochin in Fine Arts Hall, today. Our classmate, Juneja, planned and arranged the tickets for the play yesterday. And, it was first time in my entire life that, I was going to watch a live play. The excitement was heavy on me, and also a sense of finding and exploring arts. We all know, that the arts in form of plays have reduced since past. Due to dynamic and fast media like internet, movies, Television, etcetera, people often have leisure time to spare for such skilled art performances. Also, on first hand, I had decided to attend the play because, it was a kind of Arts. Arts and Science are two historical branches of study, which deals with very different sense of thought. Well, I might be wrong, because few art forms, in the form of books, plays, etcetera are do involved in finding an art form in profound or ordinary day science. One very well known example, and perhaps, one of the most credible source of writer in modern world is involved in such kind of art. If you have already guessed, then I won't suppress myself long to say that, he's a French writer named- Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio. He's a well known writer, and to his credit is one of the prestigious prizes of this contemporary world. Not to hold too long he's a Noble Prize winner in Literature of 2008. I have not read many of his compositions, but the one which I have read, I would recommend for each and every individual of the society. It's for those, who want to be aware of the present, the world around us, the happening around us, the thought process within us, and many more important aspects of the world around us. The books name is- Terra Amata..

The book deals with very small and intricate details of happenings around any conscious creature. This piece of art, has changed my perception towards Art, which I earlier felt as insignificant to an extent. The book has such qualities, which cannot be generated by even a modern day science non-fiction book by may authors. So, Art becomes significant. Personally, I am inclined towards Art which is somewhat related to Nature, its workings, its dynamics, its significance, its profoundness, its reconditeness, its study, its revealing, and much more on the similar track. But you see, now a days, I have became even more generalized in what I should do to get associated with Arts. Well, if you have started thinking that, now I am going to opt for a career in Arts, then you are wrong. I would like to clarify that, I am much interested in the eclectic point of views which are in confluence with Science and which can be somehow put into a larger picture of the working of space-time around us. It's all the creation of Human mind, which is the center-point for anything called- Arts or Sciences.

Coming to todays play- "Hamlet - The Clown Prince", it was quite interesting to attend it, because, Rajat Kapoor opted for a different point of view towards an Art form which is more than 500 years old, by William Shakespeare. Looking into things with a different point of view, be it a piece of an Art or Science, always gives an insight to the workings which has not been explore by the generation hitherto. There's a famous quote by Feynmann (Noble Prize Winner in Physics) that, we should strive to think and imagine about things from a different perspective. Perhaps, there was a deep insight into his sayings, and whose effect can be felt in whatever this principle is applied in. Like, todays play. In todays play, based on Hamlet, it was more of a comedy, rather than a serious tragedy. As far as I am concerned, I would make it clear that, I haven't read Hamlet, as I belonged to CBSE course in my schoolings, but I know this much that, it was one of the great plays ever created by Hamlet. Moreover, it was a serious tragedy. To explore Hamlet, from the perspective of Clowns, was a great experimentation by Rajat Kapoor. KUDOS!

Lastly, I would give a brief account of what happened all over since the evenings, when we had to arrive to attend the play. It was raining heavily, and I had to take my classmate Rahul too, since we planned to go together to the play. I went to my friends flat, where Rahul and me waited for the rains to mitigate. Finally, the clouds became less heavy, and we were somehow ready to move on. With the onset of our travel on bike, to the Fine Arts Hall, the clouds again became too heavy and started to put showers and droplets of rainy showering waters on me and Rahul. Perhaps, too heavy for us to continue riding. But, the will was not to be mitigated by any reason, and we had to reach in time. In between the loads of showers of rain droplets, we decided to move on. Wet and shivering, we reached the Fine Arts Hall on time. Despite a considerable comedy happening in the play, the hall was a bit of tragedy for me. The clothes were bedraggled, and it got the opportunity to dry itself in the winds of AC at 18 degrees. I became frozen, but still, enjoying the play. In the end, the play ended, with lots of applause and appreciation from the crowds. All the clown characters were awesome, and played really well.

Waiting for the rains and crowds to depart, finally we got an opportunity to interact with Rajat Kapoor. We merrily captured the moment with the help of my camera. The result has been well posted with this blog. After the play got over, five of us went to consume coffee, as the rain continued to endow heavy droplets of showers from few thousand meters above. Finally, the plays chapter got over, and I now have an experience of visiting a live play. I wish to attend more of those in future, and enjoy the live Distinguished and Extinguished Art Form.... :).

Sorry for any spelling or grammatical errors, if any, as it's 4 O'Clock in the morning and I am felling too sleepy to review the post now.

Siddartha S Verma

TQC - 5th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:38:48 PST

I would like to announce about The fifth Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography which will be held at the University of Leeds, UK, from 13th - 15th April 2010.

Dear colleagues,
We all would like to draw your attention to the upcoming conference, TQC 2010,
which will be held at the University of Leeds from 13th to 15th of April
next year, further details below. We would be very grateful if you would
circulate this amongst your colleagues and encourage them to participate.

Best wishes,
Viv Kendon (local organising committee chair)
Wim van Dam (programme committee chair)
Simone Severini (programme committee co-chair)
__________________________________________
TQC 2010 tqc2010@leeds.ac.uk
The fifth Conference on Theory of Quantum
Computation, Communication, & Cryptography
University of Leeds 13th-15th April 2010
http://tqc2010.leeds.ac.uk/

ANNOUNCEMENT

The 5th Conference on Theory of Quantum Computation,

Communication, and Cryptography

---- TQC 2010 ----

University of Leeds, UK

13 - 15 April 2010

http://tqc2010.leeds.ac.uk

Quantum computation, quantum communication, and quantum cryptography are subfields of quantum information processing, an interdisciplinary field of information science and quantum mechanics. The TQC conference series focuses on theoretical aspects of these subfields. The objective of the conference is to bring together researchers so that they can interact with each other and share problems and recent discoveries. It will consist of invited talks, contributed talks, and a poster session.

As has happened for previous TQCs, a post-conference proceedings volume will be published inSpringer's Lecture Notes in Computer Science, to which selected speakers will be invited to contribute.

Invited Speakers:

Previous workshops:

TQC 2009, Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. Post-proceedings: LNCS 5906 (forthcoming)

TQC 2008, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. Post-proceedings: LNCS 5106

TQC 2007, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Nara, Japan.

TQC 2006, NTT R&D Center, Atsugi, Kanagawa, Japan.

Important dates:

Submission deadline: Monday 4th January 2010 (23:59 local time)

Notification of acceptance/rejection: Thursday 11th February 2010
Conference: April 13-15, 2010
Post-proceedings submission deadline: End of May 2010
Final copy deadline: End of August 2010
Published: November 2010

To receive announcements, calls for papers, and reminders of deadlines,

subscribe to the mailing list by following this link: TQC 2010 mailing list subscription

To contact the organisers, please send email to: tqc2010 leeds.ac.uk

Program committee:

Dagmar Bruß (Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf)

Andrew Childs (University of Waterloo)

Matthias Christandl (Ludwig-Maximilians-University)

Wim van Dam (University of California, Santa Barbara; Chair)

Nilanjana Datta (University of Cambridge)

Aram Harrow (University of Bristol)

Peter Høyer (University of Calgary)

Rahul Jain (National University of Singapore)

Elham Kashefi (University of Edinburgh)

Debbie Leung (University of Waterloo)

Hoi-Kwong Lo (University of Toronto)

Juan Pablo Paz (University of Buenos Aires)

Francesco Petruccione (University of KwaZulu-Natal)

Martin Rötteler (NEC, Princeton)

Miklos Santha (Université Paris Sud)

Simone Severini (University College London; Co-chair)

Seiichiro Tani (NTT, Tokyo)

Jean-Pierre Tillich (INRIA, Rocquencourt)

Pawel Wocjan (University of Central Florida)

Takashi Yamamoto (Osaka University)

Conference series steering committee:

Yasuhito Kawano (NTT, Tokyo, Japan)

Michele Mosca (IQC, University of Waterloo, and Perimeter Institute, Waterloo, Canada)

Vlakto Vedral (CQC, University of Oxford, UK, and CQT, National University of Singapore)

To receive announcements, calls for papers, and reminders of deadlines,
subscribe to the mailing list by following this link:
http://lists.leeds.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/tqc2010

{ NB: This is to certify that, I am involved in the advertisement of the above Conference on request fromSimone Severini. He can be accessed at- Simone Severini

http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucapsse }

Siddartha S Verma

An artful River

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:27:03 PST

I'm on my way to Coimbatore for taking an exam. On the way, I was delighted to see a river below the bridge with so intricate patterns of sand. Well, hats off to the Natural Arts. Well, my perdption at this point is not complete and there's no doubt that I don't even have the tiny grain of knowledge about the processes existing there. Well, we may say that,there are few components and processes going on there, such as- stones, sand, water, living organisms, chemicals, impurities, few animals, micro-organisms, fluid dynamics, turbulence, depth of water, fractal dimensions, geography of the land, life and death, ripples and waves on the surface of water, transfer of energy, some unknown and unexplored phenomenon, protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, reproduction, community and emotions, fear, happiness, hunger, fight, love, excretion, and etcetera.

Well, the list can go on indefinitely. And, this is the speciality of any location in space-time, in this Nature and entire Universe.

This is what Feynmann proposed. Learn and strive to look at Nature from different perspective.

Siddartha S Verma

A brief perspective about God

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:42:49 PST

Well, somebody asked me about my perspective of God. Here is what, I feel and I follow. The stance of the question, which directs us to questioning God, is itself a mystery. Leave alone God, each and every word stated has its own mystery, and it's quite difficult to delve into that, when we currently live in present.

Each Human, or any conscious being, has its unique course of history in this Universe. And to replicate, or even to understand one motive behind an action, would require a computing power which has never been perceived before. Coming to God, it's a fallacy. Every Human mind is different, and we are liable to differ in our perspective. So, how do we define God? We all are well familiar with, different level of perception occurring in Human beings, when it relates to the concept of God.

One can be Atheist, Agnostic, Religious and Spiritual, etcetera. And there are different school f thought existing, which we call as religion. There it is, Hinduism, Islam, Catholic, Zen, Buddhism, Taoism, Jews, Jainism etcetera. So how can we, as an individual direct ourselves to answer this profound question, which has social implications, on our existence and society. Well, I'd put my stance as an Agnostic, because that is what makes me feel most comfortable when it relates to the question of God.

Agnostic is the one, who is sceptic about the existence of God. So how do I justify myself? See, we all are aware that, the facts and fables inscribed in Religious texts are unverifiable to some extent.

There are efforts in that direction, but nothing fruitful has come so far. So would it be wise, from the perspective of a conscious Human being, to simply believe and follow what was inscribed then.

To be precise, I'd say that, only 2-3 % of the original texts from Hindu, Buddhist, Jain (or others) has been secured. The rest has got manipulated during the annals of time and history. So, that leads me to not to believe "God", as it is defined in religious text. But wait, I do believe in the byzantine, recondite, strange, mysterious theories and facts existing in Nature, which I perceive as God.

Black & Artful

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:56:18 PST

You might wonder that, what has this pic to do with Modern Physics. So let me clarify that, the write up would be mostly generalized in its content.

Ohk, so we are in consonance that nothing can be as ordinary as this pic in my blog. But well, let's contemplate on the pic once again, and start some discussion. First of all, let's ask ourselve that are we fully aware that what we are able to perceive in the pic is truely ordinary? Are we fully aware of, what it is, how it is, where it is, why it is ? Well, now you must be feeling a sense of awe in my questions. And. I am quite sure about it.

So, lets make the stance of this pic more ubiquitous. Let's ask ourselve that, if you click picture of anywhere in this world or universe, can you be absolutely aware of the sense of partial perception in what you perceive? Can't we say the same, if we are in consideration of any existing object in this universe? So can't we call this hypothesis, a Generalized Sense of Partial Perception or GSPP? All the living and conscious creatures on Earth or elsewhere, must be in a state of GSPP. We can further add that, the GSPP phenomenon is somewhat essential and malicious for the same living society, at the same moment of time. But it's not false that, we can't assist ourselves much to overcome the GSPP syndrome. Don't you feel pity that, all conscious creatures are necessarily endowed with this syndrome. No culture can ever reach a state of zero GSPP. For that, we can call a culture with 0 % GSPP as God. I personally feel that, a graph of the state of GSPP should follow a Normal Distribution, for varied culture and religion in existence anywhere. On the y axis would be, the number of persons. On the x axis would be, the GSPP %.

Your comments and discussions are welcome.

Siddartha S Verma

Kitchen Boutiques

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:49:34 PDT

The luxurious kitchen boutique shop in the Australian Embassy Visa building in M.G. Road of Kochi. Finally, I submitted the visa application for my project in AIGRC, School of Physics, UWA.

:-)

Siddartha S Verma

Turbulence in Nature

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:49:05 PDT

There's a very remarkable thing about Nature that, it gives you an opportunity to explore it at any moment of your conscious time. Here, I have a very simple example which I would like to elucidate. After a bath, when I lit up an incense stick, I was dumbstruck again to see its smoke patterns. The smoke should go up in an ideal case, but due to the turbulence present in the atmosphere, it deviates and follows an intricate an beautiful patterns as I have shown in the blog pic. The patterns are extremely unstable an sensitive. It can be somewhat said to be like uncertain wavy particles. Those particle remain as waves when undetected, but gives 100 % detection on any kind of proper detectors. This phenomenon is also called Quantum Collapse in science. It needs to be noted that, this has not been explained by science absolutely. Similarly, I would like to say the detection of smokes, when you try to interupt it and touch it, as Smoky Collapse. Well, be tuned for some other interesting phenomenon existing around you each and every moment of your consciousness.

Siddartha S Verma

Networks

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:15:25 PDT

An interesting network pic which I an seeing now.

Mobile blog

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:46:51 PDT

This is my first experiencing on live blogging. It is my laptop on which I work. The time is the early morning of the day. The plans are to study for my external exam which commence on 3rd of November. The first paper is Bio Medical Instrumentation.

Bye bye for now.

Conscious Machines

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:46:41 PST

Conscious Machines

by Marvin Minsky

M.I.T.

Published in "Machinery of Consciousness", Proceedings, National Research Council of Canada, 75th Anniversary Symposium on Science in Society, June 1991. I don't have the final publication date.

Many people today insist that no machine could really think. "Yes," they say, "machines can do many clever things. But all of that is based on tricks, just programs written by people to make those machines obey preconceived rules. The results are useful enough -- but nowhere in those cold machines is there any feeling, meaning, or consciousness . Those computers simply have no sense that anything is happening."

They used to say the same about automata vis-a-vis animals. "Yes, those robots are ingenious, but they lack the essential spark of life." Biology then, and psychology now: each was seen to need some essence not mechanical.

The world of science still is filled with mysteries. We're still not sure of how the Sun produces all its heat. We do not know precisely where our early ancestors evolved. We can't yet say to what extent observing violence leads to crime. But questions like those do not evoke assertions of futility. We can try harder to detect more neutrinos, find more fossils, or perform throrough surveys. However, in certain areas of thought, more people take a different stance about the nature of our ignorance. They proceed to work hard, but not toward finding answers, but toward trying to show that there are none. Thus Roger Penrose's book [1] tries to show, in chapter after chapter, that human thought cannot be based on any known scientific principle.

I have already written a book [2] that discusses various attempts to show that men are not machines, but mainly works to demonstrate how the contrary might well be so. You might object that no one has time to read all such books, so why can't I just summarize? And that's what this essay is all about: that certain things are too complex to summarize! This includes the mechanisms of highly evolved organisms and, especially, the workings of their nervous systems. It also includes the highly evolved systems that we call cultures and societies. And especially, it includes what we call consciousness. In particular, consider the problem of describing the brain in detail -- in view of the fact that it is the product of tens of thousands of different genes. We can certainly see the attractiveness of proposing to get around all that stuff, simply by postulating some novel "basic" principle by which our minds are animated by some vital force or essence we call Mind, or Consciousness, or Soul.

That tendency is not confined to religion and philosophy. The same approach pervades our everyday psychology. We speak of making decisions by exercising 'freedom of will'; or by finding what something 'means', or of discovering truths by means of 'intuition'. But none of those terms explains very much; each only serves to name another set of mysteries.

The situation is different in Physics. Consider the whirlpools that form when water flows down drains. When a scientist says that this can be explained by the Conservation of Momentum, that's very different from attributing it to some convenient Whirlpool God -- because precisely the very same mathematical rule can be used to explain and predict a vast range of other phenomena, with a precision and lack of exception found in no other realm of ideas. That principle apparently applies to everything in our universe and, because of its singularly good performance, we regard this sort of "fundamental" or "unified" principle as an ideal prototype of how to account for mysterious phenomena. But one can carry that quest too far by only seeking new basic principles instead of attacking the real detail. This is what I see in Penrose's quest for a new basic principle of physics that will account for consciousness.

The trouble is that this approach does not work well for systems whose behavior has evolved through the accretion of many different mechanisms, over the course of countless years. For example, in physiology, the excretion of excess potassium in the urine occurs because our ancestors evolved elaborates system of receptors and transport mechanisms, along with intricate machinery for controlling them. This is understood so well today, that no one feels that there's any need to postulate a separate, special principle for the Conservation of Potassium. Progress in this area is no longer news for biology because we have seen two hundred years of great success accrued from working out details. Since Harvey, Darwin and Pasteur, the idea of a Vital Force has nearly vanished from biology. Why is it still so much a part of present-day psychology?

I'll argue that vitalism still persists because we're only starting to find a way to understand the brain. (I see this as the irony of Penrose's book, because the path toward understanding lies in that flood of new ideas that began to grow around the time, half a century ago, along with the emergence of computers in the 1950s -- include the work of Turing in 1936, McCulloch and Pitts in 1943, and the hundreds of thinkers who joined them afterward. Yet Penrose takes the other side, and argues that the abilities of human mathematicians to discover new mathematical truths cannot be explained on the basis of anything a machine could do. He argues in [1], p110, that this kind of thinking must be based on "insights that cannot be systematized -- and, indeed, must lie outside any algorithmic action!" He bases this on the assumption that any thinking machine we build for attempting to discovering knowledge about mathematics must itself be based on some absolutely consistent logical foundation -- that is, one that cannot possibly produce any type of logical contradiction or inconsistency. This is the same assumption used in Godel's celebrated 'incompleteness theorem'. Penrose's application of this idea to psychology is due, as Penrose notes, to J.R.Lucas, in Philosophy, 36, pp120-4, 1961.
Consistency

It seems to me that all of this stands upon a single and simple mistake. It overlooks the possibility, as my colleague Drew McDermott once remarked, of including systems "that are mistaken about mathematics to some degree, or systems that can change their minds." By inadvertently ruling such machines out, you've simply begged the question whether human mathematicians can be kinds of machines -- because people do indeed change their minds, and can indeed be mistaken about some parts of mathematics. An entire generation of logical philosophers has thus wrongly tried to force their theories of mind to fit the rigid frames of formal logic. In doing that, they cut themselves off from the powerful new discoveries of computer science. Yes, it is true that we can describe the operation of a computer's hardware in terms of simple logical expressions. But no, we cannot use the same expressions to describe the meanings of that computer's output -- because that would require us to formalize those descriptions inside the same logical system. And this, I claim, is something we cannot do without violating that assumption of consistency.

If you are not a logician, then you might wonder what's all the fuss about. "What could possibly be wrong with logical consistency. Who wants those contradictions, anyway?" The trouble with this is that the problem is worse than it looks: paradoxes start to turn up as soon as you permit your machine to use ordinary common-sense reasoning. For example, troubles appear as soon as you try to speak about your own sentences, as in "this sentence is false" or "this statement has no proof" or in "this barber shaves all persons who don't shave themselves." The trouble is that when you permit "self reference" you can quickly produce absurdities. Now you might say, "Well then, why don't we redesign the system so that it cannot refer to itself?" The answer is that the logicians have never found a way to do this without either getting into worse problems, or else producing a system too constrained to be useful.

Then what do ordinary people do? So far as we know they scarcely use any logic at all. The studies made by the great child psychologist Jean Piaget suggest that the abilities required for to manipulating formal expressions are not reliably available to children until their second decade, if ever. And even as a mathematician, I cannot recognize the psychology Penrose describes. When doing mathematics, my mind is filled with many things non-logical. I imagine examples based on gears and levers, I imagine conversations that might reveal to me what Andrew Gleason or Dana Scott might do in the same situation, or I imagine explaining my solution to a student and discovering something wrong with it There's little sign of consistency in any of that experience. Nor is that famous 'intuition' really a privileged route to the truth, because although the answer seems to come with a feeling of certainly, later it's likely to turn out to be wrong.

Perhaps the most important aspect of how humans work are the ways in which we ask ourselves (not necessarily by using words) what problems have we seen before that most closely resemble the present case, and how did we manage to deal with them. For those were where we made our mistakes and then sometimes managed to learn from them. And notice that in doing so, we somehow must employ some capabilities for retrieving and then manipulating some descriptions of some of our earlier mental activities. Now, notice how self-referent this is. Often when you work on a problem you consider doing some certain thing -- but before you actually carry that out, you often inquire about yourself, about whether you actually be able to carry it through. Solving problems isn't merely applying rules of inference to axioms. It involves making heuristic assessments about which aspects of the problem are essential, and which of one's own abilities might be adequate to dealing with them. Then, whatever happens next arouses various feelings and memories about of situations that seem similar and methods that might be appropriate. Is this done by some kind of non-physical magic or it is accomplished, as I maintain, by the huge and complex collection of knowledge-base representations and pattern-matching processes that we all regard as 'common sense'?

Now it happens that when we do such things, we often find that we talk to ourselves about what we're doing. And when we thus "refer to ourselves" we sometimes speak of being conscious or aware. I think it no coincidence that Penrose feels that this, too is something present-day science cannot explain. Indeed, he Could this result from just that fear of inconsistency and self-reference? Indeed, Penrose sometimes speaks of a "reflection [principle" with something resembling awe: "The type of 'seeing' that is involved in a reflection principle requires a mathematical insight that is not the result of the purely algorithmic operations that could be coded into some formal mathematical system (p110)." In my opinion this is just a mistake! He appears to assume that when this is applied to humans, the word "consistent" can be freely inserted between 'some' and 'mathematical' -- as though people possess some marvelous gift whereby they can tell which assertions are true. But in view of the many mistakes we all make, I see no compelling evidence that anyone has any direct such access to truth. All we can depend upon (including the power of formal proof) is based on our experience. I think. And in any case there really is no problem at all in programming a computer to perform that sort of reflective operation. Indeed John McCarthy has pointed out that forming a Godel sentence from a proof predicate expression (which is the basis of the Lucas-Penrose argument) requires no more than a one line LISP program. So in my view Penrose and many other philosophers have put the problem upside down: the difficulty is not with making algorithms that can do reflection -- which is easy for machines, but with consistency -- which is hard for people. In summary, there is no basis for assuming that humans are consistent -- not is there any basic obstacle to making machines use inconsistent forms of reasoning.
Consciousness.

Even the most technically, sophisticated people maintain that whatever consciousness might be, it has a quality that categorically places it outside the realm of science, namely, a subjective character that is makes it utterly private and unobservable. Why do so many people feel that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of anything science can presently do?

Instead of arguing about that issue, let's try to understand the source of that skeptical attitude. I have found that many people maintain that even if a machine were programmed to behave in a manner indistinguishable from a person, it still could not have any subjective experience. Now isn't that a strange belief -- considering that unless you were a machine yourself, how could you possibly know such a thing? As for 'subjectivity,' consider that talking about consciousness is a common, objective form of behavior. Therefore, any machine that suitably simulated a human brain would have to produce that behavior. Then, wouldn't it be curious for our artificial entity to falsely claim to have consciousness? For if it had no such experience, then how could it possibly know what to say? Of course a classic question in philosophy is asking for proof that our friends have minds; perhaps they are merely unfeeling machines. But then one must ask how they'd know how to lie.

In any case, we have much the same problem with ourselves; try asking a friend to describe what having consciousness is like. Good luck! Most likely you hear only the usual patter about knowing oneself and being aware, of sensing one's place in the universe, and so on. Why is explaining consciousness so dreadfully hard? I'll argue that this is something of an illusion, because consciousness is actually easier to describe than most other aspects of mind; indeed, our problem is a far more general one, because our culture has not developed suitable tools for discussing and describing thinking in general. This leads to what I see as a kind of irony; it is widely agreed that there are "deep philosophical questions" about subjectivity, consciousness, meaning, etc. But people have even less to say about questions they'd consider more simple:

How do you know how to move your arm?


How do you choose which words to say?


How do you locate your memories?    


How do you recognize what you see?  
Why does Seeing feel different from Hearing?


Why are emotions so hard to describe?   


Why does Red look so different from Green?

What does "meaning" mean?
How does reasoning work?

How does Commonsense reasoning work?How do we make generalizations?
How do we get (make) new ideas?
Why do we like pleasure more than pain?
What are pain and pleasure, anyway?

We never discuss these in everyday life, or bring them up in our children's schools. An alien observer might even conclude that those Earth-people seem to have a strong taboo against thinking about thinking. It seems to me that this is because our traditional views of psychology were so mechanistically primitive that we simply had no useful ways to even begin to discuss such things. This is why I find such irony in the arguments of those who reject the new mechanistic concepts of psychology -- the new ideas about computational processes that promise at last to supply us with adequate descriptions of these complex processes.

The science of Psychology, as we know it today, is scarcely one hundred years old. Why did humanity wait so long before the emergence of thinkers like Freud, Piaget, and Tinbergen? I think the answer lies in the fact that the brain is not merely a kind of machine, but one that is far more complex than anything ever imagined before. The pivotal notion provided by those three pioneers was that the mind has many parts. A person doesn't simply See by "looking out" through the eyes. Instead, vision involves many different processes, cooperating, competing, being promoted and inhibited by other processes, being managed and regulated by yet others. You can not simply 'recognize' a telephone, because that is scarcely at all a matter of vision; instead, you have to "re-cognize" it -- that is, the input has to somehow activate some memory representations of a device with a certain kind of structure (handset and dial, say) coupled with a certain functional disposition (to hold to the mouth and ear for communication purposes). This is nothing like the sorts of unitary concepts found both in commonsense and philosophy, e.g., of a platonic ideal of a telephone, or some sort of model inside the head. In recent years we've learned much more about the complexity of the brain. It now appears that perhaps fully half of our entire genetic endowment is involved in constructing our nervous systems. This would suggest that the brain is nothing like a single large-scale neural net; instead, it would have even more parts than the skeletomuscular system -- which can be seen to have hundreds of functional parts. If you examine the index of a book on neuroanatomy, you will find the names of several hundred different organs of the brain. A good fraction of those are already known to have psychologically distinct functions. To pursue the analogy a little further, note that the skeletal anatomies of animals have been known for millennia, but only in rather recent years have scientists understand the mechanics of locomotion and its various gaits; that had to wait until scientists learned more about the mechanics of forces and materials. Similarly, mechanistic theories of psychology may have to wait even longer for adequate conceptual tools because the 'mechanics' of heuristic computation could turn out to be more complex than those of physics. Before these new ideas emerged, with the era of complex information-processing computer models, such models were not considered convincing -- perhaps because there were no feasible experiments. I don't mean to say that there was no progress at all before computers, only that there was precious little. Freud himself was one of the first to conceive of "neural-net-like" machines -- only no one would listen to him except Fliess. Later came the astounding insights of Post, Godel, and Turing, followed by those of Rashevky's group, McCulloch and Pitts, and Grey Walter's simple yet somewhat life-like mini-robots. But significant progress began only in the 1950s when more serious models could be conceived, tested, and discarded in days or weeks instead of years. Soon the researchers in Artificial Intelligence discovered a wide variety of ways to make machine do pattern recognition, learning, problem solving, theorem proving, game-playing, induction and generalization, and language manipulation, to mention only a few. To be sure, no one of those programs seemed much like a mind, because each one was so specialized. But now we're beginning to understand that there may be no need to seek either any single magical "unified theory" or and single and hitherto unknown "fundamental principle"-- because thinking may instead be the product of many different mechanisms, competing as much as cooperating, and generally unperceived and unsuspected in the ordinary course of our everyday thought.

What has all this to do with consciousness? Well, consider what happened in biology. Before the 19th century there seemed to be no alternative to concept of "vitality" -- that is, the existence of some sort of life-force. There simply seemed no other way to explain all the things that animals do. But then, as scientists did their work, they gradually came to see no need for a "unified theory" of life. Each living thing performed many functions, but is slowly became clear that each of them had a reasonably separate explanation! For the most part each separate function was served by a different and specialized organ! Thus the lungs oxygenate the blood, while the heart pumps it to other organs. The nucleus reproduces all the organs' structural information, while the ribosomes translates those codes into proteins which then self-configure themselves. For some time that subsequent appeared to entail a mystery. It seemed natural to assume that those configurations were based on a uniform energy-minimizing mechanism -- but simulations did not bear this out. This appears to not be so; instead, each protein has had to evolve this property on its own. (A random string of peptides cannot usually manage it.) Conclusion: There is no central principle, no basic secret of life. Instead, what we have are huge organizations, painfully evolved, that manage to do what must be done by hook or crook, by whatever has been found to work.

Why not assume the same for the mind? (I could have said the brain, instead -- but in my view minds are simply what brains do.) Why else would our brains contain so many hundreds of organs? Of course there are many old arguments against localization of brain-functions because it seemed that often a mind still works when some of its brain has been lost. One answer to that is to argue that many functions are accomplished in multiple ways, not only to provide resistance to some injuries, but perhaps more important, because no particular way is likely to be always reliable. To be sure, there still seem to be some mental phenomena that have not yet been shown to "organ-ized". So there is still some room for theories about mechanisms that are not so localized. But now, I maintain, it is time for "insulationism" to take its place along with, and in complementary opposition to, connectionism.

Then what might be the functions and the organs of what we call consciousness? To discuss this, we'll have to agree on what we're talking about -- so I'll use the word consciousness to mean the organization of different ways we have for knowing what is happening inside your mind, your body, and in the world outside. Here is my thesis; some people may find it too radical:

We humans do not possess much consciousness. That is, we have very little natural ability to sense what happens within and outside ourselves.

In short, much of what is commonly attributed to consciousness is mythical -- and this may in part be what has led people to think that the problem of consciousness is so very hard My view is quite the opposite: that some machines are already potentially more conscious than are people, and that further enhancements would be relatively easy to make. However, this does not imply that those machines would thereby, automatically, become much more intelligent. This is because it is one thing to have access to data, but another thing to know how to make good use of it. Knowing how your pancreas works does not make you better at digesting your food. So consider now, to what extents are you aware? How much do you know about how you walk? It is interesting to tell someone about the basic form of biped locomotion: you move in such a way as to start falling, and then you extend your leg to stop that fall: most people are surprised at this, and seem to have which muscles are involved; indeed, but few people even know which muscles they possess. In short, we are not much aware of what our bodies do. We're even less aware of what goes on inside our brains.

Similarly we can ask the extents to which we're aware of the words we speak. At first one thinks, "yes, I certainly can remember that I just pronounced "the words we speak." But to what extent are we aware of the process that produced those particular words? Why, barely at all! We have to employ linguists for lifetimes of research even to discover the simplest aspects of the language production process.

Finally, I can ask you questions like, "Can you tell me what you are thinking about." The answers to such questions are hard to interpret. The listener might list the names of some subjects or concerns that were recently in mind, and sometimes can describe a bit of the trains of thought that led to them. These kinds of answers clearly feed upon memories of recent brain-activities. But every such answer seems incomplete, as though the act of probing into any one of those memories interferes with subsequently reaching any other ones. In any case, I cannot think of any aspect of consciousness that could operate without making use of short-term memories, and this suggests that the term 'consciousness' is usually used in connection with whatever processes brains use for accessing memories of their recent states.

This raises the question the extent to which such memories might really exist inside our brains. Clearly there is a problem: if the same neural network has been used recently for only a single purpose, then it may still contain substantial information about what it recently did. But if it was used for several things, then most of those traces will have been overwritten -- unless some special hardware has been evolved for maintaining such records. For a modern computer, there is much less of a problem with this because we can write programs to store such records inside the machine's 'general purpose memory". Of course, there will be ultimate limits on the size of such records, but not on the nature of their contents. For example, most LISP language systems allow the user to specify that all the activations of an arbitrary set of program-components will have traces stored recursively. If you specify enough of this before you run your program, then subsequently you'll be able to find out everything it did -- and even to simulate running it backwards. However, as we've already said, having such access does not by itself enable the machine to make a good interpretation of those records. Certainly a certain degree of consciousness -- in the sense of access to such records -- is necessary for a person (or machine) to be intelligent. But even a large degree of such 'consciousness' would not by itself yield intelligence.

So this finally leads us to some really important questions about what are the uses of consciousness. It seems entirely clear to me that consciousness has usefulness. It can't be what some philosophers claim: some sort of useless metaphysical accessory. On the contrary, there are important ways to exploit short term memories. For example, one has to keep out of loops -- that is, repeating an unsuccessful action many times -- which requires knowing what already has been done. Also, after one has successfully solved a difficult problem, one wants to "assign credit" to those actions that actually helped. This may involve a good deal of analysis -- in effect, thinking about what you've recently done -- which clearly requires good records. Furthermore, such evaluations must be done on various scales; did you waste the last few moments, and why; or did you waste an entire year? Why do we use the term consciousness only about the shorter term memories?) On each such scale, you'd better have an adequate array of memories. Otherwise you cannot intelligently revise your plans, adjust your strategies, take stock of your resources, and in many other ways maintain some control over your future. On how many such time-scales do we work, and how many different mechanisms are involved with each? Because we're living in the early times of psychology, no one can yet answer such questions. Clearly it is time to begin to seek constructive ways to study them. To do this we should prepare ourselves for coping with complexity, because it seems unlikely that so many different functions can emerge from a single, completely new principle.

Then what is the alternative. We'll simply have to face the facts that our many-hundred-organ-ed brain is not a useless luxury. By the time of your birth the brain contains hundreds of specialized agencies, and by the time that you're an adult, most of those systems have probably grown through dozens of stages of development. Now at various times in those first few yours, some of those systems create the most supremely useful of all fictions, namely, that the unwritten novel that constitutes your life is centered on a principle protagonist -- that you conceive of as your consciousness, like an actual person inside your head! Some sections of [2] describe in more detail why this illusion is so useful in life; indeed, in effect, it makes itself true. But the point of all this is to emphasize that none of those old simplistic concepts from the past -- those spirits, souls, and essences -- can help us with that modern task, of understanding how all those different resources, are constructed, operated and managed. Surely they work to a large extent as a partially cooperative parallel system -- but also, surely, those are largely controlled (much as Dennett suggests in [3]) by one or several sequentially controlled systems, which in turn are assembled from smaller parts. The first sentence in my book [2], attributed to Einstein, is "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." The first step to take toward doing that is to exorcise those Spirits from Psychology.

[1] The Emperor's New Mind, Roger Penrose

[2] The Society of Mind, Marvin Minsky

This article has been originally take from the following link: http://kuoi.com/~kamikaze/doc/minsky.html

Curriculum Vitae - Siddartha S Verma

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:41:11 PDT

If the CV doesn't opens up here, and shows a conversion error, then please click on the "View on Slideshare" at the right hand side bottom of the Slide. That would open the document in Slideshare, and would solve the problem.

The Days Ahead

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:48:52 PST

I love the blog space, and find it one of my most affable places to spend my time on. These days, as they are flying away, are filled with rust, and complex fluctuation in the happenings all around me. As I say, things around me, don't make up a mind on the issues on country or world scale. I am in general talking about the time space revolving around me, in recent past and very present present.

However, as I write, I can well imagine many global and national issues to be worth mentioned in my write up now. The devastations caused by recent blasts in ISLAMABAD, the train accident in DELHI-MATHURA railway network, the INDIA-CHINA ongoing confusion, the recent announcements of NOBEL PRIZES in different fields of study, the BOMBINGS in BAGHDAD, the chaos surrounding the MAOIST issue, the GLOBAL world view on GLOBAL WARMING, and more, more and more. As we can think, the world seems to be so complex and full of mischief’s all around us. The contrasting differences in the point of view of Humans, as conspicuous as the color BLACK & WHITE, are turning out to be an essential aspect of the working of the planet. Also, we are already familiar with the philosophical proposition of DUALITY, we can't deny that the other side of DUALNESS is far more painful than to be imagined or study. The Literature, or Philosophy, or an Article, or a due account of a particular incident, or thinking, or view, or thought, and other such subjective phenomenon is liable to be wrong and never absolute correct. It's one of the fundamental laws of NATURE that unless you are that particular system, or being, you are liable to make mistakes and never be absolutely correct. Any incident, or happening, happening at a particular point of time and space, are subjected to be correct from the point of view of that particular system, however, few facts would be impossible for the being of that system to perceive. The best way to resolve this phenomenal issue would be, to observe from outside, and transforming yourself to the traits of the being in that system. Not trying to be much more elusive, I would rather move on to the main subject of interest to me.

The days in the past, for me to be specific, was full of fluctuations in terms of emotions, happenings, and mood. The recent happenings, be it the last FRESHERS DAY PARTY given by our 2nd Year Students to the 1st Year new comers, or the seminar on Connectionism in NETWORKS in Dept. of Mathematics, has proved itself to be quiet joyful to me. The FRESHERS DAY PARTY proved to be very successful, and enjoyable for all of us, i.e. 1st years, 2nd years, and us, the Final Years. Our juniors, i.e. the 3rd years were less engaged in the party, due to the happening of an INTERNAL EXAMINATION of Johney Issac sir. So the party in the evening succeeded the official and more formal party given to the juniors in our Department. Due to very strict rules and regulation with regards to the RAGGING, only formal interactions and suggestions took place with the 1st years. Few blatant jokes, and willful engagement in discussions were common too. In the end, at around 3.00 P.M., the 1st years were announced FRESHERS. It sounds pretty comic, but it is the way it was. It was announced to everybody to arrive at SEA GATE Hotel for somewhat more informal party from 2nd years to 1st years. 3rd and 4th years were happily invited too. The SEA GATE is a wonderful place for the 4th years for a perfect serious hangout, with the reasons not elucidated here. A SECRET??? I was made the judge of the Mr. and Ms. FRESHERS EVENT in the party, and that was to speak seriously, a very good experience to savor. Along with me were - NILANSHU, JUNEJA, PINTO and RINCY. Few of the 1st year FRESHERS did exceptional well, most of them AVERAGE, and few of them exceptionally BAD. The graph of performance could be said to be somewhat OVERLAP of FEW or MORE RANDOM NORMAL DISTRIBUTIONS. The FOOD was kept to arranged exceptionally well, and it could be said that it was delicious. Ohk, let's give nook to some exaggeration!!! Finally the judging panel came to a UNANIMOUS decision regarding Ms. FRESHERS. It was Thanju of 1st year. The FRESHERS party was followed by a still enjoyable party, but this time with less number of peoples around. My stance was such that, I contributed to this party by only my presence and not my involvement!!! I slept in my friends bed, with me too tired, and he suffering for a yet another retreat of MAN-SPACES.

In contrast, depression in my mood due to the fear of failure, or unattainable few goals, were indeed apprehensive. At last, and now & here, those fears have proved itself to be less strong and has mitigated to dampen out in near eternity. Finally the fear of rejection from Australia regarding my Final Project, the fear related to rejection from future International Conference in Karnataka, the apprehension related to my sitting idle in the month of December, or the anxiety related to the positive reply from the participation in the conferences and workshops going to held in Kochi, has sorted out itself and has SELF ORGANIZED itself to mitigate my SPOOKY NEURONS of my brains. The ANXIOUS NEURONS. It's better for HUMANS, as I think that the 90 % or NEURONS are dysfunctional and redundant. Only the 10 % NEURONS are responsible for all the decisions and spookiness as such. Strikingly, something very remarkable comes to my mind. The data's from the Sky Survey from of telescopes like SLOAN DIGITAL SKY TELESCOPE and few others, show that the ORDINARY MATTER is also distributed in the Universe in a very NETWORKED pattern as NEURONS are inside our brains. And as we all know, 97 % of the constituent of the Universe, that is ALL CONSTITUENT - ORDINARY MATTER = DARK MATTER + DARK ENERGY, the DARK part of the Universe seems to be somewhat closely related to 90 % of DYSFUNCTIONAL NEURONS and space inside our BRAINS.

In order to satiate my desire to knowledge on BRAINS, and NETWORKS, and UNIVERSE, I have few anticipated moves in the month of DECEMBER to make this somewhat possible. The 3 pillars, in which I have participated, & which can prove itself to be fruitful to me are as follows: INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INNOVATIONS IN NATURAL COMPUTING, INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NEUROSCIENCE UPDATES & WORKSHOP ON STATISTICAL GENETICS. I wish that, the above mentioned events would make me learn & understand even more complex aspects of working in Nature, as it functions in form of NETWORKS, COMPLEX NETWORKS, VERY COMPLEX NETWORKS and UNRESOLVABLE NETWORKS. The very interesting fact about these kind of study is that, you don't have to particularize yourself to a specific branch of study to take interest in it. It naturally exists everywhere, be it our BRAIN, SOCIETY, UNIVERSE, and what more. In December, another interesting event for me would be - IICFA - 2009 or INTERNATIONAL INTRADISCIPLINARY CONFERENCE ON THE FRONTIERS OF ASTRONOMY. It's dates have been decided as 28th - 30th of December, and is going to happen in Karnataka, India. The interesting part about this conference for me is that, the ABSTRACT of my paper has been selected for presentation in it and I need to go for presenting it in IICFA. There's plan for attending a WORKSHOP on ASTRO-PARTICLE PHYSICS in DARJEELING during 14th - 22nd December. But it has not been finalized, and I am looking forward for a positive response from their side. The Workshop would be a lifetime opportunity for me, if at all I get selected in it, and I will get to learn frontier science and technology on ASTRO-PARTICLE.

The most important and interesting part of THE DAYS AHEAD entwines as follows. The selection in AIGRC, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA for my B.TECH FINAL YEAR PROJECT has opened a door for me to most interesting science happening in contemporary modern physics. The AIGO in AIGRC is one of the most important and sophisticated experiments contemplated in present scenario. {AIGRC comes under the School of Physics of The University of Western Australia.} There's no doubt that, scenario is liable to change, and the years are liable to pass. So up on my anticipated arrival in Perth, Australia on 8th or 9th of January, I need to stay in Perth in YMCA JEWELL ACCOMMODATION till Monday, when an official from AIGRC would help me to go to GINGIN, 60 kms from Perth city, where the AIGRC if located. The arrival, & stay, & work in AIGRC group on Gravitational Waves Detectors and ADVANCED DETECTORS would be an experience of the lifetime for me.

Not to forget, I have my external exams, i.e. END SEMESTER EXAMINATIONS of 7th semester from 3rd November. The 1st paper happens to be - BIOMEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION. The subject pretends to put substantially less thrust on me, and the same should be very conspicuous from my current stance. The second paper after 3rd is very strangely on 24th of November. So lets end this story here, with a positive hope (if even bleak and gleam), that the END SEMESTER exams goes well and planned.

Keep yourself tuned to my blog. You may find few things, much less interesting than this, in future..!!

Introduction for Robotics Minor Project

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:49:56 PST

Hi all. Before the article starts, I would like to say that, I wrote the following Introduction as a part of my Minor Project Report on ROBOTICS -- a PHOTOVORE ROBOT.Fortunately I was able to complete the Photovore Robot on time, with the help from Divyendu (my classmate). You may now move on to the article.

Robotics has been one of the most important milestones achieved by us during 20th and 21st century. The advancement of technology and revolution in memory capacities of chips have given rise to a condition, where we are now talking about building a robot with equivalent or higher intelligence than human beings. It cannot be denied by any logic that, why it isn’t possible by the end of 21st century. The desire of humans to artificially build machines and something very similar to him has been a very primitive one. But in very past, we couldn’t build much automated motion of machines like humans. Only simple mechanical motions were possible. Gradually we have come to a point, where we have to now study robot psychology too! It would have been a lucrative dream for our ancestors, only 100 years before to design a machine like we see now days. We cannot be very sure that, our descendants 100 years from now won’t be having a very similar point of view towards us.Other than building humans like robot, robotics arm and algorithms in machine has been used since 1960’s and 1970’s.

It has been only less than 50 years of the advent of robotics study, and we are now at this juncture of time where robotics plays an important role in key areas of society. It is very conspicuous that, 50 years is so small of time in world history. The future of robotics is very exciting, and allures the youngest mind towards it. One of the important aspects of robotics has been Artificial Intelligence or AI. AI is basically a key to the intelligence of any robotics system. In future, we would be able to write algorithms and programs using AI techniques, such that, it replicates human brain or even supersedes it. Important aspects of AI has been Machine Learning, Data Mining, Pattern Recognition, Speech Recognition, Language Recognition, Expert Systems, Logic, Genetic algorithms, replicating and evolutionary robotics, and finally it’s psychology.

A robot with intelligence and sensing abilities of that equivalent to human is quite difficult to achieve presently. The sensing modules in robots can use different types of sensors according to the needs of the robot. We can in general talk about tactile sensors, acoustic sensors, range sensors, photo sensors, taste sensors, colour sensors, IR sensors (to detect hotness or coldness). There is no doubt that, we can build sensors of any range and any type in electromagnetic range to make it perceive the world and nature around itself to unique and new dimensions. Humans cannot extend their visibility range over a fixed range. A very sharp definition exists for hearing ability too. We can talk about numerous numbers of areas, in which nature has bounded us to perceive the world in a particular domain. We never hesitate to say that, nature don’t exists on a set other than that perceived by humans. Robots can play an important role in these areas to perceive the nature on a much wider and richer range. With very high computing ability on a single grain size material, it’s possible to endow the robot with all of these functions with ease. We can imagine that, robotics, in present era, is going in parallel to the physics and technology. With new physics in hand, like optical computing, parallel and grid computing, quantum computing and nano-technology, we can design and think of robots with unprecedented applications, and capability to work in any area and domain. We can think of robots used in grid type arrangement using Web, which have social and communal capacities. Development of WWW is anticipated to make it more realistic.

Siddartha S Verma

Futuronics

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:22:26 PST

Confronted with our daily lives, we often forget and disregard issues which are related to our existence. This leads to an example, and I would like to put forward an explicit example. Consider a treat which is being given by somebody, and we have been invited. We don’t know that who is giving the treat, but we are still present there, enjoying the meals, talks, and other passé activities. Now that is a perfect example of a big oaf, you must have realized. Correspondingly, now if you consider equality such as- life is same as that treat, and we are living it. Then unless and until we find out that who has endowed consciousness and daily clichés onto us, we are same as the beings present in the treat.

Understanding the issue from a much broader perspective, we can say that we have religion, astronomy, superstitions, biology, pain, evil, science, arts, humanities, philosophy, society, life, death, consciousness, technology, and other several facets of the living world. One thing common to each and every domain is that, they evolve in consonance with each other. We rarely come across any situation, in which a particular group of people has progressed and ameliorated its position in a place called Our World. We can therefore draw a conclusion that, interdependence has existed since earliest of times (aeons) and is still existing. Generalizing the well known fact derived above, we can say the same about future. Let’s delve much deeper into this question.

Thou can hence argue, isn’t the daily complications of living beings enough to overshadow this issue? The answer is- ‘yes’ for you. But getting an affirmative answer to an individual won’t change the world, and it will continue to evolve as it consumes space-time. Now the question arises, that, how to live in equilibrium with such thoughts? The answer being- “Make own self aware”. The simplicity of the answer encompasses a still profound school of thought. I say this because; just try to comprehend the environment around you. If that makes sense to you, stop reading further.

Consider me at this point of space-time. I am sitting and developing some thoughts. I am thinking. Something is making me think. I am sitting at some position which is not fixed. I am in a particular reference frame, with a completely profound implication. If I move and you don’t, then our reference frames are different, which can be disregarded as very small in it’s magnitude. History has taught us that, great discoveries in theory and experiments have bolstered themselves by making ourselves more precise and accurate. But the question is- why such small differences in observations make such a huge impact on nature. This is because- our nature, in which we have somehow originated out of nowhere, is very vast and infinite in its expanse. Gravity is so feeble, and other three forces easily dominate it on small scales. On large scales, gravity rule. We talk of a unified theory, which will herald a new era in human thinking and sustainability. You and me, are made up some point or wavy particles, which were an individual entity at some period of past. But now, they are somehow symbiotically interdependent, and happens to constitute us- the living and conscious creature on this unknown space-time.

Information exchange, in present contemporary world, has become one of the key and holy grail of development and progress of humans. We have 3G, GSM, broadband, blackberries, touch screens, LCD’s, plasmas, TFT’s, OLED’s, telemetry, communication, media, newspapers, etc. etc. . Fly back and anachronize yourself by mere 100 years, and you’d be unable to survive. You don’t have telephones, televisions, computers, satellites, space, quantum physics, electrodynamics, improper electricity, etc. etc. . Fly back further 100 years, and you are dumbstruck. Sailing back further and further in time, makes your life more and more pathetic. All this we talk in frame of ours. Take birth at those era, and you’d feel as normal as you feel today. For then, and for now, the then was as comfortable for them as now is for us. There were revolutions in society, and different ages existed. But there no special boundaries at which we can define, i.e., say Bronze Age or Iron Age starts from this very day. The whole process was statistical and evolving. The imagination of masses and pundits, were never confronted with the question and imagination of what happens in future. Of course, one can predict and make somewhat accurate predictions. But the exact notion remains vague, and in darkness unless the ‘this very moment’ arises.

Talking about humans, one can uninterruptedly write about existence and the nature for his entire lifetimes, but the nature won’t reveal itself. Lets take some simple examples around me, which are much more profound and implicative than they are believed to be. Take this laptop for the case, which will evolve itself in recent future from semiconductor technologies to molecular computing, femtotechnology, picotechnology, quantum computers, nano computers, biological computers, DNA computers, spin-tronics, opical computing, Matrioshka brains, etc. etc.. Then current space technology which will flourish itself into Space Establishments, AstroEngineering, Dyson Spheres, Globus Cassus, Inter-planetary-Intersolarsystem-Intergalactic explorations. Then take case of- current stem cell research, biotechnology, genetic engineering, synthetic life and genome mapping which will lead in future to IMMORTALITY, genetically modified species and plants, and some sort of alchemy. This will also commensurate the demand of proper sustenance. Plants will trap carbon dioxides, and provide nutrients. Any kind of configuration of human would be possible to manufacture. Genetically altered species can evolve to create new species. Now let’s talk about the recent developments in computer science research. An unforeseen development awaits the future beings and our upcoming generations. Social networking sites will evolve themselves, with the help of revolution in net based technology, and will enable networking of each and every human being on this planet. Deep Space Network will evolve, and all these technologies will evolve and grow in different part of our solar systems in parallel. A new branch of science and technology will emerge, or we can say, is emerging. That is- “Information Physics”. Computing will provide helping hands to the research of Information Physics. The Nature around us contains vast and enormous amount of information within it, and it’ll be our sole goal in future to utilize each and every component to its best. Then there are research going on in Nanotechnology, Virtual worlds, Artificial intelligence, Synthetic biology, and so on and so forth.

My main topic of interest is that- how these schools of research will evolve itself, revolving around each other, and intertwining to such an extent that they become passé in society. This has happened in past, happening in present and will continue to happen in future.

Take a simple case of emergent phenomenon of INFORMATION. Information and computing will be required by society, science, and technology and will gradually grow exponentially in future until Technological Singularity. Pick any field of today’s scenario and tentative scenarios in next 1000 years or so. Genome mapping is a play of information, weather forecasting and prediction, social sciences and humanities research, dealing with more and more complex networks, expanding our domain to recondite chain of existence, mapping brains, making a strong AI, fast and ultrafast internet capacities, computation on larger and larger domains, extraction of energy from nature, space missions, astrophysics, data storage and management, etc. etc., all deal with information. Today SLOAN digital sky survey has deluged us with data about the structure of UNIVERSE on a very large scale, and has allowed us to conclude that nodes, neural networks, groups, voids, links, filaments, and many more interesting features exist in this NATURE, which is far more brain storming than anything. What we need is the proper management of these data’s, so that it will reveal more and more profound aspects of the nature we live in.

Await the technological singularity, or work for it. The option is in your hand, and is well open. Still there remains, anytime, enough profound features and living creatures around us that it will still be impossible to feel the TRUTH.

Continued further... in the next episode of FUTURONICS. Tune your spiral bacteria’s inside your brains, so that it reverberates at the same frequency as now.

Hue and Cry

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:30:18 PST

Each life entwines a hue and cry,

So silent desert, still so wet and dry.

Confuses me sometimes, this unbounded mess,
Wondering, whether it bosoms any finite recess?

Mirrored so differently, but fate the same,
Don’t you wonder, it’s a treacherous game?

Speaking of truth, you always fail,
That would be the story, till you sail.

So many numbers, none so plain,
You finally seek import, in the tiniest grain.

Diversity and features will make you mad,
Unless and until, this society clad.

So many emotions, and so many pains,
Replicating themselves, yet so sane.

You are fractions away from a red to blue,
Doesn’t that sounds like a strange clue?

The clue was lost at the moment of cause,
That was when you and me, were affixed like an aeonic pause,

That’s ironic, when you talk of our existence,
But did that existence, come with our sentience?

You flap and fall, advancing a little back or forth,
That won’t count in this multitude of growth.

So many beings die or rise,
Who will count, what was their price?

The world exists, if you do not,
Think of the moment, when what you can do best is rot.

The world manipulates you from someone to something,
Always keeping you on debt, so that he can always sing.

I lock this door of hue and cry,
Keeping you alive in the seasons, wet and dry.

copyright - Siddartha S Verma

A discussion of Chance - Episode 1

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:30:35 PST

Take a simple (complex in real sense) case of radioactivity. We all know (not in a real sense), that what is radioactivity basically. From our general knowledge of Physics, we would say that a radioactive substance has a particular half life period (there’s a catch here). The half life period of any radioactive material is that period of time, in which the total number of radioactive substance will fall to half of the initial number. Suppose we have a freedom to choose the initial number of atoms, and we start with 1000 number of atoms. Let its half life period be – 1 hour. After the end of 1 hr. the total number of atoms will be 500. By applying simple logic (no simple logic exists), we can say that, 500 atoms (G1) have decayed radioactively. What does that mean in a real and analytical sense? The question is – “Why did those particular 500 atoms chose to decay, and why not other 500 (G2)? I would rephrase my question as – “What was the extra resistive, or reluctance, or superiority feature in the G2 atoms, which did not die out or decay?” We can ease ourselves, by mobilizing a pithy remark, that, it was a mere possibility and chance. But what reality conceits, and deludes, we are in complete oblivion of the fact. There must be some reason to justify, that, why the fate of G1 atoms was in abyss. Explanation using a very simple example – Suppose a car had faced an accident last day. Why that car did an accident? Let’s put on an eclectic view of the situation, and try to analyse the case. We would not go to the infinite number of facts and happenings, which led to the accident, but could try to grasps the facts at some lower frequency. What is the upper limit of the frequency of fact, God may have an idea, but leave it aside for now (I don’t like this approach at all). But now, at this juncture of moment, when you might be thinking, that it must be daffy and dim-witted to ask that sort of question. But let me tell you something, I am going to deal with one of the serious principles of philosophy, which has not been explained yet, and the chances are grim and dismal that in near 10,000 years of Human existence, we would be able to decipher it. In chaste and austere way, I can tell you that, I am trying to understand an interminable fact of Nature.

Let’s give keys and try to envisage the voyage. We may understand it as – it was the simple fate of the star-crossed car. But talking realism, we could accept that there must have been a series of eventual chain of events attached to the ill fated car, because of which, it had to face its ill-omened providence. This is not at all fictional.
Now we can put on some gears, and try to inquest the details at a bit higher frequency. Let’s track the delinquent and malefactor link of the accident. We can categorize the reasons into two broad areas of interest, i.e.
a. Due to the driver
b. A fault in the car and environmental issues
Now let’s try (we will not be successful) to track back the annals of driver, going right to the devious ploy of Big-bang, which is said to occur 15 billion (approx.) years from present, and try to think of some phenomenological complex network of events that led to his failure. The Big-bang occurred (Those who understand theoretical physics well, they would consider my discussion naive. But I would ask for pardon, as general reader will prefer fewer details. Even I am not aware of all the details at this point of time. I would ask to enjoy the voyage indeed). The Universe was filled with radiations, and was much smaller in size than present. Followed a period of time, when the Universe must have consisted of particles and anti-particles (unfortunately we don’t see anti-particles now, may be because of our passé technology as compared to future). But crestfallenly, due to the violation of principle of CPT invariance, or because of Broken symmetry principle (or Fractured, or Fractional), the Universe was left with more particles than anti-particles (think that, if this is true, how much our existence depended on chance, and minor perturbations during that era. Talking in a much more contemporary sense, we still don’t understand these phenomenon’s conspicuously).

Due to the explosion (there’s a pitfall when I say this), the particles were moving apart. The God particle would combine with each other to begot strange, up, down, positive, negative, neutral, fractional, fractal, integral, super-symmetric, heavy particles which we have in nomenclature quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos, s-particles, etc. (there’s an endless abyss to the classification, and there’s an urgent need to find the absolute or God particle). The particles would form dense clouds, and would expand, explode and bloat, and manifest and manipulate themselves into heavier atoms (NB: many more fortuitous events are linked here at much higher frequency of
details, beyond our article of faith). Due to the intense gravitational field of baronial inter cluster gases, and centrifugal force of the clouds, it would form much more concentrated clusters, galaxies, mega-clusters, giga-clusters, etc. (God know where that series end) which is tracked as fractal in nature and interlinked by huge magnetic field filaments. Just think of these filaments, which permeates whole of the cosmos on such a gigantic length scales. These filaments resembles like human tissues, nodes, and sort of neural networks. What would human need to work on such large neural networks? Now, inside the clusters, due to collapsing caused by gravitation, the matter would become dense and would get grouped. Conservation of angular momentum would make them rotate. There would be billions and trillions of Milky Ways’ and Galaxies.
Among those innumerable numbers (zillions) of cosmic dot of galaxies, there was one Milky Way galaxy, which would give rise to countless number of Star systems (SOLAR SYSTEM in our case).

Between these legion and bags of Star systems, one star (called SUN) would arise with a myriad other form of exotic objects. The exotic objects being – planets, asteroids, inter planetary gas and dust particles, comets, meteors, planets, Saturn’s ring, near to absolute vacuum, long distances (as compared to human beings), short distances (as compared to Cosmic scale), minerals, molecules,fusion, etc. etc..
Now we are on the verge of creation of solar star system, and the planets haven’t yet taken into its existential form. However, the planets are in their prenatal and antenatal existence. Made up of hotlava, and later cooled off by heavy rains for aeons, the planets would cool down own self and someguys like our Earth would become solid.

Episode 1 ends here. Wait for the second episode.

The ART before

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:30:46 PST

This may be one of the most general and fundamental aspect of nature, of humans, of you, of me, of an Art, of a Science, anything you may wish to talk about. It may be one of the worst thing, to even stress yourself.

What if, you start thinking about the words used in title of the post? If you kept a view of the structure of the title, you would notice that I used "The", "Art" (in capital), and "before". This clarifies that it is going to be very specific, in its theme, but contradicting my statement used in first para. Now lets kick start the topic.
The art, of which I'm talking about, can be implied in any field- human, non-human, sceptical, living, non-living, or the Nature as a whole. I don't know, if, what I am talking has something to do with evolution, or a very compalcent fact about everything. You will see this post, after I type this post and put it in my blog. There's a time lag between your been getting acquainted about the consecutive words written here, and myself writing it, at this particular moment. I call it an art, the words written here. Take anything, and you can find an Art written before.
Before I write anything, I will like to remind you, that if you want a very scientific analysis, and think that the post is at all anti it, then I would say that Science can also be considered as an art.
Now take yourself, take the walls you are watching in front of yours, take the computer or laptop you are using to view this post, take the surface you are feeling yourself comfortable on, or anything you are looking at. Every particular stuff and phenomenon, visible or invisible, conceivable or non-conceivable, causal or acausal, beautiful or ugly, intelligent or dumb, etc. or non-etc, is an Art before. This means that, it was created as an art, before.
Now lets consider the case of music, or a movie, or...........................
I am leaving it here. Rest is for Future, if it ever exist.

IUCAA log files

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:31:34 PST

I am here, inside the seminar hall of IUCAA, named- BHASKARA-S3. I am listening Waves, Transverse waves, Gravitational waves, Riemann Tensor, Equation, K mu, K nu= 0, Box h, K mu is a null vector, it lies on a light cone, going to future light cones, Massless field, 3*10^8 m/s, Universal time, and much more exotic. The lecture is being taken by Prof. S.V.Dhurandhar.

He is taking a lecture on Gravitational Waves, in his time slot of 9.30 a.m to 10.30 a.m. This is the first lecture of this day, and I am going off my head. Myself, being interested in Theoretical work in Physics, but studying B.Tech, engineering, has the ardor to attend these kind of HARDCORE Physics. I am tasting the bitter and acerbic flavour of abstract kind of theories, mathematical, going into the insightful aspects of nature.

These lectures are a part of the Vacation Student's Programme, of IUCAA, in which I have been picked for. For those, who don't know, what this abbreviated abstract term is, I would like to convey that, it expamds as- INTER UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS, Pune, India. The VSP programme, which started from 11th of May, consistes of a series of lectures being taken by professors like- J.V.Narlikar, T.Padmanabhan, Varun Sahni, Dipankar Bhattacharya, S.V.Dhurandhar, and more. Now, Prof. S.V.Dhurandhar is giving a lecture, moving from here to there, trying to explain us MATRIX TENSOR, SYMMETRY, GRAVITATIONAL SYSTEMS, etc. And I am correspondingly, along with the lectures, in synchronization, scribbling on this notebook of mine, provided to us on the very first day of our VSP programme. I am not understanding even a bit of this Mathematical Expressionism Orgy (MEO).

So at this point of time, I nurture, and possess, the same opinion for 99.7 % of the respectable pupils sitting out here. Difference being, I am a B.Tech, and they are teachers, MSc Physics, Physics Lecturers,. etc.

So, you may infer, that in this lecture at present, a whole color of audions are present. This moment, being for the first time, I am helpless totally and graspings NULLS and VOIDS, instead of GENERAL RELATIVITY, and ASTROPHYSICS. These topics are so elegant, trying to express the nature's mood, emotion, feeling, thought, pain, complexity, simplicity, and the Space-Time structure to precision. But still, someday, (perhaps through some ingenious work), a more subtle theory of all the three forces of NATURE, will bolster itself. BLIMEY..!!! there is LANDAU LIFSHITZ QUADRUPOLE formula on board. Inertia Tensor, Extra Dimensions, Second Derivatives, T minus 2, Binary systems, Neutron Stars, Compact Objects, High Energy, VIRIAL Theorum, Gravitational Potential Well, etc. etc. Well...welll..... HIATUS for 10 minutes, until we have a tea break. Compact sources wil give rise to Gravitatioanl waves. Gravitational forces are so weak, PITY on it..!!! Or, it rules the universe?

There, it is occurring few minor hitches with the laptop in use for the Lecture by the Prof... Prof. S.V.Dhurandhar is standing, waiting for the laptop to get fixed. One of the teachers asked the Prof. a minor question as doubt, trying to confront him. In return, Prof. turned him down. Elucidating that, he was wrong. This is almost the time of finishing, but it will perhaps stretch due to the minor hitches which occurred in prior.

GOSH!!! On the screen- GRAVITATIONAL WAVES EXIST..!! Noble Prize was given to HULSE and TAYLOR for discovering Gravitational Waves in 1993, in a BINARY PULSAR SYSTEM. Decay in orbit of Binary Pulsar PSR 1913 + 16. Gravitational waves are produced by BULK Motion of Matter. It is not easily scattered, and has high fidelity of information. It has frequency > 10^4. Information is ORTHOGONAL to Electro-Magnetic Waves- it means- REVOLUTION IN ASTRONOMY.

So, coming on to the final frontier-i.e. GRAVITATIONAL WAVES ASTRONOMY, it creates ripples of anxiety, anticipation, and expectations on your body! Charged Blackholes. Electromagnetic Waves can also produce GRAVITATION.

Whoosh..!! Such an energizing dose of lecture it was. Full of extreme edges of Physics and Metaphysics, it was. Even while writing this write up, on my notebook, it produces Gravitational Waves, but the coupling constant will be of the order of 10^-50, which are GODDAMN feeble to detect. Now, after finishing this lecture (20 minutes delayed at 10.40 a.m.), tea is waiting for me to be consumed. But, I prefer to write this BLOG ENTRY of mine.

You know, that the facilities provided by IUCAA are overwhelming, and the ambience of the campus is impressive to live. A central garden, just adjacent to this seminar hall, heralds the greenery and thought stop. 4 great scientists of all times- Einstein, Newton, Aryabhatta, Varahamahira, are standing tall in bliss, with full of benediction for the bereft societies.

I am off for tea now. Continued after the tea is- Prof. S.N.Tandon’s lecture on SPACE ASTRONOMY from 11.00 a.m. He is here- BLANCH hairs, SMART personality, LATE fifties, or sixties.

I am interested in this lecture, so bbyeah till next post (very soon). Keep your spectrum of mind tuned, to gather more news of IUCAA, and all its exquisite details.

{NB: THIS BLOG ENTRY WAS WRITTEN BY ME YESTERDAY, INSIDE THE LECTURE HALL, WHILE ATTENDING THE LECTURE BY Prof. S.V.Dhurandhar. THE BLOG IS SUPPOSED TO BE READ IN A VERY PRESENT FORM OF REFERENCE, AS IF ALL THE EVENTS ARE HAPPENING WITH ME AT THIS MOMENT OF TIME. }

(Copyright)

Siddartha S Verma

Phenomenological Cones

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:31:48 PST

It’s cone inside a cone,

Very chaotic cones,

And very fractal cones.

There are Space-Time cones,

And humanity cones.

Resemblance seems to be feeble,

Pattern’s very clear.

Patterns, which transcends all fear.

Watch a cone beside you,

Growing and expanding,

But still, in-itself.

Or a cone,

With an artificial eye,

It exists and it vanishes,

Under the background of ultimate cone.

Can you sense that ultimate cone?,

Which has burgeoned you congenital cones.

It’s quite hard to believe relativity of cones,

But, can you find those 11 minus 4 cones?

Even the cone,

Incidental shelter to us,

Was once a baby.

A baby so nascent,

But her parents unknown.

Giving birth to infinite parameters cone,

It breeds consciousness in-itself,

Can we believe in such conscious cone?

Whatever be the level of conscious cones,

The baby was unable to find her parent cones.

Can we, so worldly cones, be able to find decipher the parent cone?

Purpose or No Purpose

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:59:36 PDT

From past few days, as I am going through the Neil's Levy book on Jean Paul Sartre, and getting accustomed to few expressions, like, for-itself, in-itself, nothingness, phenomenology, being, existentialism, essentialism, ethics, and a few more. Reading it, I feel like asking, that, what is the real purpose and probability of our existence? Are we merely a result of some uncertainity, some abrupt phenomenon, or some random occurences, which led to a life and society of this complexity. Being in the society, and competing like mad-hoc, we are just wandering in this chaotic life. From our birth, the congenital situations mould us to survive and compete in this self made society. Watching this, and realizing this aspect of life, we can often ask that- Is this the real cause for which we have been brought from a much random state to a much ordered one? Sometimes, this fact worries few of the human beings on this "lucky" Earth, and they try to explain the phenomenons. On a much more fundamental level, to a much grander scale. As we know that, this is one of the impregnated nature of human beings. We most often feel much more attracted by the object, which is far from us. So does Superstrings or Megaclusters of Galaxy.

Oh.. I have kept this post for so long time as trash in my drafts.

I thought that I shouldn't keep it like this in this phase. I got too engaged these days, to complete this post of mine. So happy reading the unfinished business. I know, it sounds awkward..!!

God created us and died

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:32:39 PST

I have been thinking about this topic, posted by me now, during the past few days.

I would like to define GOD in three words :

GOD -

G-- Greatest

O-- Obfuscated

D-- Delusion

We, the human species, in the dilemma of our own existence, fall into a delusion in a fallacious manner. I would rather suggest that the most intelligent and rational point of view would be to be an AGNOSTIC. Agnostic, as it is, does not put into restrictions about our free will, which is the basic and essential characteristic of the human species.

If you feel that you are an atheist, you will sometimes fall into your own treacherous pit. There would be situations in which you will feel that your own thoughts and commitments are betraying you. You will fall in a vicious loop of singularity of your own thought, with even more positive feedback, to make you unstable and deviate from your very own will to be an atheist. Like you can consider a situation like this : Somebody asks you- who are you?, from where did you came?, what's your purpose of existence?, what's so special about life?, what is absolute zero?, what is infinity?, what is beyond Universe?, why does the nature exists on such a large scale?, and if it does, why are we( the human beings) hanging on a scale so inexplicable in its size?, what is consciousness?, what are the fundamental entities?, on what scale does the fractal nature of the nature can exist?, what is chaos?, why do we exist in between so bizarre nature?, what's the purpose of self organizing nature on earth or beyond?, why are we odd one out in such a vast empty spaces of Universe?.

I even do not assert that in order to answer these questions, you need to become a believer of God and start abandoning all other religion of practices and beliefs. Even the person indulged in religion or in God, will not be able to answer these questions, and if asked, will try to escape the arena by simply giving the name- GOD to all these questions and the plausble answers.

I do think, that an agnostic can well escape and answer these questions, because, he is puzzled by all these questions, and do believe that these is something very abstruse, obstruct, confound, profound, abstract, obfuscated, inexplicable about these questions. He does believe that they are hard to explain, but, refuses to belief that one should start indulging himself in religious practices, and start praying to God to reveal Himself before his own death, which is not possible anyway in his minute life span of 100 years. He always get disturbed by all those questions, and tries to find the answers to all these questions. He can't deprecate the Complexity of nature, which is clearly visible by few of the questions above. He do believe, that there should be something, or rather, may be something, which can answer all the answers, or a few of them. He respects Nature, and love its unconquerable complexity. Neither he is an atheist, nor a perfect believer. He is a sceptic, and will always remain sceptic for rest of his life. The definition of God, may be different for different individuals. Some try to simply sit and except their meagreness. Some simply try to avoid or rather ignore the answers to these questions. And the most intelligent ones, i.e- the Agnostics, try to explain and give different answers to these speculations. He is always engaged in finding the truth, because he wants to remove his scepticism.

So, I would simply like to put forward few words in favour of my post, and would say that, if God would have been alive, then there would be No such thing as Evolution, which is such a fundamental property of the Entire Nature.

I am here

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:52:20 PST

So I am here. I write this blog as a form of excursion, or rather, to normalize myself. Well, I was planning to do something else, as I planned, at this juncture of time. But, you see, I have written this and you are even reading it. Now you muct be thinking, why to read such a boring post, with so many sh*t personal life and frustrations!! So you are welcome, and carry on. And even allow me to do so..

As I find myself, at this moment, as a happy individual and a prosperous human being, is a result of few discussions, which always used to fill me with full of fast moving corpusles and electric signals. I may be interpreted as a naivete, as I talk about biological functions with such simplfied assertions. Lets take a look at the causal thing here, means the main topic : I am here. I need to dicuss, why I am here, what made me to exist here, why am I talking like a maverick here, and other questions are left for you to decide..

Now a days, you see, I have so many aspects of my life around me, like, career, personal life, academics, my bloody landowner, my disheveled room, my reckless habit of not taking food at night ( as a habit ), a single module heck of Process Control (which is a crap), my ongoing novels, conferences to be attended in future weekends, my vehicle( which is the sucking the precious non-renewable source of energy as a draculla), and wack wack wack...

But this sense of extravagant language comes out of me, whenever I get an opportunity to spit my frustrations on certain topics, which exactly happened today! You see, I am not pursuing the branch of study which I like the most, i.e. Physics, still I want to keep myself composed keeping a holistic approach towards life. Once I take a roller coaster ride on those topics, I wish that the slope never changes its sign. I was in my class and the sir was discussing about the issue topic. And one more time I got to speak on topics like, Universe, High Energy Physics, Gravity, Loop Quantum Gravity, String Theory, Large Hadron Collider, Astrobiology, Existence os Life, Importance of History of Science, effect of past on present, effect of Present on past, Cyborgs, Astificial Intelligence, Future Society, Purpose of our life, Technological advances( usually fanciful), Evolutionary Artificial Intelligence, Black Holes, White Holes, Naked Singularities, Flying Cars, Philosophy, Love, Emotions, Molestation of women in our country now a days, unbelievable reincarnation of India in Cricket, Future of Society, Extra-planetary establishments, Lunar Basements, Mars human basements, International Space Station, Chaos in Nature and everywhere, Cause of emotions in Human beings and its future form, Ruffle and Peace between Cyborgs and AI, Quantum Entanglement, Teleportation, Connectedness, Relationships, Cause of Human worry about his fleeting existence in this Universe, Materialistism existing in the Society, etc... etc.. etcetera..!!!!

So now, you are all well aware of the thoughts which puzzles me now and then, but still allows me to be a normal individual in this Vox Populi, and make my brain cells charged. The cells feel diffused when I keep it aloof of these discussions and study..!!

Now it's time to say you good bye and good night. You may be wondering, as I go through such a deep trough and tall crest of emotions, which are easily symbolized from my earlier posts. But I promise you, the case is not the same with all the previous posts. Someptimes I find myself as a Poet, some other time as a Philosopher, and the Altruist, and the Maverick( as now), and a Lover, and an Engineer, and an Analyst, and an Observer, and a Fool, and a Weak Person, and a Strong Person, and a Brother, and a Son, and a Friend, and an Emotional Recluse, and a Human Being, and a Sober Person, and a Student, and the list will never end.. You see, our human brain is so complex, that it attains so many infinite dimension of instances of emotions, in such a short perios of time. Even this thought make me MAD..!!

I end up here, with a brief compendium of my future obligations and duties :

1. Apply to some places

2. Process Control Internals on Wednesday

3. NIT Calicut National Technical Congress, iCON09 for Project Presentation event

4. Optoelectronics internal

5. Process Control assignment on Valves

6. Transducers Internals

7. National Coference, GEOMATRIX, IIT Bombay, 28th-1st March ( my abstract got selected ..am a bit happy for it..!! )

8. Murder of my Teen, on 28th feb, by this Universal Clock of Time.

9. .....................

10. ...................

Thanks for listening to my rubbish..!!

Good Night..!

An emotional recluse

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:06:11 PST

In this world,

Where present changes your past,

Sometimes the leaves float by,

Or it gets struck.

When all your standards melt down,

And takes a new standard,

You strive for the one,

Which floated you in past.

You chase a silent dream,

And often look for a hide,

When nothing else heeds you,

You sleep on your own silent strides.

And he is an emotional recluse,

Whom you often don't talk by,

And all the sweetness goes goes down,

Becuse the heat of reclusion burns you.

Neither a word to describe,

Nor there's somebody to tell you.

And it sometimes transforms you from red to blue.

When life is so undefined,

How can you expect a proper definition ?

To suit you and embrace you,

And soothen your burns.

When the mistakes evolve,

And, take an intelligent form,

You can't dare to look at the chaotic background,

Which sleeps well beyond the event horizon now,

And, has already gravitated,

Towards the Singularity of Darkness and Silence,

You can only wait,

And sometimes fly by.

Seven Bridges of Konigsberg

siddmn4u1@gmail.com (Siddartha) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:55:29 PST

You see the seven bridges of Konigsberg. Is it possible to cross each bridge in turn in one broken path without crossing?

This class of problem is called Topology and was solved by Euler in the 18th Century.

Toplogy plays a central role in the predictions of Nature's most bizzare structure - The Naked Singularity.