25 Ideas that captivated me

Over time I had been introduced to various ideas, and some stand out. These were encountered over a long period of time, and each one of them was a turning point in my understanding of things. I was recollecting some that had a great impact and made me ponder over things, and question my understanding. Here are some such ideas in no particular order (except perhaps the last one). Someday I would like to write about each of them

Everything is made of Atoms

Light Year and the Scale of the Universe

Dictionary

Stereoscopic Vision

Grammar

Euclid's Elements

Non-Euclidean Geometry

Mathematics is Made up

Peano's  Axioms


Things that can think - Flip-Flop and Digital Electronics

Every problem is Mathematically a Search problem.

Abstract Algebra

Calculus

Algorithm

Mathematical Model of a Computer program

Recursion

Parsing

Bresenham's Line Drawing Algorithm

Fractals

Godel's incompleteness theorem

Double Split Experiment

The Difficulty of Defining/Understanding anything absolutely.

Artificial Intelligence

Immortality

Who is the Knower

Why Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with God - Part II

A thing without attributes. Have you ever heard of such a thing? Have you ever pondered about such a thing? Can we really think about such a thing?

When we actually start thinking on these lines, we realize that any 'thing' is eventually defined and described only through its attributes. A pen has a length, a width, a shape, a form, a color, several parts, each with its own set of attributes. A word has attributes, sequence of letters, a pronunciation, a meaning and so on. A thought has attributes, the subject, the meaning, the emotional content etc. Everything we can think of is only thinkable because of its attributes! A person, a place, an event, everything.

So, if we want to talk about something without attributes, how do we even begin? We can probably begin with something that has very little attributes, something like say a point. A point has no length, breadth, depth, height, weight, color. It almost has no attributes. We in fact defined the point that way.  In spite of it not having these attributes, it does have some. Its co-ordinates. The coordinates are its attributes, and they define/describe the point. so we can say the point is in such an such a place.

When a seemingly abstract thing like a point cannot escape from having attributes, what else could that be with out attributes? Now we slowly begin to see the improbability of talking about such a thing. There can be no thing in this Universe that has no attributes. every single thing in this Universe has an attribute, simply because only by an attribute we recognize a thing! Kind of cyclic, but that is the truth. Its like saying 1 equals 1. Its true only because we defined it to be so.

So, if there can be no such thing in the Universe without attributes, could such a thing exist? Where could that exist? Rather than going in search of 'other' Universes,we need to seek an answer, because every such other Universe is essentially the same with respect to attributes, without attributes nothing can be defined. Where are we to find such a thing?  If we do find it, can there be many of them?

contd ...

Why Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with God

I find it amusing these days to see discussions among scholars of science and spirituality mostly ending with the scientists mocking at the unscientific use of science by the spiritualists to prove the existence of God. To quote Michael Shermer .. 'You say Quantum mechanics is weird and spooky, the world of the spirit is weird and spooky and so quantum mechanics is Spiritual' .. or something to that end. I think Shermer here has a point.

Quantum mechanics for instance is such a very hard subject to grasp from an intuitive manner, perhaps there are just a handful of scientists who really really understand it, and if anything its abstract and perhaps no intuitive interpretation is possible. It is a theory that is fit onto scientific observations. Much like by observing the ratio of circumference to the diameter our ancient scientists figured out that it always seem to be the same. 

An observation, or a series of observations are made, a theory is created. The theory is tested meticulously, objectively, over and over again. the theory is corrected as needed, more observations, more corrections, more new theories .. this is the broad outline of science. chipping away carefully one at a time. This simple yet completely objective study of phenomenon has taken us through various stages of evolution , we have incrementally been knowing more, controlling more, creating more,improving more. Every century has a quantum leap if you will, putting to unimaginable obscurity what the mighty of the past might have to call in terms of knowledge and comforts compared to that of a common man today.

Science has been, is and will ever be the greatest tool of man to investigate, improve and innovate. As a layman it is best to stop there. Just because I have read about the double slit experiment a dozen times in various books and magazines doesn't qualify me as a quantum physicist. Even a PhD in the subject doesn't warrant a complete understanding of it.

Now, to really stop being embarrassed by scientists particularly physicists, spiritualists who truly know what they are talking about, should use the simplest of reasoning to reach to the spirit. There is nothing New-Age about the spirit. The spirit is timeless,but science has its time. there was old archaic science, medieval science, modern science, futuristic science and so on. that is because we keep learning about a constantly changing world. The spirit is timeless.

While using contemporary language and situations are useful to set a context, to claim that modern scientific knowledge implies the spirit is childish. scientists are very sharp people. mathematics and logic are their tongue. If there were to be a connect between the two, then both must speak the same language, and with complete understanding of their respective subjects. the scientist is a seeker. he questions the understanding of man, wants to arrive at an explanation. only thing is he is very clear that his subjects are those that can be objectively observable. they must be observed,measured, detected using an unbiased instrument of sorts and the observation must be repeatable with predictable results. 

Every single such thing that the scientist is interested in, be it a subatomic particle, or sub-sub particle, or a burst of energy, or the force of gravity, or the waves on the beach, the depths of the oceans, the vast distances in space, thoughts in a person, what ever that maybe, has observable attributes. something that an instrument can detect. a single feeble blip is good, but there ought to be one. Even the dark matter for that matter is observable due to its influences, just like Neptune's influences resulted in its discovery. every single thing is owing its existence due to the fact that it can be observed. that in turn owes it to at least one single attribute.

An attribute is anything that can describe something. a length, a weight, a color, a shape, a temperature, a speed, a location.. it can be anything that can be observable. Not necessarily through the eyes, but by any instrument of any kind. If you look around and think about it, every thing that you ever know about will have an attribute..perhaps more than one most of the time. 

Can you think of anything that you know of that has no attributes?

Contd ...