Math Demystified

I appreciate the crucial role that math and science have played, and will continue to play, in advancement of human civilization. So, I am all for encouraging math and science in school curriculum. After all, I am an engineer by profession.

That said, I would like to demystify math by pointing out that the definition of 1 is at the very core of math, and the equation 1 = 1 is at the very core of all equations. Along those lines, once we define what 1 apple is and what 1 pear is, we can make sense of the following equalities: 

1 apple = 1 apple

1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples

1 apple + 1 pear = 1 apple + 1 pear

1 apple - 1 apple = 0 apple

Notably, and understandably, 1 apple - 1 pear = undefined 

Note that the same equalities cannot be applied to subjects like anger, hunger, and pain – unless, we can first define what 1 anger, 1 hunger, or 1 pain means. But such definitions, as well as their associated equalities, will be nonsensical and will fall beyond the reaches of math. Math, and science for that matter, despite their grandiosity, have limitations.

Right to Live

Many people will likely agree that marriage is essentially a legal rather than a religious matter. Along those lines, it takes a slight stretch of imagination to realize that it is the government and not God that gives us humans the right to live. 

I consider it overly human-centered and arbitrary, based on lack of any rights in a typical prey-predator relationship in the wild, to assert that God (instead of the government) has given us the right to live.

Likewise, though I generally consider myself to be pro-life and not for abortion, in my view and where applicable, it’s the government (not God) that gives a fetus the right to live and not get aborted. After all, life does not begin at conception – it only propagates, like it has been doing since billions of years ago.

The 14 Teachings of NASHISM

1.     Treat others like you would want them to treat you.

2.     Believe in God, but don’t claim to know his expectations. 
3.     Fear of God need not be the only basis for ethical behavior.

4.     God is whoever an individual or a group of people defines him to be.

5.     Nature is neither kind nor cruel; it is indifferent.
6.     Mysteries of life apply to all living beings, not just humans.

7.     Laws of nature don’t change arbitrarily.

8.     It’s all connected in the time-space universe.
9.     The explainable can be explained, but the unexplainable cannot.

10.   The past and the present make the undetermined future.

11.   Lack-of-time-and-space is the realm of thoughts, soul, and God.
12.   Life is not created at birth or destroyed at death; it only propagates.

13.   Live and let live.

14.   Thinking is authorized.

Insightful Book Review

By Lee Harmon (of The Dubious Disciple)
http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/01/book-review-thinking-is-authorized.html

"With a mysterious Bang! 13.7 billion years ago, an incredible universe of time and space tumbled forth. Science and religion both are fascinated by this existence, as we humans peer ever deeper into the mysteries of the universe. But Nash’s book is different: it wonders what else is out there. It invites us to contemplate what lies outside our prison of time and space. This concept is so key to the book that Nash has given it a label: Lack of Time and Space, or LTS.

The greatest mystery of LTS may be life itself. Life, Nash contends, is special; we’ll never instill life in a robot, which will never be more than a construction in time and space. But where did life come from? How did emotion, thought, wonder, break into our world of time and space? Where does this life-matter go when we die? Is life truly eternal, existing in LTS? What does eternal mean where there is no time?

Nash Khatri meanders through these questions and more as he probes the mysteries of LTS. Nash obviously has a religious background, though he doesn’t discuss it in the book. He at time appears apologetic (though he needn’t be) for contradicting the beliefs of various religions. He points out the silliness of some of our age-old assumptions with both humor and respect.

At times, I would find myself asking: “Is this idea theologically sound?” And then, on the next page, “Is this idea scientifically sound?” You know, it really is hard to think beyond religion and science! In the end, I am unqualified to answer either question about the book, but thank you, Mr. Khatri, for encouraging me to think."

Assume away God?

While trying to banish a divine creator from physics, (atheist) physicist Stephen Hawking recently proclaimed that God did not create the universe. Instead, he asserted that given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”

Notably, and irrespective of the validity of Hawking’s theory, the idea of God can apparently be discredited by conveniently treating matters like gravity as “given”. But, given by whom? In my view, the answer lies beyond the time-space realm and depends on our individualized definition of God.

Validity of Hawking's theory is beside the point

The validity of the atheist physicist’s theory is beside the point.

My “utmost faith in science” comment was intended to highlight how the idea of God can (supposedly) be discredited by conveniently treating matters like gravity as “given”. Given by whom? Like I’ve explained in my videos on You Tube, the answer lies beyond the time-space realm and depends on our individualized definition of God.

I have a strong science background and am all for science, but I do not have utmost faith in it because I acknowledge its time-space limitations. For instance, science cannot (and in my view will never) provide a real-time text printout of our thoughts to formally prove (a term cherished by many) that thoughts exist. I also do not think science will enable us to originate life from purely inanimate objects.

It is, of course, your prerogative to disagree and believe (as in blind faith) that science has no limitations. Regards.

Martian colonies

Recently, a couple of scientists suggested that, in order to establish Martian colonies, we should consider sending volunteer pioneers on a one-way trip to the Red Planet. The volunteers would go into the mission knowing that they will die on Mars, perhaps within a few years of landing. Understandably, most of us do not favor such suicide missions. I go a step further. In my view, the very idea of establishing Martian colonies (other than in science-fiction movies) will remain a fantasy even in a distant future.

Even if substantial scientific advancements are assumed to be forthcoming, establishing Martian colonies will basically entail two options. The first will require taking with us parts of worldly essentials to Mars (like we do on Earth inside a submarine). The second option will essentially require making Mars, or portions of it, become Earth-like and thus habitable – which is a tall order, considered potentially satisfiable only by those who blindly believe that science has no limitations. In my view, both options focus too much on the hole (science and technology) as to miss the donut (practicality and quality of life).

Also reminded me of what the physicist Stephen Hawking recently proclaimed while trying to banish a divine creator from physics. He said that God did not create the universe. Instead, he asserted that given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Given the existence of gravity? I suppose, that makes perfect sense to those who have utmost faith in science.