Tuesday, July 28, 2020

Churning Out a Universe

Existence is not an attribute of the universe,
for it has no meaning or purpose
outside of a mind in thought,
and has no meaning outside that instant
which we call the ‘present’.
The past does no longer exist,
just its memories,
sometimes making it
to the kept accounts of history,
invariably subject to the pens bias
and human fancy-
to be in turn passed on to the past itself.
And the future,
that is yet to come into existence
is an obscure, perhaps opaque,
function
of an overwhelming multitude
of variables,
each one firmly established
in the present instant.
Some defined and assigned values
only for the one instant,
others living on for longer.
And yet there are those
that seem to exist
since the start of all things
and will probably be
till its end.
Some of these variables seem constant,
unchanging with time,
some now well known,
and then perhaps others
are yet to reveal their presence,
or value.
Then there are the ephemeral -
ever transient,
changing their value at every instant,
at ever varying rates.
.
These are the parameters
to the function
that tirelessly has been doing
the singular task
of churning out
the next state of the universe
from its present state.
.
If this universal function
is invariant,
and continuous,
then it follows,
the values received by the observer,
who exists only
and always in the present,
are our only clues,
to the values of the variables
in the previous instant.
They are a chain of clues
to the state of the universe
at any instant in the past,
and can predict its state
at any time in the future,
by simple extrapolation.
.
These variables and constants,
are the keys to a code,
that obfuscates all
and reveals all.
.
They are accurate messages
being passed down through time,
to whomsoever that may care to read them.
Only the worthy
shall decipher them,
And receive the fruit
of omniscience.
.
The function is probably
like a encrypting stream,
perhaps ever increasing
the time complexity
of decoding the messages.
The constants
are however plain and raw,
and thus our biggest clues
into the past
and the future.
They are transmissions
in the realm of logic,
being sent to us,
from the very start of time,
and will be there till the end of time
if such a thing were to come.
Perhaps if all the transients
depended on the constants,
then we could work them out,
by simple substitution.
Then we would be left
with just the constants.
The implication is immense,
for that will allow us to guess the function itself
and so doing, allow us to know
all states of the universe,
for all times.
.
The problem is no doubt a difficult one,
but who knows-
who knows what limits
the worth
of a mind in motion.
.
.
.
.
This passage is a result of my mindless ponderings on- all and forever
Tukul Chakraborty
( Noetic Novice and also @rationalDude on twitter )
Epilogue
. If we could get past the time complexity of the problem, and deduce such a Universe Function (or just guess it blindly!) , we would then have solved all mysteries of all time, space, matter, logic and everything else!!!
Words of a Novice you say? Well, maybe so, but perhaps of the Noetic kind.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

The Logic of Love

THE LOGIC OF LOVE
------------------
To those who hate to love,
And love to hate,
Hate is all that's in your fate
For only love can counter hate
The hate in our hearts.

I love logic
For love's no magic
The logic of Love,
Is powerful logic
Yet easy to understand.
The human heart is in the human mind,
Good thoughts leave hate far behind
Thoughts of love will always remind
All who are the humankind
Its love that's helped man survive
Herd together as one kind
Yet befriend beyond our gregarious bind.

For only love can convert a hater
Only love makes one a lover.
Only love makes a man a father
Only love makes a woman a mother
Friend, sister or brother.

All the wise thus said it better
To be a lover, than a hater
As hate begets hate
And Love begets love.
Powerful this logic
The logic of love.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Another proof that god can not exist.

There was a dude called Werner Heisenberg who very famously proved that one can never be hundred percent certain about some things in the real universe.

"Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured."

This is because the very act of measuring the position of a sub atomic particle, will effect the momentum of the particle, and vice versa. Example - if light is used to ascertain (see) the position of an electron, then, since light consists of photons, the very act of a photon striking the electron, will nudge the electron, thus change the momentum (and position) of the electron.

"This principle means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty."

"Moreover, the principle is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics."

Wikipedia has a nice articale on the 'Uncertainty Principle'

AND HEISENBERG'S UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS JUST ANOTHER WELL ESTABLISHED THEORY THAT CAN EASILY BE USED TO PROVE THAT NO ENTITY IN OUR UNIVERSE CAN BE OMNISCIENT. Like an all knowing god.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

SCARY WISE ALIENS

The perils of scientific advancement outpacing the societal evolution has always been recognized by the wise few. But then, wild imagination is often the side effect of insomnia, so when in the late hour I was writing this post, I ended up with a far more scary thought than our potential to self destruct. That (and further sleeplessness) has resulted in yet another of my tacky poems, which follows, titled - "Scary Wise Aliens"
---------------------------------------------------------------------


SCARY WISE ALIENS

I have sometimes wondered if
There is a much wiser alien race,
Watching us from a safe distance
Somewhere a little far out in space.
If they already knew, our culture true
Or any sad part of our history,
Then most likely they will continue
Monitoring us carefully, warily.
Quietly watching us for signs
Through our daily lives and times
If we were ever to become
A threat to them or their aliendom.
Likely their finger's on a button,
Of some powerful alien weapon
Like a gamma laser or a graviton torpedo
That creates a black hole upon it's blow
Which they keep ready, pointed at us.
As humans show signs of exodus
Of leaving our planet, spreading out
Only to increase their levels of doubt.
Will they soon make a calculated decision
Mark us as cancerous, a Taliban on mission
Harbingers of a spurious logic
They'd long given up as dangerous and tragic
Is fairness here an argument
For many a species we have condemned
And thought it fair to exterminate
May not what we meted out also be our own fate?
Does my imagination run too free
If you consider our recent history
So full of blood gore and glutton
Are they out there watching us?
Are they about to press the button?

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Finally, PROOF that god does not exist !

I present only one of many proofs that there can not ever be a god-

I assume that god is defined as an entity that is essentially all knowing i.e. omniscient.

Einsteins Theory of Relativity (ToR) clearly proves that information can not be transferred at a speed faster than light. Maximum speed of information transfer is the speed of light itself (300000 Km/sec). It should be stated here that the ToR has been validated by much empirical evidence. In fact every GPS device, or satellite based cable / dth TV service is proof of ToR since all satellites have to employ relativistic corrections.

The universe as we all know is billions of light years across. One light year is that distance that light travels in one year.

Now if god were an existing entity in the universe, at any single instant of time, it would not ever be possible for it to know what is happening in the other end of the universe. Simply because information traveling at a speed of light would take billions of years to reach him. In fact if god were to be here on earth, it would require him 4 years before he knew of an event that took place today on Proxima Centauri. And it would take him 2 million years to hear or know of some one praying to him today in the Andromeda Galaxy (the galaxy nearest to our own home galaxy - the milky way!

So omniscience is just not a trait any one single entity could posses. But since a god must essentially be omniscient, it must there fore follow that god can not exist.

Ah I know the counter - god is omnipresent. Well then he would be like a dinosaur, whose brain required over a minute to realize what was happening to its own tail. Since that was the time required for information to reach from his tail to his head!
Quite dumb for a god.

OK I recently posted above PROOF on an open forum, hoping it would attract critical scrutiny. It sure did and some have been most valuable. One dude with the nick 'ngali' observed as follows:

"But if god is the alpha and creator then he's set all things in motion and knows their outcomes before they occur.
He doesn't have to be 'informed' of happenings in different places. He's already planned it to happen.

Being the architect who has pre-planned all things and set the universe in motion knowing the outcome allows a diety to be considered omniscient without having to rely on ToR at all. He knows it already.
The question becomes one about computing power rather than transmission of information"


My reply:

Your point seems valid at first. Prior knowledge - If he knew (cause he planned) everything already at or before the instant of creation. He can later still be omniscient even as the ToR remains valid and the universe expands and eventually spans billions of light years.

BUT HERE IS THE COMEBACK

If creation here refers to the creation of all things in the universe, then this god (with prior knowledge of all things), exists outside of the universe and before the first instant of creation (if there was one).

Universe is defined as an entity that includes all things in existence.

This theory accepts within itself that such a god (with prior knowledge of all things), exists outside of the universe.

Existing outside of the universe is self contradictory since universe is as defined above.

In effect your theory is saying that god did not exist, by pushing it out side the universe, at or before the moment of creation.

Hence there CAN be no god at or before the time of creation,

And the ToR (really the SToR) won't let it exist afterward.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

WordWeb Fix (for my neice)

If your 8 year old niece in advertently choose the last option of 2 flights when asked by the wordweb ver5 dictionary / thesaurus, and she dooes not really take 2 flights a year (or drive a SUV), then and only then do the following to fix the problem and get WordWeb to run again

0> You must have WinRar. If not Download and install it free from their website (google WinRar)

1> Download the rar file WordWeb_fix.rar Click and choose save as (for ie browser rightt click, choose - 'save target as' - I think)

2> Extract contents to folder of choice, ie Rightclick on the zip file, choose 'extract to WordWeb_fix\'

3> Uninstall wordweb by opening control Panel, add/remove programs, select wordweb in the list of installed programs, choose remove button on the right.

4> Run (double click on) WordWeb_fix.bat, made by tkl for his 8 year old niece.

5> Install WordWeb 5 again. Enjoy WordWeb

6> Still not working? Sent feedback comments on Noetic Novice's blog, give your version no.

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

A counter to 'HERD MENTALITY is an instinct' theory

       Sometimes some of what we learnt, was so early on in our lives, when we were babies that we forget that we underwent that process of learning and so later on consider them to be one of our instincts.




       I propose that herd mentality in many species ( gregarious birds, fish...) is learnt, and NOT INNATE in them, only the process of learning was very quickly completed or was done at a very early age, and that most observations on HERD MENTALITY have been by far inadequate till now, leading many to consider is an INSTINCT
If it is proved that the new born gazelle learns to identify (relate, equate, work out some analogy) between herself and other similar looking individuals of the herd, then my argument gains strength.
       I propose further that the gazelle senses danger (out of its fear instinct), decides (rationalizes*) to CHOOSE the lower risk option out of the two- to run, or to stay. (perhaps It says to itself***- 'Hey, something seems to be wrong, I see other gazelles are all excited and I sense danger, but I am not sure what to do, but I am scared, let me run too,- for I don't want to be left alone to face whatever it is that's coming. Further, chances of me getting hurt is less if I am with other things that also face the same danger, increases my own odds'
       If you think how could a mere stupid gazelle do all that thinking and so quickly, right after birth*****- consider these-
1>Cats, dogs, birds, even cockroaches run for life with surprising quickness if you poke and chase them with a stick,
2>Fear (induced by the surge of Adrenalin) can cause us to think and react very very quickly indeed, and we end up doing stuff that would be impossible for us to do otherwise

       One can easily verify all of the above if or when we find oneself in a stadium, and if everyone runs, similar thoughts (akin to said gazelle) race through our minds, causing us to run. I can vouch for that as it certainly has happened to me, thus providing me with clear empirical evidence supporting above argument. But I can not directly verify what the gazelle is thinking in a similar situation.
       In further support of my argument that herd mentality is learned behavior, if one observes half the people in the stadium (school) running one way and other half running another, then, in spite of our fear, we do stop to think- which way do I go, even if just for a moment.

       If you agree with the above, then we can conclude that the instinct that really comes into play here is FEAR rather than HERD MENTALITY. And further 'herd mentality', that is the idea to run with the herd, is itself really learned behavior' and not instinct.

       If on the other hand the new born gazelle has not assimilated any information about herself, when a Lion attacks and starts to run along with the herd, has not yet learned its similarity with other members of the herd, and drawn no analogies from such knowledge, and did not 'think and decide rapidly', that such knowledge is therefore present in her from birth, AND**** discounting that fear is an instinct which comes into play here and causes her to very quickly 'learn to run' and 'run with the herd' THEN AND ONLY THEN, the argument 'herd mentality is inherent from birth in certain (gregarious) animals' gains ground.
       I guess that only further and more acute observations specifically - 'population studies of behavior patterns of newborns of various species (humans included) when subjected with sudden danger' , will help decide the debate.

Conclusion-
==========
       Meanwhile I am still convinced that the running of the gazelle is due to a fear (Adrenalin) induced - very fast decision making, and learning to run with the herd (even if for the first
time)***** when faced with (the instinctive sense of) danger. Further the fact that the new born gazelle senses fear, proves that FEAR is indeed an instinct. My inability to 'get inside the gazelles mind', and hence not knowing if the newborn gazelle thinks or not, along with my added awareness and memory my own thoughts during early childhood episodes of 'the teacher is coming', and later 'stadium stampedes' and other (hair raising) 'run with the rest' episodes, cause me to be currently convinced that 'HERD MENTALITY' is learned behavior, induced rapidly by FEAR which is really the true instinct that is in play here. If newborns in herd are not subjected to sudden danger, then I suspect that they will develop 'herd mentality' much more gradually, as a result of normal learning (as opposed to rapid adrenalin enhanced learning)

       Also, without any direct knowledge of impending or present danger, since gazelle senses fear and eminent danger, it shows that fear can be induced (passed) from one individual to another. It is a property of fear perhaps, that can be used to somewhat justify in favor of the argument!! But not really, and let me preempt that, for when we see another individual in fear (see it in their faces, see them running etc), we quickly reason out that even if we don't know if we are in danger, since we see others running in fear, their might well be something dangerous around, coming at us, So I might as well run (again- 'no harm in running, possible harm in staying, so lets run mentality')

I think I have sealed in all the leaks in this my second (actually third) article on this topic

If you are still not convinced and Think I am stupid Please be kind and allow me some latitude, for I am just a Noetic Novice

Debates between ideas is always more fruitful than debates between people, as people have egos while ideas don't. (ideas are inherently platonic)

Please Note-
* rationalizes = (observe, compare information, decide or analyze/process information and work out contradictions with prior knowledge in memory, recursively)
** Surges of Adrenalin that raises heart beat, over excites our brain, causing it to work many,many times quicker and increasing our physical and mental abilities many fold, is what we sense as (and call) FEAR, and is one of our instincts, along with love, and the normally much more slower, boring, and (currently) obscure or even (unrecognized by some) ability to rationalize .
*** I foresee the counter argument - Now how did you end up in the gazelles mind? I didn't. I rationalized since, in similar circumstances I did this(run), for these reasons (as repeated above), said gazelle might also being doing the same.
**** 'AND' is used here in the Boolean sense (and is extremely essential)
***** If true, strengthens the argument that gazelle (we) is able to think (rationalalize right from birth) hence Rational thought = Instinct

# All our instincts have an underlying chemistry
## I still have not read 'that' book everyone keeps telling me to read, but will as soon I get lots of time- I am a slow reader.
### Perhaps having not read the book by the very well known author, has allowed me to be unbiased in the matter and let me rationalize freely and independently. I guess you could say I won (this time) my struggle against an education
#### If more are agreeing with you One rationalizes that since they are also thinking people, you logic is probably right
Corollary - One finds it easy to justify an argument that many hold true. This is due to herd mentality, but only further proves that it is learned behavior.
##### Due to above, herd mentality has both helped and hurt us for it causes us to run from danger, but also follow ideas that most are following (like sometimes on twitter) and many wrong ideas are popular and survive due to it.
###### We always have the option to either consciously rationalize and build on what we know from previous knowledge + knew knowledge & working out the contradictions, -
or believe( =hold something as true without supporting evidence)
That is individual choice of coarse.
####### When one has reason to believe something, it is not really believing. And most of
the time, when we unconsciously believe in something we have had at least
some reason to do so.
######## If one now agrees that herd mentality is learnt behavior and said gazelle does not follow herd due to a pre-existing belief, then it should follow that existence of 'herd mentality' does not in any way strengthen the argument that we are believers right from day one.
######### This discourse does not contradict the existence of herd mentality, only that it is
not an instinct
########## It is today well established that we learn, right from day one!
########### from all of above it should be clear, that we do not instinctively believe (hold an
arg. true without any support) , but we can to do it consciously. That is we are
born rationalists, natural learners, spontaneous thinkers.
############# To believe is choosing consciously not to think, and hence thinking is
semi- involuntary, exactly like our breathing. We do it involuntarily most of
the times, (mostly for the mundane tasks, when in danger, previously well
learned tasks, repetitive tasks etc ), but we can chose to do it consciously too.
############## Our ability to think (rationalize) consciously - allows some us to ask
ourselves profound questions like 'What is the purpose of our existence' and
'What is love', etc etc. and become like Aristotle.
############### The above ability varies from individual to individual, since only some
tend to philosophize (think consciously on profound questions), hence all
are not inclined to philosophy.
################ To believe = To not think (consciously).
+ Most 'believers' are not really believers, but are simply wrong.
++ All our behavioral attributes are derived from instincts, also derived attributes can not be instincts.
$ Please Please give me your valuable comments even if just to say 'you stubborn dimwit'

Monday, May 4, 2009

Independence of Thought

Rationalists, Atheists, Humanists... SHOULD push for change in our schools, and stop the inculcation that precedes the mind numbing bias called religion. Healthy exposure to other coherent Ideas and a free mind along with religion will allow children to compare between the
two, and decide for themselves. Right to information plus Freedom of Expression equals INDEPENDENCE OF THOUGHT. We just need to recognize that Independence of thought is a BASIC CIVIL RIGHT that all humans (even those born to religious parents) must not be denied of.
I reiterate Independence of thought leads to a free mind, which is sure inoculation against inculcation and all wrongly held beliefs Humanity currently suffers from.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION + FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION = INDEPENDENCE OF THOUGHT

How inculcation is Denial of the right of independent thought.
Learning and rational thought are inherent in all of us from birth, and we are all born free of mind. It is only after a long and sustained process of 'instilling' , that young impressionable (vulnerable) children helplessly undergo at the hands of their (loving) parents and teachers, that they slowly form a rigid bias that stops them from thinking freely, question everything, hold nothing sacred (beyond question) and to rationalize on one and all. Parents (mostly) work tirelessly at breaking down this natural and most valuable of human assets that all children ( and adults) have, especially in response to some capricious, 'impudently bold' questioning (on god or religion) and refer to it as innocence of childhood, and then, desperate to try and evade the question and hide their own ignorance, ensue with renewed vigor in doing to their children what was once done to them - inculcate religion into them. When inculcation is done properly, with fear and admonition as their teaching aids, on completion, the subject will have acquired a mind numbing bias that only a firm unswerving belief in religion, god/s and fear thereof, can bring. After indoctrination is complete, the erstwhile 'innocent' child now has the remarkable ability to hold true and sacred (beyond question), some of the most stupidest of ideas, which would fall apart quickly upon preliminary (innocent) questioning and countering by an otherwise instinctively rational, curious and all-questioning child. This process includes the inculcator repeating 'Do not question, do not falter in your belief (belief=hold an argument true without requiring any support for it). This effectively stops the child from listening, or even hearing any other idea that is different or contradictory.

THAT is where the denial of 'The right to Independent Thought' takes place, whereby one person prevents another from access to (all contrary) information. Right to Information is crucial if one is to form ones own opinions , see all sides of an argument and decide for themselves.


But since such indoctrination is widely done and most people are very religious as a result, one may wrongly assume religion and faith to be a natural instinct itself, though very plausible due to its prevalence.


-------
I wrote this post first to comment on an Article on http://atheistblogger.com/ and then got fired up enough to post this article. I am a Noetic Novice but also @rationalDude on Twitter.com

Monday, April 27, 2009

My Twitter Rush

Twits for hire
Twits on fire
The compulsive liar
Or the occasional crier

Banal twits
For a thousand hits
Or likable wits
That cause you fits

One in German
Then from Durban
Million for Ashton
Anti Malarial action

Twits you hate
Someone irate
Or one you await
From a loving mate

A celeb twit
Next the unknown dweeb
Meet the new breed
Bloggers on speed

Helplessly I concede
Evan Williams you succeed
For what a twitter rush you leave
On all us netting, twitting creed

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Change Start Button Text

This little Tool lets you Change The start Button Text
Enter text less than 4 or 5 letters and click on the picture.
Since the Start button is quite small, it can accommodate only 4 or 5 characters.
For bugs , please post comments.
Download this Absolutely FREE cool tool here

Sunday, March 22, 2009

CryptPad by tukul

Download My CryptPad -Tukul Code here or zipped file here. Or form the downloads section on the right. It is a light weight tool to encrypt text suitable for posting on chat sites, twits, emails, and to encrypt any text file too.
I will refine and add features soon. You can copy paste the encrypted text from the start of the Edit field into any browser window etc or chat site.
Please DO NOT add leading spaces when copy pasting text from web pages. One has to delete previous message as one can not copy paste from the middle of the file as decryption requires the exact same (entire) message and password.
You can ask your friend to download CryptPad, encrypt a message on your computer, and post your message on the chat room, twit, blog etc. Your friend has to Clear all and then click PASTE button in CrytPad, then to Decrypt, has to enter same password as used to Encrypt, press Decrypt Button.
You can use long passwords like- 'This is my very long password', but remember passwords are case sensitive. You can also use !@#$%^&*() characters.
If incorrect password is used to decrypt (and you get garbled output) you can undo by encrypting by same (incorrect) password, then change or rectify password and decrypt again.
To test please copy the following 2 encrypted lines as is , then click PASTE button in CryptPad and then type the password "tukul is a good boy" in the password field, click decrypt.
J_VjmtZ[uZb[Vp]bWp^e[R[mcdtUXl^]
JJptellcWlPtuKj\pDUgXh\h\xv^mPVtH!Y`dZ!G`hc\[ka!Li!Zx`~_UfXZ^dfc`QfxWmRh\a`Z/G`h

PLZ post comments to report bugs/blunders.
Also you can play around and encrypt twice or thrice with same or different passwords !!
To decrypt type same passwords though the sequence can be different!

You can also decrypt first and recipient can encrypt with same password sequence to get original text back.

Sunday, August 3, 2008

TUKUL's guide to securing XP Proff

About securing XP, if one can configure it properly- even XP sans any service pack can be very secure. Since a lot of people keep asking me about this, I have put some effort and put it on my blog, 'noeticnovice.blogspot.com Some are common sense really, while others are a bit arcane, to say the list. I had done a fair amount of research ( on the net ) on this and following are my tweaks. If system is unstable afterwords, please don't throw brickbats at my picture (if you have one).

TUKUL's guide to securing XP Proff
----------------------------------------------------------
1> Go to control panel (or start menu), open Admin tools, computer mgmt, local users and groups, click on 'Users' On the right panel you will find under names column Two users that MS windows creates at the time of installation. These two users are the bane of many of XP users problems as they let hackers in all too easily. Promptly right click on each of these users and choose delete. Congratulations - you have removed nearly half ( 40 % ) of your security woes already!









2> Go to control panel (or start menu), open Admin tools, then services
You will find a list of services ( programs that run in the background and don't show up on the taskBar )
Under the names column find entry called 'Automatic Updates'
Right click on it, choose 'Properties', choose startup type as disabled.
Your System is now ( 50 % ) secure.
3> With in services, skim down a bit further to find 'Error Reporting Service' and give it the same treatment as before-
ie Right click on it, choose 'Properties', choose startup type as disabled.
Your prized system is now 55% secure. What - just 5%, well- we still have some way to go, and I'm afraid I may be running out of percentages later.
4> Met out the same treatment to the 'Messenger' service, ie disable it. Add 5% more to our all important tallly!
5> Also disable the 'Remote Desktop Help Session Manager' service. Add 10% more to your right to gloat.
6> And Finally find the 'Remote Registry' service, and take it out on it, and disable it with extreme vengence. Add 10% more to take your total tally to 80%
NOTE -1. These services have been put by very 'thawtful' people at Microsoft so your life might be a living hell, and are otherwise mostly useless.
2. I may have developed an unhealthy obsession with percentages in the course of writing this guide.
7> The 'Task Scheduler' service can also be used by hackers, but is also useful to schedule tasks, so I leave it to the reader (Bapi dada) to decide if they need it. Most people don't use it manually, but some old programs might.
8> Open my network places, under network tasks click 'show all connections' , Right click on the network connection you use, what the hell, why hold back, do this for all the connections you see, LAN or dialup, without any discrimination or mercy
Right click on the connection, Choose 'Properties' , In the field titled 'This connection uses the following items' find and deselect the following entries
'File and Printer Sharing for microsoft networks' , 'Client for microsoft nerworks' and
most importantly 'NW Link IPX/SPX/NetBIOS Compatible Transport Protocol'.
This will secure your precious system further to upto a whoping 90% !!!!
9> Don't ever use MS Internet Explorer ver 6 or less. XP Service pack 2 (SP2) is required to use IE7, I have used IE7 and have found few holes in it till now. But if in doubt or you simply hate Microsoft for all your past woes, Get Firefox3 , it is great and finally stable, and lets you save previously browsed tabs. I strongly recommend Firefox3
10>Optionally use NTFS filesystems in all the drives.
11> Disable Fast user switching in 'User Accounts' - open control Panel, 'User Accounts' ,
click 'change the way users log on and off' and deselect 'Use Fast User Swtching'. and click 'Apply Options'
12> Many commonly used sofware have spyware, adware Eg- Kaza, morpheus, Yahoo Messanger, MSN Messenger and ironically some Anti Spyware or Anti Malware sofware too!! and should be used restrictively if at all. Try to find alternatives and if use is necessary, remove from startup by-
Click on start, click Run, type msconfig, click OK, click startup tab on top, and deselect most items like qttask, messengers, etc
One can see the entry in the command column that tells you which .exe file runs at startup for a perticular entry, which gives a better idea about the startup item, (the names are somtimes to crypt for us to understand anything from it)
12> And lastly, DO NOT download files with .exe or .com extentions from little knows sites and run them on your computer.
Most Flash games are malware ( viruses, spyware, adware, spamming worms etc)
Same goes for attachments, and if you have a compulsive urge to open attachments titled 'Nude pics of Anna Kournikova' Please seek help from a good shrink immediately. No one can help you if you are the one who lets the baddies into your house.

I may have missed out a few and will add them if and when I remember them. If you feel strongly about any other tweaks, feel free to write me comments or email me. I assume no responsibilty, if after doing all or any of above, you trashed your (crappy) system, but write me anyway and I will try and help you if I can.
If my blog has helped you- tell your friends about it while you enjoy a trouble free internet experience (
99%). If not and you feel some ill will toward me &*(#@*&#$% right back at you with no apologies.

Saturday, August 2, 2008

Of religion, god and Anti-depressants

I agree to the comment on religion and it being a survival tool for ancient societies (by anonymous). Religion has helped us at a societal level in many ways. The fear of god has been used by many a king and politician to make the more powerful obey them or their rules, be they good or bad, even if it meant incurring a personal loss. If you want the little guy to obey you, you can always coerce and threaten him into submission, but the big guy wouldn’t give in so easily. For that you need a powerful ally by you side. So if you are small but smart, make up a powerful god and promptly befriend him. And he who is closest to GOD gets to be the king (alpha male, whatever). The rest would now follow him and his rules or face the wrath of the super natural being and its mysterious magical powers. The subsequent good effects of the 'adhering to the rules' would only enhance people's belief in god/s and the idea that if you follow god's rules, he shall reward you, whatever.
BTW once you come to power, you should make up monotheism, so that no one else can make up any other god more powerful than yours, or worse make up two. You let him do that and you are sure to be dethroned, and burned for the appeasement of the wining gods.


Anyway - religion has made us all aware that a society is better off with rules.

And the belief in god has ‘helped' many at the individual level too. It is like a psychological crutch for the less brave, who can not face up to life in the real universe. They must find a way to escape from reality when things go very 'bad n sad' in life so as to prevent a total melt down. A belief that they have an all powerful ally does help such people confidently face their many fears, fears of what calamity they might face in the ever opaque future.
Many a drug can do that today, better and with lesser side effects too. Maybe the god worshipers may want to change over to worshiping tablet strips of their choice- Prozac, Ecstasy, other anxiety relievers, anti depressants etc, etc.
Believing in gods has helped us a lot, and it has hurt us a lot, but that does not make a god come to life.

The belief in god is real, not god itself. God by itself is not good for society, but RULES ARE.

Also maybe we are at a time now when at least at the societal level, we don't need the fear of god to make us follow the rules of civics / laws anymore. We can choose to make and follow them with the conscious knowledge that it is good for us. To enforce them, we have our governments and the police. The biggest defect in most god based religions is that, in order to be enforceable on the weak and also the powerful in a society, and to prevent itself from being corrupted by shrewd people for their own selfish ends, it had to be suitably rigid, unchangeable. And that is the very seed of fundamentalism. Total rigidity prevents any corruption, but also prevents any scope for improvement either. Islam is a prime example. The more corrupt the people in a society, the more unbending its rules must be, to be effective or last for long. A religion that allows for change but strictly by some criteria defined for making possible changes would be improvable but still be immune to corruption. But that would require the followers of such a religion to allow for changes to be introduced by mere humans, and not just by gods.
That missing criteria I think is REASON.
That is – the reason for having rules at all, which to me is to make the people in a society more peaceful, progressive and happy.
Any rule of that hypothetical religion, existing or proposed, must now be shown to promote peace, progress and happiness. We could of course call it by the more modern word - CIVICS, which it is.

Thursday, July 31, 2008

HOW TO SAVE YOU TUBE VIDEOS

No suspicious exe file to download and run
NO adware, spyware, worms and viruses.


a. FOR FIREFOX USERS
0> Go to the youtube site and start a video download in firefox browser. Do not close the browser.
1> Go to C:\Documents and Settings\alex\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\xxxxxxxx.default\Cache
Where:- alex is the currently logged user name, xxxxxxxx are random alphanumeric chars.
2> You will find files with weird names like 958222F0d01 or CDBBAED1d01
3> Right click in an white area of folder , choose arrange icons by modified.
4> Check the files modified most recently, probably near the end. Check to see if they have a file size comparable to a flash video file( >1MB)
5> If so, copy the file to another location, rename with any name with a .flv extension.
6> Play with any flash video player, I use FLV Player (free). Google the keywords ‘free FLV Player’ and download one.

b. FOR INTERNET EXPLORER USERS
0> Go to the youtube site and start a video download in IE browser. Do not close the browser.
1> Go to C:\Documents and Settings\LocalService\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5.
2> You will find 4 weirdly named folders within any of which could be your precious you tube video!
3> The files are named get_video, get_video[1], get_video[2] and so on.
4> Higher the number in the brackets, more recent is the file. The current or last downloaded file should have the highest number.
5> However they could be in any of the four (weirdly named folders), so one do some hit and trial, or do the smart thing and search in the the Content.IE5 folder for files containing ‘get_video’ in their names, then arrange files by modified in the search results.
6> Copy All prospective files (size > 1MB) and rename with .flv extension.
7> Play with a FLV Player of your choice. Keep the ones you want to.

To express your gratefulness and sense of awe or in case of problems, comment away.

READ ON, MOST IMPORTANT:-
I conclude: - Knowledge puts us in control. One must rake our brains to get at it, but it is totally worth it. For it keeps us from getting hoaxed by the baddies. There are hundreds of websites where nice innocuous looking pastel download buttons let us download a small application that promises to do all the above. They may save you some effort (if they work), but would certainly fill up your computer with some of the choicest malware (viruses, spyware). Now why would a programmer put in the effort, and spend server bandwidth to make such apps available to you selflessly. Well - they are like the religious priests that have wised up to the fallacy of religion, lost their fear of god, and now go about conning the trusting, innocent (oblivious) people with promises of salvation etc, in return for more material gains, sometimes even to do some real good! They let us ‘download for free’ a lot of untruths into our minds, about believing in a lord (or god) and the lord (or god) will deliver us from our woes, and that might even help a few escape from an occasional hardship that life hands down to us, but do certainly curb our ability to think freely and clearly, and seed us with a bias that has its roots in that most primal attribute of man – FEAR. Many kings and politicians have used this tactic to rule, exploit or subdue, and quite effectively. It is fascinating to see how many people can be fooled and for how long. Why so, you may ask. Oh I think I know-

There shall be fools as long as there are gods,
And
There shall be gods as long as there are fools.
And
As long as there are fools and gods, there shall be a George Bush.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Saturday, July 26, 2008

INSTINCTIVELY RATIONALLY YOURS:-

instinct is defined as - Inborn pattern of behaviour often responsive to specific stimuli

Examples - 1> To suckle a thumb (or a nipple) in new borns.
2> Random movement of arms and legs in babies:- Random Morter (Firing) Phenomenon in infants (involuntary movement of limbs) that causes arms and legs in a new born baby to move randomly and involuntarily (on their own).
3> To open eyelids, blink.
4> cry in response to discomfort (a babies wah wah) are instincts.
5> A babies gripping action
6> Self preservation and fear:- To run away from a known danger ie a situation where harm, pain or loss of life is known (or learnt) to be evident. There is a sudden increase in Adrenalin levels in our blood, which raises our heart beat and thus oxygen levels in our blood, which in turn enables us to run faster, think faster (better), and be stronger etc. We perceive this rise in Adrenalin in our blood as fear. Raising our adrenal gland activity, and hence the adrenalin level in our blood is not known to be a result of some learned or conscious effort and thus is one of our instincts. Though we may learn to control it later in life. With out this instinct, most people will walk off rooftops with absolute ease, or walk into fast moving traffic even when they know that to be fatal, if they had a reason to do so.

6> To RATIONALIZE - we all do that right from birth. We are always seeing images, filing it into memory, and comparing them with other images in our memory or with newer ones and associating them with other information we already have. Acquiring info from our senses and processing them in our brain is instinctive. That is - learning itself is an instinct. Behavior that results from such learning is learned behavior. Also all behavior is either instinctive or learned. The ability to learn, compare, associate data, work out contradictions and thus think and reason is very much in all of us from birth. The instinct to rationalize (learn) is one of the most important of all our instincts, perhaps second only to our instinct of self preservation. So, surprise surprise, we are all born rationalists.
Note on inculcation
Read how inculcation is Denial of Basic Human Rights

Religion, faith, various other belief systems, tendency of people to follow a leader etc etc, have done society some good, in that they have made otherwise savage people follow rules of society, and bring order where their was once chaos. The resultant and evident progress further caused many to strengthen their belief in their leader god, goddess or whatever. The development of religion is a somewhat more complex process and can not be simplistically (and incorrectly) attributed directly as an instinct by itself.

Instinctive behaviour is opposite to (mutually exclusive to) learned behavior.
Another follow through is that all our behavioral attributes must either be directly due to an instinct or a result of learned behavior. Further, since learned behavior is a result of our instinct to learn, all our behaviors are either directly or indirectly from instinct. Which is but common sense.

Examples where learned behaviour is clear:-
0> Learning to walk.
1> Writing the alphabet. Even though we seem to do it without much thought, most of us did have to learn it one time.
2> Adding or multiplying two numbers or long division.
3> Integration and differentiation.

One may note that the third example is probably learned at a very mature (more recent) age hence memory of it is strong. Hence it is clearest to us that it is learned behaviour. In all the above examples the memory of the conscious effort at learning that particular behaviour has not been totally wiped out, so we identify these as learned behaviours and not instincts.

Many simple or complex (human) behavior are wrongly thought of as (due to) instincts.
A lot of (other) times we generalize a lot of stuff and call them instincts. This is so because we do not have evidence (or knowledge) that such behaviour is actually learned and not inherent from birth. If we do not know where a behaviour pattern came from, then it must be from birth, right? By simple elimination. So - we consider a behaviour to be instinctive only if we do not know that it is learned behaviour.

Examples of learned behaviour that are wrongly considered to be instinctive :-

1> Running from a tiger. We do not instinctively run away from a tiger. A person who has no prior information that a tiger can be dangerous, will not run away from a tiger when she first comes across one. But when the tiger attacks and takes a bite out of her bum (totai), she starts to associate tigers with danger and (generally) a pain in the butt. Most people however are inundated by innumerous stories of tigers since childhood and or have heard of stories of people being attacked by tigers. Lions and tigers (hunting) are frequently shown on NGC, Animal Planet and Discovery too. Thus some people may think fear of tigers to stem from some natural survival instinct, but wrongly. While self preservation is an instinct, and fear in itself an instinct too, but fear of tigers is very much learned (acquired) after birth. Thus a person who has no previous knowledge of tigers will not suffer a sudden rise in adrenalin levels, and hence feel no fear. On subsequent encounters though, the memory of first meeting, the following pain in the butt, and resultant knowledge that tigers can be a threat to life and limb and bum (totai), would cause the instinct for self-preservation to kick in, causing her to be afraid and instinctively run away. Again - she learned that tigers can be a threat to life, but to preserve life was her instinct.

2> To move a hand and reach for an object is not instinctive behaviour. We do not have any knowledge of how to move our hands or legs from birth. Muscle coordination is very much learned by us, when we are less than six months old. Yes, there is movement at birth but due to a condition prevalent in new born (and prenatal) babies called random motor movement (phenomenon).
Ref- http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4781716
Such movement is random and not controlled consciously. This has been attributed to the absence of a drug (neurotransmitter) in newborns that stops random firing of motor nerves. I think it was dopamine, but not sure. Ref - Discovery channel or NGC). Coordinated movement, where a baby at will, moves its hand the way it wants it to move, is very much a result of learning. A baby consciously compares the images of its randomly moving hand and then of a subsequent attempt to move it at will by firing the right (or wrong) motor nerve. Initially it is often wrong, and ends up firing a wrong motor nerve. When the resultant motion is wrong and a leg moves up into the air instead of the hand reaching out (and feedback image so indicates), the unexpected (baffling) movement is noted as an error (into memory) by the baby (very consciously). It may then try again to move same arm again, but by firing a different (set of) motor nerves. Alternatively it may remember (learn) which nerve to fire in order to move the leg up.
One can simply observe a two or three month old baby and confirm this. Their movement is random, jerky and they are startled by it themselves. Hold a brightly colored toy in front of them and they go all smiles and want to hold it (and taste it), and try to reach for it, but are disappointed when a leg kicks up instead. More often it is the wrong hand. It takes a while and some number of tries for them to get it right. But once they have reached the object successfully, they seem to grip it by instinct. Gripping and Sucking seem to be instinctive behaviour, but only because we have not been able to eliminate it by any contradictory evidence.
AS the baby grows, it becomes more apt at muscle control. Moving a hand or a leg is no longer a difficult proposition, to be achieved by hit and trial. It no longer has to think a lot to do it, and movement gradually becomes 'second nature'. It is repeated so often that it becomes something much more than habit. The know-how of movement becomes ingrained in him/her. And this happens to almost all of us. The proof of all this is of coarse in the exceptions, and people with some forms of genetic disorders are unable to carry out this learning process properly, and find the simplest movements difficult. But as proficiency in willed movement increases, it loses the memories of the conscious effort it had put in, in acquiring that proficiency. It is due to this loss of memory of that conscious learning effort that causes some adults to think that the ability to move a hand or throw a stick is not learned and that it is inherent in us from birth. Though we do not have to put in much conscious effort for it, we did have to learn it sometime and hence can not be classified as instinct. Most contemporary rationalists today will easily refute that idea with adequate supporting arguments.

3> The tendency to follow a leader, or herd mentality, or the tradition of god based religion, are all certainly NOT in any way one of our instincts. I leave it to the astute to rationalize on this, to work out the hows or whys, or to disagree, if he or she so chooses. Just repeating stuff from some (perhaps well written) book will not help you reach your own conclusions though. So please feel free to first challenge recursively and mercilessly, questioning any and all arguments presented either by me or anyone else (in their very well written book), be convinced of a (perhaps entirely new) set of arguments, thus making them your own, and then share them with me in your comments, if you so chose. All comments will be received gratefully, more so if they are relevant.


PS:-1> Another reason why some will generalize and consider things like religion or god-belief to be one of our instincts, can stem from a tendency to be simplistic. Ie we can quickly assign instinct as to be the source of a particular behaviour pattern, rather than go into the trouble of searching for one (or understanding a reason for it) or try to find out where how or why that behaviour pattern emerged. One thus can avoid a lot of mental effort, and quietly smile away that know-it-all smile at the confused rationalist that is still far from reaching any satisfactory conclusion, and is toiling hard at some foolish looking experiment. The adage - 'The Simplest answer is always the right answer' sounds nice but alas, is not true. Does the theory of relativity sound simple to you ?(assuming it is true). Empirical evidence has shown that simplicity is never a proof of an argument, rather a proof of mental lethargy. John Dalton would never have invented the atom, yes - invented, (and not discovered), for he didn’t chance upon it one day on the road side while on his morning walk. Had he relied on the - theory of simplicity, he probably would have proposed instead that the exact proportions observed in all chemical reactions are all part of god's doing and that it really proves that there is a god. Imagine where human civilization would be today with out the knowledge of the atom - no knowledge of elements, molecules or compounds, no silicon or germanium for transistors, so no phones, TVs or mp3 players, no oil refineries, no cars, no plastics, no advanced medicines and so on and on and on. And further, in place of the subject of chemistry in schools, kids would now have to pass 'religion-studies'.

2> Even if you disagree, could the reader please still help proof read this post.

3> A (fictitious) name at the end of a comment does make it easier to refer to ( to agree with or to rebut). I suggest - 'Lola Lufnigle' .

Monday, May 7, 2007

Churning Out a Universe

Existence is not an attribute of the universe,
for it has no meaning or purpose
outside of a mind in thought,
and has no meaning outside that instant
which we call the ‘present’.
The past does no longer exist,
just its memories,
sometimes making it
to the kept accounts of history,
invariably subject to the pens bias
and human fancy-
to be in turn passed on to the past itself.
And the future,
that is yet to come into existence
is an obscure, perhaps opaque,
function-
of an overwhelming multitude
of variables,
each one firmly established
in the present instant.
Some defined and assigned values
only for the one instant,
others living on for longer.
And yet there are those
that seem to exist
since the start of all things
and will probably be
till its end.
Some of these variables seem constant,
unchanging with time,
some now well known,
and then perhaps others
are yet to reveal their existence,
or value.
Then there are those variables,
that are ever transient,
changing their value at every instant,
at ever varying rates
with time.
They are the parameters
to the function
that tirelessly has been doing
the singular task
of churning out
the next state of the universe
from its present state.
If this universal function
is invariant,
and continuos,
then it follows,
the values received by the observer,
who exists only
and always in the present,
are our only clues,
to the values of the variables
in the previous instant.
They are a chain of clues
to the state of the universe
at any instant in the past,
and can predict its state
at any time in the future,
by simple extrapolation.
These variables and constants,
are the keys to a code,
that obfuscates all
and reveals all.
They are accurate messages
being passed down through time,
to whomsoever that may care to read them.
Only the worthy
shall decipher them,
And recieve the fruit
of omniscience.
.
The function is probably
like a encrypting stream,
perhaps ever increasing
the time complexity
of decoding the messages.
The constants
are however plain and raw,
and thus our biggest clues
into the past
and the future.
They are transmissions
in the realm of logic,
being sent to us,
from the very start of time,
and will be there for us
till the end of time
if such a thing were to come.
Perhaps if all the transients
depended on the constants,
then we could work them out,
by simple substitution.
Then we would be left
with just the constants.
The implication is immense,
for that will allow us to guess the function itself
and so doing, allow us to know
all states of the universe,
for all times.
The problem is no doubt a difficult one,
but who knows-
who knows what limits,
the worth
of a mind in motion.
.
.
.
.

This passage is a result of my mindless pondering on- all and forever
Tukul Chakraborty

(also Noetic Novice and now also @rationalDude on twitter.com)

Epilogue-

If we could get past the time complexity of the problem, and deduce such a Universe Function (or just guess it blindly!) , we would then have solved all mysteries of all time, space and logic and everything else!!!
Words of a Novice you say? Well, maybe so, but of the Noetic kind!