Theory of Nonsense by Inavamsi Bhaskar Enaganti

Theory of

Nonsense

Inavamsi Enaganti

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.â&#x20AC;? - Friedrich Nietzsche An alternate approach to everything that has been and currently is. Pretty sure the only choice in the future. To break the biggest conspiracy that plagues us. A conspiracy so raw that we humans glorify, rejoice and even aspire for it.

Table of Contents Note to the reader

Preface

Chapter Zero

Reason/Logic/Science

Understanding Truth

Defining Ego

Asymptotic Law

Is Corruption really bad?

The veil called Democracy

The Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s God

GOD

Is God Scientific?

God under construction

Equality and other ideals

Free Will and Artificialness

Defining Stuff through the Axioms of Philosophy

Some Short Stories of the internet

Just in case you were wondering:

Acknowledgements

Bibliography

References

Note to the reader This book is a compilation of thoughts of my 15 year old self, written down by an 18 year old, with the records of my written stuff from 10th grade, being published when I am 20. Its my first time writing, please do send any queries or mistakes about the book to <inav65@gmail.com>. Every word or phrase used in this book depends on what exactly I mean by those words. It will all make sense by the time you journey towards the end of the book. A clear definition now is not needed as a little confusion is required to unravel the Truth. One thing that we should keep in mind before starting: Life doesn’t always turn out as expected, sometimes it turns out to be much better. This book may seem to be utter bullshit but then bullshit is used to make manure for plants with which they produce food and oxygen. Let me start of by giving a brief description on certain topics like ego, truth and reason. Though these are slightly disconnected chapters, they are essential as prerequisites for later chapters. Through the book ‘We’ refers to Humans on general and I refers to me and my implications. We see how this perfectly logical world, and our seemingly amazingly coherent understanding of it rather breaks it rather than reinforces it when we question some basic tenets, that are usually taken for granted.

Preface Sometimes there is more…, more than what belief can show and faith can bestow, because the universe out there is neither limited by human imagination nor bounded by our so called scientific and legal laws. Sometimes it is hidden deeper…, deeper than what we can shrink down to, but somehow always within our reach. Ironically, we are blinded by hypocrisy and the self imposed ideals of human ego, we fail to see the simplicity of this. We were not born early enough to discover the wheel and definitely not born late enough to go out into the Physical Reality to unravel the mysteries of the Universe. One thing for sure, we are neither too early nor too late to explore what I am familiar with as the world of nonsense or the ultimate existence where even things far beyond our imagination is just within our reach. --- Imagine a world, a society with absolutely no hypocrisy. A world where everything is as it seems, no false motives , no fake promises and to top it all no betrayal. You could be anything you want and you don’t have to worry about a thing for nothing would nor could fall prey to pseudo hypocritical ideologies. The main reasons for writing this book : • The sheer hypocrisy I see everyday, whether it be in a theist, atheist, liberal, orthodox, so called intellectuals or even the everyday common man and his view of society. • The amount of stagnation I see today, not technologically but in the pursuit of Truth. • I want to show the world the beauty of nonsense and the need for it in everything and thus also in nothing.

Chapter Zero Canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Reasoning be the narrow minded approach and a shot at Blind Faith be an open minded approach? We humans use reasoning to give rise to the ideology that the path of reasoning is the superior way. How does one decide which path is superior? Why should we choose the path of reasoning and explanation, why not blind faith? There are multiple paths but we have used reasoning to come to the conclusion, that the path of reasoning is better. Isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t it contradictory to the fundamentals of logic(reasoning). We are using reasoning to show that the path of reasoning is better while we do not have any proper reason, as to why reasoning shows the better path. Science, the Art of Reason does not accept anything without proof. Since we consider the by-product of all reason to be nothing short of Truth and also having claimed that Science is the Truth, we have to prove the legitimacy of Reason. If we consider reasoning to be the superior path, then, we are proving something to be true by assuming it to be true in the first place. Theorem of Nonsense : Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s assume a=b, Hence proved a=b. Now we can use this to prove this theorem. Recursive!

Basically, we took upon reasoning in the first place on just blind faith and once we have it, we tend to crack down on blind faith. I am neither stating nor implying blind faith is better, I am trying to understand why reasoning holds such prominence with us or in simple terms the reason for Reason. Notably, we can come to the conclusion that blind faith is better than the path of reasoning using blind faith. I have faith that faith can be used to show faith is true. We can also see faith is contradictory by having faith, that faith to show the path of faith

is true is not right. Technically blind faith is not bound by the ideals of logic thus rendering contradictions obsolete. Why must reasoning be the better path to Truth? We haven’t found absolute Truth and we know nothing about it but somehow we claim to know enough to create an order as to which method will lead us to the Truth. Who decides that this order is right, and who decides that there even exists an order. This is the most irrational, a shot in the dark approach taken on just blind faith by us humans. The only thing I am against is, we justifying any path of Truth with Reason and delegitimising other paths for the simple Reason of incoherence they face with an incoherent Reason. If something is truly True or the Truth, then viewing it from any direction will render it to be true. Even if the angle of perception is from the world of nonsense. Here we strike the first axiom in our theory – The ultimate Truth is so powerful and yet so simple, such that it will always be the Truth no matter where it is perceived from. Just a small quote from a childhood story of a small boy named Nachiketa - “Truth is the knowledge I seek, by which I can gain all the knowledge.” With this confusion in place, let us start our journey to try to try unravelling Truth.

Reason/Logic/Science The belief that our time – ‘the age of Science and Technology’ is the golden period of humanity is a very hypocritical claim, because there is not even a pseudo “Scientific Reason” as to why science is superior or even the path to the Truth. It is the Church all over again. In the medieval period, it was believed that the Church was the ‘Temple of Truth’. What was said or so called deciphered by the Church from the Bible was the Truth, whether it was that the Sun goes around the Earth or statements like the Earth is flat and women are inferior to men. It is evident that today Science is repeating history, because being rational or reasonable is superior to being irrational or unreasonable. Everyone believes that Science has the answer and that it is the perfect tool for the pursuit of Truth. If 99 out of 100 people believe something to be true even if it is not true, doesn’t make it True. Even if all 100 believe it is the Truth it will still not become the Truth. During ancient times we prided over the fact that we have successfully shed the shackle of barbarism and disorganisation and forged a society. We believed that was the golden period of humanity. Then in the medieval period we believed the age of tools and scriptures was the golden age of humanity. Today we believe the age of science and technology is the golden age of Humanity – this Ego will exist always and will forever cloud our perception of reality. The Ego is not bad but the “logical conclusions” drawn from it can be. I am sure, that the future generations will abandon Science and all hypocritical systems that were created to destroy stigma because their very existence is a stigma. Both Sci-Fi and Science movies are considered movies but if the emotional levels in a movie cross ‘the limit’, they are termed too unrealistic to be a good film. Despite both being unrealistic, Why such a stereotype, why is Science the Man of the Church?(Man was superior in the eyes of the Church over women)

Why do we fail to see that, Science is just a product of what our five senses and a ‘realised’ brain can deliver. Everything we can perceive and explain is done just by using the five senses or something else built using the five senses. So all Science is at its lowest levels is five basic senses. Furthermore smell and taste are considered products of similarity(both senses are chemical detecting senses) thus further reducing our pursuit for Truth to just 4 elemental observatory notions, which we call senses. And we use these senses to experiment and prove stuff around us. Why prove something? We humans are capable of visualising only three Dimensions and cannot even comprehend the complexity of abstractions such as… but we believe science is supreme and thus inherently want to prove stuff. We realised there are dimensions and we prove things in these dimensions. But if we have integers and real numbers and fractions, why can’t we have fractional dimensions or in fact imaginary dimensions. We are bounded by math and numbers, if we further take this to dimensions of nonsense that are non quantifiable by science…Will proofs work here? Definitely not, because such stuff is just nonsense. I don’t know whether fractional dimensions exist, but you must have gotten the point. I believe that the proofs we pursue so blindly cannot prove why proofs work. Why should proofs prove just because they logically convince us? We are basically chalking out blueprints to convince that our initial axioms of logic and reasoning were right all along, but the sad truth is that the probability of this being right in the first place is 0%.(Yes 0% not a typo because in mathematics we see the probability of a single event occurring in a world of infinite possibilities is 0)

So, Can Truth be justified by a few upstart rich noble-born men who call themselves the Church? If they can’t, then definitely Truth cannot be justified by one upstart species (in a Universe full of species or if there is no other life then assume a Universe full of information) with nothing more than 4 senses governed by a blob of grey matter that runs on oxygen - something that believes it is bound by evolving consciousness, but fails to realise that the

consciousness could be some hard scripted bunch of code to yet another computer, that is programmed with a one liner axiom at what the computer believes to be the heart, that line being “I have free will”. Science and Mathematics are all fundamentally 1’s and 0’s and that is why we have chosen such simplicity to operate our computers(binary language).The Question I want to ask is : Is this all a game of logic boiling down to binary operations of 1 and 0? If it is so, then why even do anything? 1 represents yes or true and 0 represents no or false. Every statement can be broken down with the help of Logic Gates and represented with a simple Truth Table of 1’s and 0’s. Everything is just two states- at the most fundamental level, because science is only reason and logic which are nothing more than binary operations and logic gates fundamentally. We have no free will. Lets trace this free will down to its most basic unit. Some particle deep down within our brain just switched states (between 1 and 0). This started a reaction which would grow into a faint etching on our mind, slowly taking place as an idea and finally executed by an action that our brain took. Some other particle got excited and set of a reaction that grew into electrical impulses setting off hormones to give our ‘consciousness’ a sense of emotion. This coupled with so called previously stored cases of earlier free will, called experiences makes us feel that we have taken a decision by pure free will. A decision which is an interaction of electrical pulses from neuron to neuron started all by a particle, just switching quantum states which was not even prompted by us. To further provide a little scientific evidence to my theory I present the Butterfly Effect : Something as small as a flap of a wing of a butterfly is enough to create a tornado a mile away. This further supports the free will theory that you will soon see – one quantum state change in a small/tiny subatomic particle somewhere is enough to set of a chain reaction thus leading to the creation of a thought, then an idea coupled with an emotion and finally give forth to an action. Since we( a unit of atoms and energy) cannot comprehend the subtle changes deep down, we look as far down as we can see and conclude it as the truth(just as

our ancestors looked at the ocean saw the circular circumference of the horizon and concluded that the Earth is a flat disk). And in the process we forget the words of wisdom – “Half knowledge is dangerous”. We can only feel the formation of a thought on a superficial level. We believe that it is a product of free will, but actually it is some undefined phenomenon which is so abstract. It also shifts the burden of proof so dramatically – even more than that of the existence of God. Atheists don’t believe in God, but ironically they do believe in Free will which is as undefined, abstract and superstitious as God by their definition. Technically, if they don’t believe in free will, then they cannot and should not blame theists or even consider that they themselves could be remotely right, because, if they are devoid of free will, then they are not the ones who use actual reason or logic, but use preprogramed entities which were forced onto them and also these entities make them believe that they are using reason and logic. Hmmmm….. Free Will, confused? Well I am too. Now to get back from our digression of Free Will.

Is it possible to explain colours to a blind man? – ‘Eyesight’ cannot be defined by our remaining senses and thus if humans never had the gift of sight we would be pursuing Science without sight. For all we know, there are a million senses out there. Just like there are a million colours that we cant see, because we are limited by our inability to see outside the visible spectrum. Maybe our senses are the deceptive senses of the set of all senses, senses that make one perceive something else. So unless we accept the fact that we may not be the golden age and drive out the real enemy of reason –‘the notion that Reason is the answer’ we cannot and will not find Truth. Some say Science is the art of pursuing and finding Truth but clearly we see the incoherence with the ideals and axioms of Truth.

The 4 blind men and the elephant. There are 4 blind men who want to know an elephant, touch the elephant. One catches the trunk and proclaims that it is a snake. The

second catches the tail and concludes that it is a rope. The third explores the leg and describes it as a tree. The last feels the tusk and tells everyone that it is a spear.

My motive is not to demean Science, but to try shed perceived prejudice on so many systems, phenomena, ideas and Truth. I am just trying to consider the possibility that even though Science may seem to be the pursuit of Truth through rationality, the chance of finding truth through the path of pure Nonsense is also the same (both are probability 0, as explained in the next chapter). As absurd as that may seem, we see that in the eyes of Science - Satisfaction is Truth because dissatisfaction is what drives humans towards science to get something new, better and more rational. Once satisfied, the pursuit of science ends and its ultimate goal to find Truth realised, because humans have made Science driven but the truth is that: Truth is not driven; it is free, transcending every dimension and paradigm including rationality, but to try converging something free and unbounded by constricting it and bounding it by rationality and to classify it by a few laws and put it down into a book, thus hinting at its finite nature cannot help anyone, let alone anything understand it. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s just hypocritical and I believe that this is the only reason why we humans love science, superstition and raw power so much; because we are just like it; hypocritical and well a lot of other things. We are not so compatible with the purity of Truth.

Understanding Truth Truth transcends both good and bad, a level beyond comparison. Truth has to be understood, for something more than the antonym for a lie. For every Yin there needs to be a Yang, for every good a bad, for every action a reaction and for every right a left, but the most overlooked fact is that despite the existence of Truth, the untruth is not necessary and by my standards completely irrelevant to compliment Truth. Such is the power of something so simple, yet we bewilder in it’s complexity. This is the power of Truth. We all know of the eternal clichéd fight between the good and the bad. Bad takes over and then Good triumphs. Why can’t we view this cycle as Good takes over and bad triumphs? The point is that Good and Bad will cycle on for eternity with neither being superior over the other. Good and Bad are like two sides of the same coin. There is equal probability for both head and tail. Thus Good is not synonymous with Truth, because Truth is eternal and indifferent to phasing cycles or any other fantasy realm we dwell in. While Good and Bad are just 2 probable phases of the coin, the Truth is the coin itself. Good does not always triumph, neither does Bad. Truth always Triumphs. Whether head or tail falls, the point is that the coin will always fall – the chance of cycle and opportunity is created and the result is awarded to that which deserves it. Just because a man is good, does not guarantee triumph. It may seem that I have tried reasoning with you, but it is actually a manifestation of nonsense and we shall see why and how further on. Before one judges others or claims ‘Absolute Truth’, consider that we humans see less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum and hear less than 1% of the acoustic spectrum. Your eye can resolve only up till 576 megapixels and the remaining is just rounded of

under this limit(if we are given a picture greater than 576 megapixels – basically everything that we see is not what it seems but a round off approximation). Every colour you see is your perception of millions of colours that you cannot see and could never even imagine. So everything you hold beautiful and every other thing you hold ugly is nothing more than a misconception, because you cannot see the full picture as you don’t have the capacity too. Just like one cannot explain colours to a blind man one cannot perceive that he can sense abstractions not comprehendible by his most basic senses being thought, sight, sound, touch, time, balance,…, taste and smell. Note: DO not read this unless you want a mathematical clarification on the 1%. Mathematical reasoning as to why an finite visible spectrum is non singular but actually 1%(1% just denotes some small finite value) in an infinite spectrum. As the wavelength gets larger or smaller the probability of such radiation reduces and as it reaches extremes like infinity and 0 (we cannot have –ve wavelength) the probability reaches zero. So the geometric probability of area under the visible spectrum of the curve will be less than 1% of the area under the asymptote.

As you read this you are whizzing through the galaxy at 220 kilometres a second and will never reach that spot in the universe ever in your lifetime again. 90% of your cells have their own microbial DNA and are not you and each one has the ability to recreate you in all your posterity. The atoms in your body are 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999% (Yes! That is a little bit of exaggeration) empty space and none are the ones you are born with, but they all originated from the centre of some random star in this vast universe. We have 46 chromosomes which is 2 less than a starchy inanimate common potato. The existence of a rainbow depends on the conical photoreceptors in your eyes, so for animals without cones rainbows don’t exist. So you don’t just see a rainbow you

perceive it. And somehow we are tasked with finding Truth. (well, a self imposed task) Basically assuming that our current pursuit of Truth is perfect because of itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s scientific nature, is as absurd as us humans trying to taste the colour 5 and that too without using our noses! I believe the day we start accepting facts that Reality in all its forms of math, science, art, philosophy, etc is not the Reality because there is and always will be something moreâ&#x20AC;Ś "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius

This is where we have to stop and think about the boundaries of reason and the small portion of this vast universe that it can uncover. We have to look with a broader mind, so broad that it fails to distinguish between narrow and broad mindedness. Note : I am using another axiom, TRUTH is not bounded. If reasoning bounds Truth then it is a contradiction to the truth that reasoning is the path to the TRUTH.

The Universe we see in the sky is known as the observable part of the Universe and this part of the Universe is considered the the only part of the Universe that we can ever reach and explore because Nothing can travel faster than light and the unobservable part of the Universe is travelling away from us faster than light, not because it moves faster than light but because there is a continuous creation of space between anything and everything and if the distance is too far light cannot cope with the demand as it is limited by itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own speed.

Sadly nothing outside the observable Universe can be concluded even if we find out everything about the Observable Universe and the Truth of this entire Observable Universe, because we have to face the Truth that the observable part of the Universe is negligible compared to the whole Universe and basically the probability that the rest of the Universe is like us sharing the

same Truth is almost 0% probable and this too is the Truth. The only way to see is to forgo the limiting factor of Science and the stigmas it has bound us with because any chain can go only as fast as its weakest link can handle, the weakest link here being Science and its limit being the speed of light.

Defining Ego I am trying to portray something that can manifest into everything such that it can also manifest into nothing. I am faced with a dilemma of substantiating something so strange and if I may say, so magical that I have no real words just a theory of the purest nonsense to describe my ego. Let me introduce you to the strange world of ego’s with the simple example of writing this book. I am confused whether my ego to create a bestseller out of this book is the driving force for writing this book, or maybe it is the ego to tell the world that I am an author of a book that I think has a great title and also good content, or maybe it is the Ego that, that I have the Eloquence required by a general Philosophy book in the market today. Maybe the ego which makes me think that I will win my Readers over by admitting all of this to my readers thus gaining their sense of appreciation towards my truthfulness. I also think it is the Ego of Doubt that may be running the show. At the back of my mind I believe that an evolved form of ego in all it’s supremacy having realized the greatness of satisfaction by revelation, is the real reason to write this Book. This whole thing could be a play of ego just to add virtual sparks to get you interested in this book, or the fact that I just made this whole thing up, to get our minds questioning the validity of my Ego. This displays a variety of ego’s and they all ‘seem’ to contradict their supposed function of dwelling in one’s supremacy but I will get to this later… I believe every system or phenomena or living beings or abstract concepts are collection of multiple egos that further define well known strategies such as ‘survival of the fittest’, ‘I think therefore I am’, ‘Truth triumphs’,…

Your consciousness and your ego are not separate entities. Your consciousness and everything else about you that is not physical is your Ego. There is no my ego and your ego or good ego or bad ego because you are not an entity with ego, you are the ego. “I am Ego” – think about it, there are those who accept this and those who reject this thesis. Those who reject this and self certify that “I am different and my Ego is different” do not realize that this separation can be only made by an overshadowing ego, so ego is the supreme entity that is composed of both I and my ego and thus they are all ego. The very famous classic statement “I think therefore I am” should actually be “I am therefore I am” where the I is Ego. Ego is the most fundamental unit of abstractions of life and those possible by life. Ego is the reason we survive and thrive, without it there is no interest or incentive for us to survive. We believe that ego is restricted to only the living but we can clearly see otherwise. Ego the most fundamental unit of existence. Every natural system, thought, consciousness, emotion is nothing more than a build-up of ego. Thought, ideas, life, imagination, time, love, emotion, truth, philosophy and even sacrifice are fundamentally ego and nothing more. The most fundamental ego adds up with itself to form larger units like a cells form organs, organs form organ systems and organ systems form humans. The difference is that a group of ego still holds definition so everything made of ego is ego because the group of the most supreme entities will be the most supreme group of entities in perspective of the group. So I can without doubt say that this body (the body that ‘I’ owns) is nothing more than a vehicle of ego. Isn’t it obvious that reasoning is nothing more than ego fundamentally, and will thus obviously propagate and thrust itself into the limelight of its evolution as explained in the chapter 2 Reason/Logic/Science.

If everything is made up of ego then what is the most fundamental ego mad up off ? Ego is nothing more than the conviction of the fact or rather the conviction in the notion of the TRUTH. But the point is that this whole phenomenon(the Game of Ego) either occurring for good or bad is unnecessary, while the fact that it is happening is the Truth (remember the coin example from the chapter Absolute Truth). So if you are convinced stop worrying about the fact that I will not satisfy ‘I’ because the power of TRUTH will make it thus.

To tell you the Truth, I am also not fully convinced with this theory nevertheless I am unmoved because this is a true story of an ego which looked into a mirror - the truest mirror there is, a mirror without ego, a mirror that does not distort your image. (The common mirrors you use everyday is not a perfect image of you because mirrors beautify you by adding a shine of silver and make your face glow.) It shows the

Truth. When a coin looks into the mirror it does not see a head or a tail or an edge but the coin. It doesn’t show colour, material, design, denomination, condition, country, mint or its use as currency. It shows what it is, the Truth, the Soul, the ‘Coin’. Your soul is the reflection of the Truth in you. It feels very silly, impossible to imagine something like that, but then ask yourself if you(ego) do not believe how will your imagination( a subset of your of ego which is ultimately ego) believe. Now we can extend this to say that everything about any one of us – body, mind and soul is all ego and is I. Ego, The vehicle of ego and the reflection of ego are all still ego. I am ego. You are ego. Everything in this goddamn universe is ego, well including God if it exists.

Asymptotic Law A collection of theorems and theoriesâ&#x20AC;Ś Theorem of Nonsense : Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s assume a=b, Hence proved a=b. Now we can use this to prove this theorem. Recursive! Sine wave theory We humans are so stuck on linear fate and linear phenomena that in spite of so many non linear mathematical functions that we have discovered we still believe that the path to absolute Truth is linear. So many think that if someone seems more enlightened he is closer to truth. This is where I do not agree. Let me explain with a picture of a sine wave and another zoomed in picture with some details.

Einstein can be at at the top of scientific discovery and me nothing, but just because my views and the amount of sense I make are the same as the man of 0 everyone thinks I am wrong while actually there is no correct and no wrong because we really donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know where the Sine curve ends. This in no way means that Einstein is is closer to Truth. The average of the Sine wave is zero and technically the man with no knowledge is closer to Truth than Einstein. I am not saying the sine wave is the path to truth, it is just that we do not know what path is the right path to the Truth â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it may be a straight line where the more brilliant person is closer to the Truth or it may be an inverted parabola where a man full of nonsense is closer to the Truth. Both have equal probability. Basically all that I am trying to imply is, the amount of sense or brilliance or IQ or curiosity or commitment or hard work or credibility or age or enlightenment or experience or knowing the words of god or even winning a Nobel prize is no reason as to why one is closer to absolute truth and since science is the search of absolute truth, by the sine wave theory we see that science may not be the path to absolute truth.

Zero Rule Since science relies on the passage of time for an observation to be made, if no time has passed no observation can be made and thus we can neither prove nor disprove any hypothesis put forward in a interval in which no time has passed. I say that when you throw a ball, the moment it leaves your hand the ball goes all around the universe and is back in position in exactly 0.0000000 seconds and then continues on it’s parabolic trajectory. But since no time has elapsed we cannot see this, as Sight is just the reflection of Light and light travels only during a passage of time. No instrument can measure this as no time has passed and thus this cannot also be experimentally proved or disproved. So now I can make absurd claims that this happens and that happens but no one can stop me and say it doesn’t because no time has passed. (Basically I am shifting the burden of proof and all I have to say is that you cannot disprove it) The game of 1 and 0 : Let me give a small introduction to those not versed in the binary language. Everything we do today electronically is just a 1 or a 0. It’s the way we communicate with the computer, if electricity is on it’s a 1 and if it is off it’s a 0. We can make numbers with binary definition where 0 stands for 0, 1 stands for 1, then 10 for 2, 11 for 3…… 1000 for 8, 1001 for 9, 1010 for 10,…..(the numbers in bold are the everyday numbers we interact with and the strings of 1’s and 0’s are the binary equivalents of these numbers)

So we can interact by defining our own letters and numbers and whatnot with this system.

But my real question is : Is everything in this world electronic or non-electronic or emotional or physical just 1’s and 0’s at the most fundamental level? Or similarly : Can everything be broken down to a series of questions which ultimately have a yes or a no answer? (the answer to this leads us to the Question of Free Will and we shall see how in the chapter Free Will and Artificialness) Polly’s repulsion theory : This theory is not my creation, just a little expansion is done. But I thought it would be nice to hold this in mind if not for this book but for further stuff. It is a pretty famous theory which states that no two entities can ever be in contact. Whether it be macro objects like us or even atomic particles like electrons. The 5th sense of feeling is just reaction to the repulsion and not actual touch. Even during nuclear reactions of a neutron bombarding an Uranium atom only the repulsion causes the following reaction to occur. Nothing is ever in contact. This is an existing theory and I further use this to support the asymptotic law where nothing ever happens, it’s just that the closer we get, the already existing effect get’s more profound. When I am about to press a switch from however far away the particles at the edge of my finger are already repelling the switch and the particles on the surface of the switch to get compressed and when my finger get’s pretty close the inner tension created ensures the switch gets pressed. There is no touch it’s all repulsion. Asymptotic Rule Basically it states that nothing ever happens because everything is just an asymptote. Life is an illusion that something happened but it’s the expectation rather than reality that makes us make absurd claims on Truth.

Asymptote : An asymptote gets arbitrarily close to a curve but never intersects the curve.

Murder Theory Suppose I fire a Gun at you with the bullet going at a speed of 0ms1it will not be considered murder. But if it is fired with a speed of 100ms-1 it is murder or at least attempt to murder. What is that fine number at which, below which will not be murder and above will be murder. We cannot draw that fine line because the world is not black and white. When we punch someone from 100 feet away or 2 inches away we are still giving them pain(Poly’s repulsion theory) but the former being very negligible compared to the latter. We cannot draw a fine line here also when it comes to deciding whether A hit B. This is because we are so blinded with the ideal that Yes compliments No and we fail to see that there may be an third alternative to Yes and No. This will be further discussed in the next Book. Quote : Just because 2 people disagree, one of them does not have to be wrong.

So when a person dies, he is not killed by the killer but also every other human on earth. If someone is beaten very close to death, the beater doesn’t get the sentence of a murderer but if a small extra little bit of force which is so negligible by a passer-by is exerted such that it tips that fine line , the beater becomes a murderer. While in fact the passer-by is a murderer. If punch someone and after sometime you stab him with a knife, he dies just because I punched him first making the total pain unbearable. If I hadn’t punched him he wouldn’t have died.

Common everyday stuff we very much associate with Truth It is not only Science and Reasoning that has stopped us, we are making too many conclusions on Truth with almost every aspect in Life. These are a few other examples where I think humanity is stalling. • • • • •

Corruption Democracy God Equality and Justice ………

Is Corruption really bad? Just like Society has evolved as a system and Democracy has risen as a system, Corruption is just another significant system that has come to stay in this world. Corruption should not be misunderstood as an action but as a separate system which like any other system has its pros and cons. It is today prevalent even in the animal and plant kingdom..... and the primary reason for this corruption is one simple statement - “I am therefore I am”. The following is a blog excerpt… In the Kalahari Desert, the Drongo bird has come to occupy a position in the meerkat community which, if not exactly a ‘public office’, at least qualifies as entrusted power. The Drongo emits a call when an eagle circles overhead, warning that meerkats that they are in danger. But the Drongo has learned to fake danger, sounding the alarm when there is no eagle in sight so as to send the meerkats running and meanwhile swoop in and steal their abandoned prey (tasty caterpillars and crunchy scorpions). Indeed, the Drongo has even learned to fake the alarm call of the meerkat sentries, giving added credibility to its warnings. This means that the Drongo is abusing its position of trust with the meerkat community, in order to benefit itself. The Drongo only cheats or acts corruptly when times are hard and it really needs the food. This is reminiscent of the much-heard

argument that petty corruption on the part of public officials may come as a necessity due to their poverty. Some parties can sometimes live with a certain amount of corruption because the corrupt official provides some form of protection which is, on balance or in the long term, desirable. Patron-client relations often work like this and seem like they might provide a good model for this aspect of the Drongo-meerkat relationship. //blog excerpt endsâ&#x20AC;Ś Corruption will always prevail in some form, a utopian society may seem in the near vicinity but there will always be invisible obstacles not accounted for. In Brazil there is a narrowing in the economic gap between the rich and the poor. For example the housing mafia consist of rich insensitive lords. These lords use their influence to acquire the houses made by the government which have subsidised rent. Instead many poor local unions get together pool in some money and buy their way into the allotment of these subsidised houses. These subsidised houses prove to be a really good profitable choice in the long run. The rich will have influence and to reduce this power asymmetric corruption is required. One may argue that the rich can also use corruption but little do they realise that their advantage is lowered. Let me explain, In a war assume the rich is on one side and the poor on the other. The money with the rich can be assumed to be soldiers, with no loss of generality we can assume the number of soldiers on the rich side is a 100 against the measly 10 on the poor side. Now let us introduce reinforcements to both sides namely corruption. Assuming that corruption adds 20 soldiers to the poor side and 50 soldiers to the rich side we see the odds of the war change from 10:1 to 5:1 in the favour of the poor.

The difference between 10 million and 11 million and the difference between 1 million and no money is the same, both 10 million and 11 million can be classified into the same financial level but 1 million and no money cannot be classified together.(If you are not satisfied take 100 million and 101 million) The whole point is that having gold jewellery vs platinum jewellery is not a big deal but having silver jewellery over no jewellery at all is a pretty big leap. Corruption is just another relationship or what we commonly call a symbiosis. I am not referring to personal immoral corruption but the corruption that society possesses as a quality whenever humans are regulated into a society. In some countries, corruption actually is not viewed negatively but is seen as a positive force and reflects a value system that prioritizes loyalty to family and clan over that to an impersonal institution. Corruption is like friction, it wears out our engine and our tyres and lowers our efficiency than what a theoretical world has hypothesised, but we tend to forget that without friction there is no chance for us to even move ahead and in that case our efficiency would be absolutely zero. Friction is always necessary. In some places it requires lubrication to ensure that friction is damped but trying to live in a world without friction would be impossible. Corruption definitely opposes our way of life but without it there wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have been life as we know it today. So we definitely have to contain corruption in many aspects in society but it cannot and should not be done away with on the whole. To explain the above paragraph we can relate to our age old ancestors â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the cavemen. It takes a corrupt man to bribe his way to leadership in a disorganised camp. Once a leader the corrupt leader will be taken out and a good leader will replace him, but for the people to realize the potential and requirement of a good

leader in a world where there never was a leader a bad leader will first have to tip the scales. Corruption is the one tool which the people have, I am for one against personal corruption but corruption as a system is a system that nature has intended to grace this Earth and like every other system there will be an age when it’s true potential will be utilized. (Lightning was thought to be a ridiculous unnecessary natural phenomena that causes destruction but today so many buildings like the Empire state building in New York are driven by the power of lightning, fact – the Empire state building is struck on average 23 times a year) There is some essence or unaccounted reason that makes every politician corrupt. A 80% can be put aside as an coincidence but over 99% are corrupt and this cannot be a mere coincidence. Corruption is typically a symptom of a deeper infection, not the cause of that infection in our society. A better understanding of the phenomenon as it exists in a specific dimension is essential for that dimension to judge whether efforts to tackle corruption should be high on its reform agenda. In some places and at some times, it may not be nearly as important as other reforms. This can be understood as an overlap of two systems that has come about naturally due to holes that our system; holes our Democracies currently hold. Remember that both Cancer and AIDS are deadly. A symptom of AIDS is reduced number of WBC’s(White Blood cells) while a symptom for Cancer is an increased number of WBC’s. WBC’s are like corruption and Democracy a disease, with or without Democracy corruption will exist and is necessary for human endeavour and survival, but too much or too little of corruption is due to the disease of Democracy.

The veil called Democracy

From time immemorial we humans always stick onto something we claim to be the ‘Absolute Truth’ and disregard any other entity not in compliance with this so called ‘Absolute Truth’. The Church of the west claimed that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and that the world was flat. Almost all the people believed the Church, despite a few saying otherwise. Similarly we have grown over thousands of governing styles and governments, from barbarism to feudalism to anarchism to communism to dictatorship to a republic and today to a democracy. Now we are stuck with the same problem that has rung at humanity’s doorstep over and over again, that the ‘Absolute Truth’ of Governing is Democracy. One main Characteristic in Democracy is voting and we shall see how Democracy fails at this primary requirement. Coming to the postulates of Democracy The Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem shows us that it is impossible to have a Ranked voting system which follows the following criteria •

•

If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y. If every voter's preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group's preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters' preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change). There is no "dictator": no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group's preference

Although Arrow's theorem is a mathematical result, it is often expressed in a non-mathematical way with a statement such

as "No voting method is fair," "Every ranked voting method is flawed," or "The only voting method that isn't flawed is a dictatorship". These statements are simplifications of Arrow's result which are not universally considered to be true. What Arrow's theorem does state is that a deterministic preferential voting mechanismâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;that is, one where a preference order is the only information in a vote, and any possible set of votes gives a unique resultâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;cannot comply with all of the conditions given above simultaneously but it is the requirement in a democracy. Furthermore Condorcet's paradox or the paradox of voting has shown us that the current form of ranked voting as we know it is not the right way. Suppose we have three candidates, A, B, and C, and that there are three voters with preferences as follows (candidates being listed left-to-right for each voter in decreasing order of preference): Voter

First Second Third preference preference preference

Voter 1

Voter 2

Voter 3

If C is chosen as the winner, it can be argued that B should win instead, since two voters (1 and 2) prefer B to C and only one voter prefers C to B. However, by the same argument A is

preferred to B, and C is preferred to A, by a margin of two to one on each occasion. Thus the society's preferences show cycling: A is preferred over B which is preferred over C which is preferred over A. I feel there is nothing left in a democracy once you crash the voting system. To move on… --- As already known dictatorship provides a higher average GDP growth rate than a democracy thanks to stability, but we know dictatorship is also not a viable option. One may say that we are failing to see dictatorship for its true nature like we saw a false Democracy to be true. But if dictatorship was true it wouldn’t have failed in the first place. With all this it may seem weird that we have to find Truth. Why couldn’t Truth just be there everywhere in the first place and then no one would have to search for it. Actually Truth is there everywhere and everyone is the Truth. It just makes the whole process more fun. You may ask “Seriously? The reason is fun?”, Well you may have forgotten the title of this book.

Coming to communism. Communism provides an equal opportunity but it fails on one basic ethical principle. If one person likes a cycle and another person a plane, and the government provides them both the opportunity to learn how to make a car, the first one can make one sell it and buy a bike but the second one does not have any opportunity to get a plane because he would have to work tirelessly to save up and the the stricter taxation laws of higher brackets beg to defer. It is like a restriction on the freedom to pursue your dreams. One person gets happiness in family, one in philanthropy and another in knowledge and some in money. How can one quantify which desire is better and which desire is good? At the end of the day, all of them are desires and all of them are equal. So Communism hinders the desire for money and thus a certain fraction of the population is not given an equal

opportunity to strive for what they like the most. This does not provide equality and thus is very hypocritical. Communism provides only financial equality but fails in the ideal of equality because you cannot expect equality without being equal to all forms of equality. I have systematically discredited Communism in the chapter Equality. We see that Communism is also not a good alternative. So basically we have created a virtual system called Democracy and we think that it is the ultimate form but little do we realize that an utopian system will never face problems like corruption, lack of values and no respect. Democracy is a veil that is stopping humans from progressing into a better system and that is what I believe is Democracyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s biggest flaw not because of its ideals but because of its stagnating personality. Each type of Government is better than Democracy in certain ways and worse in certain ways. If Democracy was the best system then nothing will be better than it is any aspect. We have to accept that the Truth is that Democracy is just the best of the worst and is definitely not the best. Ancient Indians have systematically studied forms of Government and have identified 13 different forms of government and self governance was rated more appropriate than democracy. But we want to discredit anything that appears meekly chauvinistic because there is a stigma about India and it will continue to stay, but the Truth is independent of what 7 Billion hypocrites think or believe in.

The Child’s God Do not be discouraged by what you see first because by the end of it you will see something completely different. And to tell you the Truth my beliefs would have changed by the time you read this, yet it will be a striking stepping stone in this pursuit of. For some reason I am not sure whether I still will be in this pursuit of Truth because I might have found a greater path to pursue, something purer than Truth( maybe Love, maybe Gravity, maybe Science – who knows). Let me start with an excerpts that I wrote when I was 15. I would definitely recommend skipping this chapter hereon for those who have done even a little bit of searching of their own because the boxed part is like a child’s journey towards identifying the whole concept of God –origin, existence, truth, belief? And it would bore you and definitely throw you off course. This is a sequel. To really understand what I mean, don't stop reading midway. Atheist - inininc No.4.1( I used to write stuff a little magazine pamphlets called inininc and thus the number 4.1) There are multiple choices when it comes to God, but all of them can be classified into two. God exists or he doesn't exist. Not believing in him does not mean he doesn’t exist, it just means you don't acknowledge him even though he exists. An Atheist will have many choices but two ultimate choices -To believe that the world exists -The entire world is an illusion For one who believes in the world, he believes in life and living beings. For that individual God is life, it may not appear so, but it is this life that makes the system go around. If one thinks the world is an illusion, he acknowledges the illusion, for such an individual that very illusion is god. The statement ‘GOD IS NO WHERE’ is actually a little confusion just like those binary bits which exchange places during transmission. It is the binary exchange of ‘GOD IS NOW HERE’. Confusion keeps propping but it is our duty to put trust first. Trust in billions of humans who have lived their lives believing in God.

GOD does not have to be an entity or a supreme being, he/she/it can be the force or the essence guiding us or he can be the "I" inside forever directing us. A man who accepts no superior being or force calls himself an atheist for he does not want anyone or anything presiding over him as an ideal of freedom but little does he realize that this very ideal is presiding over him constricting him in many ways. Who is GOD? - inininc No.4.2 Logically, God is an essence man can appeal to and worship, keeping his ego in check in the thought of a something superior. Physically, God is nature, the ecosystem, the balance of the Universe and the sustenance of Life. Psychologically, God is seen as a punisher of bad deeds and protector of Good, giving rise to feelings of Guilt, Salvation, Redemption. Economically speaking God is a way to unite the society and keep it healthy and running as Hindu festivals do. Socially God is a supreme being who oversees all of us and our well being. Spiritually God is the ‘I’ inside you forever directing you. These are just some of my views on the Existence of God. I feel God cannot be perceived as one individual entity but instead as an undefinable, inexpressible, essence, manifestation or even the very Universal system of Existence. So don’t think GOD is a supreme being and thus do not conclude that it/she/he/… doesn't exist but really think deeper, as deep as thousands of years of spiritual knowledge, questioning and wisdom.

GOD The greatest creator and the most benevolent protector and the supreme destroyer. This guy seriously is playing his cards right, he creates something for some reason and protects that something from himself and finally destroys it. It’s like a child playing with clay, he moulds things, protects it from others and finally destroys it when it is time to create something else. Well comparing God to a child may seem like a stupid idea but then at least in our world we go by the saying that ‘Children are Gods’. The world was nuts about the superiority of one god over another a few centuries back and as that feud slowly subsided a new battle took centre stage – the scientific credibility of this childlike phenomena. The world today is divided, yet united with one hypothesis – does it exist? Because if God shows himself(just using masculine for convenience and in no way implying male gender of god) the hypothesis is proved and if the existence of god is shown to be false the hypothesis will be disproved. Either way the world is working together, each trying to solve a part of the hypothesis. Well, I don’t side with either side and my views are independent of either ones victory. Let me show you how.

Is God Scientific? The fundamental philosophy lying behind the claim of a scientific statement is concluded from whether the statement can be falsified. “Can the statement/theory be falsified?” This was quite a revelation and digging deeper it all made sense. Science is basically logic and reasoning which is nothing more than binary. Everything in Science can be brought down to a 1 or a 0, and we know that every binary statement or an expression has a dual. As earlier mentioned, Free Will: Every particle in the universe is all the way down to 2 states because every phenomenon can be burned down to a tree of questions with final answers a yes or a no. The following is loosely scientific, but that does not matter as this is just a digression and not the actual scientific part of this chapter.

Setting each state is only a matter of choosing a 1 or a 0. So as time elapses every thing we see as a change is just a change of some states(some flip others remain the same). Suppose we have a grid of the entire universe where each pixel is of the smallest required size(Planck’s distance), then if a pixel is 0 then it is empty and if it is 1 then it contains the smallest substantial particle that quarks, antiquarks, leptons, mesons are made of. This seems to be the concurrent with the notion of everything being quantised including energy – quantised finally to 1’s and 0’s. (Quantum Physics 101) So everything in this Universe is just a matter of 1’s and 0’s. So if I know the state of every possible quantum particle in the Universe as of now, I will be able 100% predict the future because all that is happening now is known. This is so similar to John Conway’s Game of Life where one simple algorithm and a few initial states we can create amazing stuff and everything that is going to happen can be predicted – it is really cool and you should check it up.

In such a case God is the all knowing all deciding algorithm. Me realising all of this is possible because some states are set to make this happen as I type this. There are 3 big theories as of now with respect to the universe namely • Pulsating Theory – continuous Big bang followed by Big Crunch • Big Rip – Dark Energy and Dark matter • Big Freeze or Heat Death And I don’t see any contradiction with my theory with any of these. But this is not the case because we have something called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where we cannot know the state and location of a particle simultaneously, So basically there is some Chance/Free Will out there which cannot be predicted and I call it God for the time being. I might be leaving out Dark matter from this discussion and one can also easily infer stuff but I would leave that out as I am not a scientist, I am just a meta scientist.

Let us now look at a famous classical question now that I have given you some somewhat axiomatic data. God exists or God doesn’t exist,‘1’ or ‘0’.But the real question is which statement is scientific? A scientific statement can be proved or disproved and a non scientific statement is out of the realm of science and cannot be discussed with respect to science. A statement is scientific only if it is falsifiable. Otherwise the notion of a hypothesis is redundant.

Neither of them are scientific statements. God is not a physical quantity that can be measured and thus God is a separate system from Science. Science cannot prove or disprove God and we shall see why.

Suppose the statement “God Exists” is scientific, we cannot falsify because then we have to show God doesn’t exist, which is still a scientific impossibility. Suppose “God doesn’t exist” is scientific, we can show a God and this falsifies the statement hence it is a scientific statement - not Really. We go back to the binary game of 1’s and 0’s. So assuming we are right and “God doesn’t exist” is scientific, we now have to check whether this scientific statement is true or false, or in simpler words - can it be tenacious whether one can prove either our hypothesis or its compliment to be an ecumenical fact. But if we prove this statement we will be at a contradiction as this paragraph of reasoning until now will provide us a method to falsify the existence of God making “God exists” a scientific statement. If we disprove “God doesn’t exist” then “God exists” will be a scientifically proven fact and still a contradiction as it is not even a scientific statement. Now we are down to our third case, which is that both statements are scientific. On assuming the same we see that God would then have to be physically measurable – a contradiction. Since we have removed all other possibilities whatever remains must be the truth no matter how improbable it seems. (Something close to what Sherlock Holmes says) Thus both statements are not scientific and thus I believe God is a topic not related to science (which further supports my theory that science is the not the explanation of everything).

Proof is the by product of Science(Reasoning) and proving/disproving can be done only if the entity in question is in the realm of Science. Sadly the present stigma is that God is something that invalidates science, but in fact God is a completely different system in human life independent of science. There is hardly a concurrence and so is the question of it’s existence.

God under construction I am going to split the flow into three parts which are not distinctly marked. Figure out where each part ends and the next one begins. Help me understand, deconstruct and finally reconstruct God. • Stories • Blasphemy • Definition

When you are going through something hard and wonder where God is, remember the teacher is always quiet during the test. – Internet meme A dialogue Professor : You are a Religious person, aren’t you, son ? Student : Yes, sir. Professor: So, you believe in GOD ? Student : Absolutely, sir. Professor : Is GOD good and all powerful ? Student : Yes. Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm? (Student was silent) Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good? Student : Yes. Professor: Is satan/the devil/demon/rakshasa good ? Student : No. Professor: Where does Satan/the Devil/Demons/Rakshasa come from? Student : From … GOD … Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world? Student : Yes. Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it? And GOD did make everything. Correct? Student : Yes. Professor: So who created evil? (Student did not answer) Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they? Student : Yes, sir. Professor: So, who created them? (Student had no answer)

Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD? Student : No, sir. Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD? Student : No , sir. Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter? Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t. Professor: Yet you still believe in Him? Student : Yes. Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? Student : Nothing. I only have my faith. Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem. Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat? Professor: Yes. Student : And is there such a thing as cold? Professor: Yes. Student : No, sir. There isn’t. (The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.) Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it. (There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.) Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness? Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness? Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you? Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ? Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed. Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how? Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey? Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do. Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? (The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.) Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? (The class was in uproar.) Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain? (The class broke out into laughter. ) Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.) Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son. Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving. P.S. By the way, that student was EINSTEIN So Reasoning has given us Science and Faith has given us God.

Why luck and coincidence are neither evidence nor examples of god? Extract: Consider the following sequences of coin flips: THHTTHTTHT HHHHHHHHHH Which of these is more likely? The correct answer is neither. Both sequences have an equal probability. But if you got the second sequence, you'd probably think to yourself "Damn, today is my lucky day. Better go buy a lottery ticket!" Luck and coincidence are arbitrary human concepts, probably a by-product of the pattern-matching part of our brain. We're hard wired to see patterns where none exist. You like to feel special when you just happen to meet that cute girl you have a thing for at the bakery. But the truth is no one else cares. Except maybe the cute girl, if you're lucky. (See what I did there?) The universe doesn't work that way. Math doesn't work that way. It’s simple probability theory. – a post on Quora If God was all supreme and can do anything he should be able to make a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift. If he can lift it is a contradiction as he couldn’t make it in the first place. If he cannot lift the stone it will still be a contradiction to the fact that he can do anything.

God is not a sadist. Just because something that was somehow sent to this earth from someplace called Heaven by a superior someone on the pretext that someone else will go to someplace called Hell if that someone else does not follow that something that was sent as an order from heaven, doesn’t mean we have to believe it. This phenomena was interpreted and passed forward by us Humans-a random species out of millions in this wold, as the most supreme phenomenon and that superior someone is now known as God. And the worst part is that if someone doesn’t know about this message of this god then he doesn’t deserve heaven because he didn’t follow the something that god sent to earth and by chance it so happened that one religion of a million so happens to be the right one and that one being the one you were coincidentally born in . I believe if such a supreme being exists the foremost quality would be to not be a sadist as otherwise he would just be a really strong person and not a god. So if a tribal community living in some island not connected with the rest of humanity, does that mean everyone else is a blasphemer to their god and the tribal community blasphemers to everyone else’s god? The concept of God as a supreme being promising a heaven is really absurd on so many levels. It is pretty obvious why it is obvious that supreme beings sit in heaven watching us and protect those who pray to them and send to hell those who mock them – these are feelings of humans not gods who are above mere petty issues of humans. So if you haven’t already deduced I believe Rama, Krishna, Buddha are humans who overcame petty human issues of their time and rose to the position of God in the eyes of society then. So I do believe that praying to Rama or cursing him will not have any effect except for the words and the effect they have on my throat

and the pure or destructive nature of such words which can either clear or disturb my mind. I neither will get grace from a superior being nor will be doomed to hell but I will be affected by words I say and the hope I hold and this will be explained soon with the help of the Placebo effect. “In Hinduism we don’t worship idols or Supreme beings but the ideals behind the idol. Just like salute the values and ideals of the nation when we salute the national flag of the country and not the stick and cloth that the flag is made of.” – SanskritMagazine.com

Furthermore to support my argument as to why a God of a book is all against logic. => “Was there ever a more horrible blasphemy than the statement that all the knowledge of God is infinite, and yet some try to compress Him within the covers of a little(finite) book.” – Swami Vivekananda Furthermore the reason for the argument that God doesn’t exist cannot be the presence of evil or bad stuff. Pretty much a God should be the one with Truth and irrelevant to phasing cycles of right and wrong. Now to start with my definition of God. For having given quite an elaboration on Ego in previous chapters I think I am at liberty to say that I believe God is the supreme ego- our universe with all abstractions which includes thoughts, action,.. of every being or object or entity. If “I am therefore I am” is life and then this supreme ego is life. The essence of balance and sustenance and the prospect of evolving and growing is entropy. Why balance? Because ‘Science’ says that all matter and energy in a system is conserved and thus in the system of the universe it is conserved. Then that implies that the greatest we can achieve cannot be by acquiring more but by striving towards balance, that is exactly why entropy is

increasing – it will increase till everything is in equilibrium and then there will be no heat, gravity, and other phenomena that makes life possible, will not exist. This seems to make no sense because then god will be aiming at the death of everything but that is only because life is all we do now and do not know whether some part of us(soul) exists outside this life. Just a story to convey a point more fluidically (If Shakespeare can create new words he required, so can I). In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.” “Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?” The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.” The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.” The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.” The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.” “Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.” The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists, then where is she now?” The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.” Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.” To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you

can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.” - Útmutató a Léleknek

Why can’t death be the goal of life –to die? It’s not anti-coherent because we cannot die till we are born, so maybe death could be the goal of life. It is not like the supreme ego does not care about us, it is just that like every other ego it will propagate it’s propulsion whether it results in the death of all or the prosperity of all because it is for the good of itself. But it is everything and thus it is for the greater good. Dharma - for the greater good At this point I had leapt into a world of confusion and I needed peace I needed a source of attraction, a guide - A GURU. This is when I came across something called the supreme Bramhan. (Neither Bhrama the creator nor the caste called Brahman) It is an essence and definitely not a supreme being residing in heaven. I was surprised because that was the first time I was exposed to the fact of god not being a supernatural being. Further exploring I discovered that Bhrama, Vishnu, Shiva, Buddha, Mahavira, Guru Nanak are just conceptual tools and are not to be mistaken as literal entities of God. I was mystified and slowly I experienced a jolt of energy, it was like a whole new dimension from a completely different perspective. The age old philosophy would have definitely been lost or changed through multiple authors throughout history. There was only one way – to do it like our ancestors did it, not barbaric blind faith but with the intention for a better future – To make a completely new theory and let it evolve and break barriers of my tradition or any beliefs I hold for the sake of greatest good – the greatest there could be. Essence was the word I found to be closest in meaning within my vocabulary to define this supreme ego even though it is very far from it , I believe it is the closest I have gone. Also because of the sine rule from the chapter asymptotic law, I cannot and will not substantiate my theory but I am still just letting you know. The essence is not a

god, it won’t make a difference whether you pray, be good or abuse it; it will make no difference for Dharma because the greater good is what it strives for and not the whims of one tiny negligible thing capable of basking in only it’s glory and believes only in the appeal of its species or at most it’s observable part of the universe, it inhabits in. One may argue that an essence is not properly defined and they are completely right because I too have just started my journey and my views and beliefs will very highly likely change as they have changed till now. My thoughts will change , I know for I have changed a lot over these years and I will continue to change. I once believed in Supreme beings and definitely I might do so again in the future for my life could be a Sine wave of the asymptotic law- Truth may be where I last was before I thought I evolved, But One thing I can promise and that is I will never change, I will just become more of myself. (Note: I no longer advocate this theory and this can be further seen in my next Book – ‘Pursuit of Truth’)

Finally it all boils down to one Question – Why do we need a God or a supreme ego and why in the world do we have to know of one even if it exists? Here I have to digress and explain something called a Placebo effect. Wikipedia: Also called the placebo response. A remarkable phenomenon in which a placebo -- a fake treatment, an inactive substance like sugar, distilled water, or saline solution -- can sometimes improve a patient's condition simply because the person has the expectation that it will be helpful. Basically stuff can work just because of faith, hope and belief and this is a power not to be cast aside but it is to be revered and used to the full potential to help not only humanity but the Universe flourish. This Placebo effect is used to test whether a drug’s advantages over the placebo effect outweighs the side effect’s and

surprisingly only 10% of the drugs pass the test. The placebo effect has also been noticed even though doctors tell them that the pill contains only sugar because the patients believe in the pill. So basically hope and expectation is a very big factor to people recovering and sometimes is more effective than ‘scientifically determined medicines’ discovered by ‘’’scientists’’’. This is what God is to society – a placebo effect. An expectation that life will get better will ensure the betterment of a person and also make that person more open to opportunities. Thus it is very wrong for people to say that god does not cure, just because they haven’t understood the real reason for god. Seriously what is stopping people from killing everything, every species of animal and what is the incentive to continue life and why propagate ideals of justice and equality – one may say inner morality but then, how different is inner morality than an inner god or the hope for betterment which brings us back to the Placebo. Some may say values and and some will say this is not correct because people should be free of artificial inducements of random phenomena. But then one does not realise we humans are also animals of nature and this becomes our natural behaviour and this is not artificial but natural as it is an evolutionary trait in humans to ensure a prosperous future. Technically me writing this book and starting this movement could also be a part of evolution, evolving from the age of Reason to the age of Truth. So God is just a tool used to help humans evolve to today’s society through ages of barbarism. Our ego forged into society an evolutionary phenomenon with the tool of god so we humans could come to a state today where we can sit down and talk about values and morals. Sure this creates divide and war but it sure did have quite a few significant effects that shaped society.

So donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t degrade god to the status of an unrequired entity while actually god should be respected and preserved in temples as a museum preserves relics of our past and our present for the future â&#x20AC;&#x201C; where one can go and bask in the light of human ingenuity and take inspiration and hope for beauty. Note that Spirituality is a path like Reasoning, Blind Faith or Nonsense while religion is an ancient artefact that still lingers today. Personally I believe we all have to respect religion just as we respect ancient artefacts found in a museum because that is where it belongs â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in the museum, not in society. There is an interesting line in the movie OMG: Oh My God! (2012) -- "Never take people's religion from them. They will make you their religion." So, No. We won't ever see the complete eradication of religion as such but we can definitely keep it at a healthy level just like corruption.

Equality and other ideals Ever since I learnt of the fundamental rights we as citizens are entitled to, I was faced by the dilemma of the superior right or rather the superior ideal in human morality. Was it equality or justice or freedom? A few experiences and quite a bit of thought led me to believe that freedom is nothing compared to equality. As long as everyone was equal it doesn’t matter whether we are all free or not was initially my opinion. But it seems absurd – for the greater good of humanity I saw fit that freedom is required for progress and equality is not a requirement. I thought it was better that one person remain a slave such that all 100 could roam free rather than all be slaves either mentally or physically but still all remain equal – it can be decision of the other 99 to either abandon or stay with the 100th but it should be their choice taken with freedom. But maybe the satisfaction that utopian equality is prevalent is enough to outride the bounds of slavery in whatever form it may occur. I found that freedom is a difficult moral to choose from so I decided to find the order between Equality and Justice. But finding the victor between Justice and Equality also seemed strange. I decided that I had no feud with Justice and Freedom but somehow the concept of equality was not satisfying enough. I needed to explore equality in different systems and how utopian equality may not be utopian. One thing that we humans are striving for is eternal bliss and each one of us take our own paths to reach a blissful state where the ego believes that there is no threat to it’s supremacy and no matter what happens there is no requirement for it to get agitated or thoughtful about it and worry. It can now just wander into anything without having to be afraid or regretful or…….

So we humans have devised so many methods from the spiritual path, to the physical path,………… to the emotional path and so many paths. Somehow the path of knowledge or the path of science is being given the most credit today and is knowingly or unknowingly being considered superior by so many ‘intellectuals’. Shunning some paths and favouring some paths has given rise to a hierarchical system(just like the caste system). So these paths do not have to be equal? But every sub path of the spiritual path which are the different religions must somehow be equal. So we all should be secular but there is no necessity for equality between an orthodox person or a scientific person or even a nonsensical person like me? It is just that we humans are just not engineered for equality because we are just ego and ego and equality have no meaning together no matter how much one tries. The very notion of ego being supreme in comparison is highly incoherent with the notion of equality. This can very evidently be seen in one of human society’s biggest supposedly auspicious connection between individuals – marriage. We as a society have evolved to a state where we have introduced a concept called marriage, it is an auspicious occasion where two systems of ego are supposed to merge into one system of ego, which does not want the propagation of one but strives for the greater good of the combined system which includes sacrifices and adjustments. Soon a few more ego’s will join – ego’s which will ensure the continued existence of the combined system and obviously the combined ego will fall head over toe for these new ego’s because it is the primary definition of ego which believes it is superior and thus wants the survival of the fittest concept. (this whole phenomena is commonly known as Love) Now we all support and strive for equality and thus gay marriage legalization is a necessity.

But then there are those cases where people are allowed to marry the dead -when a dam break in France wiped out a huge part of the population -to ensure that a child is legal after the father passes away But marriage today ensures a lot of benefits from extra rationing to special privileges from governments thus further stressing upon the point of equality because we cannot deprive those who deserve something. Let us assume there is a person who has an aversion to human population, basically the person is just averse to everyone else â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it is not his/her fault that he feels that way, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s just natural just like homosexuality. So this person wants to marry himself to ensure benefits of a legal marriage which include adoption(he is averse to being a partner with anyone else and not with bringing up someone). I mean there is no difference between him and a person married to a dead person and no difference when it comes to progeny or adoption when compared with gay marriages. We can further delve into this and see a case where three people are all equally love with each other so allowing marriage only between two is not correct for the third person and hence to ensure equality marriage should be extended to a group of three. But then this doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t end as we can keep increasing the group size till the population of the whole world where the concept of marriage gets annulled because it applies to the whole species and there is no requirement for anything to be specially specified. So the only logical end to this marriage problem is to allow equality and thus annul marriage which implies marriage will not have any effect at all on individuals or to go back to the ways of our ancestors before marriage was introduced or to limit marriage to its already existing custom which is meant for the sole propagation of the species and thus trash everything else.

Marriage is a social phenomena that has arisen to adapt with advancing human societal norms. It is meant for the sole basis of propagation of our species and thus we are back to creating a new thing, let’s call it thingy and thingy can be performed only by those who can assure the continuance of the species. This implies those who cannot propagate the species cannot perform thingy as if they do it will be unfair for gay thingy or a group thingy. Hence I believe we are only down to two options. The first being to restrict marriage to those willing to support the propagation of species either by adoption or by being biological parents and looking after their children. The second option is to annul marriage fully and thus help ‘Big Brother’ equality prevail. I am not against marriage or gay marriage or for hetero marriages, I am just looking at our future and want what’s best for humanity and also what’s best for every individual. It seems as though I have avoided the question of arranged marriage versus love marriage for both the new definition of marriage and the thingy. But did I really?, because if everyone is willing to do their duty to help build tomorrow’s society doing whatever, I cannot be happier no matter how marriages take place. A little bit of trivia : In Wisconsin, USA you are legally allowed to marry your house. Also keep in mind – If marriage is to be between only 2 individuals, we humans might soon evolve to a state where we have three genders where all are required for reproduction or maybe we will all just merge into one gender with no ability to reproduce biologically where everyone is a test tube baby. We now come to a doubt as to why we have to be so selfless and sacrifice something, anything and adjust for a marriage to exist and bloom. But then ask yourself: Is sacrifice truly selfless?

When someone sacrifices something for the sake of honour, love, patriotism… one does not consider that something as greater than honour or love or patriotism so basically one is just saving what he loves more. Similarly if someone loves life more and sacrifices honour, why is he disregarded unlike the one who sacrifices his life by upholding his honour. Isn’t this a blatant violation of equality, utopian equality? Why can’t life be as equal as honour, love, patriotism. My friend and I were having an argument about Patriotism and this came up; the fact that every choice is just a bunch of 1’s and 0’s. I believed that patriotism is the only reason that we make the right choices, patriotism towards family, country, the species, the world. My friend didn’t believe me so I gave him an example - I was given a 3 way switch: one option was to let life go on normally, the second was to save everyone who would ever affect your life and kill the rest( basically your life will go on unaffected but everyone who has no affect on your life whatsoever is killed but it will consist of more than 90%of the world’s population), the third option being everyone else survives except the ones that affect you – they all die(less than 10%). Later I realised how highly debatable this problem is. If I was given a chance to kill a huge part of the world’s population then someone who is the list of people who affect my life led to this event which implies this choice can be given yet again and I cannot be not sure that there is someone out there willing to choose to to kill 90%of the world. So I guess patriotism is what will drive me to make that sacrifice and flip the switch to the option 3. Even though I am not convinced humanity may exist in humans I will still ‘sacrifice’ my life and everyone who affects me for them. Some may say that everyone in the world affects you some way or the other then I would ask them to consider the same case with humans representing less than 10% and some aliens as the remaining 90%. So after a long debate we I came to a conclusion that patriotism is nothing but the worship of another ego, I think India is the greatest land and I will sacrifice myself for it any day because patriotism makes me believe that India is superior. It is also the only incentive for a

soldier to pull the trigger and sacrifice his life for his countrymen that he will never even meet.

Why prioritise honour over life or Patriotism over life? Why even prioritise priorities over all other things? Why even prioritise the discussion about prioritising priorities?-Chuck it. After all of this I would like to leave you with a short except with no comments or commentary following. I would love it if you could come up with your own version and contradict me for it is one step closer to truth for humanity. HARRISON BERGERON by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General. Some things about living still weren't quite right, though. April for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's 14-year-old son, Harrison, away. It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

Utopian Equality â&#x20AC;&#x201C; We realize at the end both Equality and Inequality have to be treated Equally. But then it is a contradiction as they also have to be treated unequally because both equality and inequality are equal in utopian equality hence they also have to be unequal.

Utopian Communism is pretty similar to utopian equality and just like in the democracy chapter we can say utopian equality is neither utopian nor coherent with the ideal of equality. Sadly, nature ultimately wins and order is found in chaos, even the forever increasing entropy finally leads to equilibrium between all atoms in the universe. The naturally occurring Pareto principle (80-20 rule) will always force human society into a system where the top 20% of the population will own 80% of everything (like atoms seeking equilibrium the system called society will naturally seek equilibrium as defined by scientific laws). Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s just science and sadly but truly for utopian communism to exist the utopian ideals and laws of the universe cannot be undone, for that we have to forge a new universe with new laws and we come to the one sad conclusion â&#x20AC;&#x201C; science was wrong, atleast morally wrong. I am not fully sure of the Pareto Principle but if it is true- its time to say goodbye to the left. Not that the Right is right, lets find an up-ist party and take this to a whole new system in a whole new dimension. Forget the Left, Right and Centrist systems, lets open a new dimension and soar to higher frontiers.

Now to let the world in on some blatant hypocrisy. Everyday millions of liberals shout out on and on about how conservatives are socially breaking us down but little do they realise that their attitude towards orthodox communities is exactly like the practises that make orthodox communities non liberal. Liberals, Seculars and Atheists (for some reason I never saw this in agnostics and nihilists) are becoming really extreme and are becoming exactly what they are fighting against. Liberals discriminate against orthodox communities. Seculars blackout beliefs of non-seculars even if the beliefs are positive and for the greater good because : if one non-secular believes that their religion is the greatest it is wrong but it is okay to think that the path of secularism is the greatest. The quest of Atheists to propagate the existence of no God has become so ruthless such that they are now in my eyes another religion with their God being no God and to no surprise share some qualities with some extremist and negative religions like negating other religionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

beliefs and propagating their path as supreme by mocking other paths. We have sprung so low that all that there is are two factions everywhere given any random entity. The first faction which is considered conservative by the hypocritical second faction that believes so. And the sad thing is that I don’t agree with either of them. Consider the case of Homosexuality. The first faction opposes this and labels it unnatural or any other random label it could have picked up through its short lived evolution. The second faction which without consideration masquerading as the ‘Big Brothers’ of equality who condemn the first faction little realising that it is not one’s fault that one is homophobic. It is as natural as any other random fear including that of spiders, heights or even death. Surprisingly it is also as natural as Homosexuality. The fact is that open minded qualities are actually close minded because we humans do not operate out of infinity but little do we realise this. Thus no matter how large we go it will still be a finite distance and no closer to infinity. I think the biggest step we can take towards infinity is by accepting its ideals and trying to make open qualities open. Somehow humans are always in a phase of targeted equality and forget the greatness of equality that is both open and closed are equal. This is because it’s in our nature to evolve and not diminish and thus it is pretty evident that utopian equality is taking the path away from the greater good.

Free Will and Artificialness We have already seen the introduction to Free will in the Chapter ‘Reason/Logic/Science’ and the Chapter ‘Is God Scientific?’. This is a further elaboration of the Free Will theory. The previous parts will be repeated here for convenience. It will be clearly boxed Science and Mathematics are all fundamentally 1’s and 0’s and that is why we have chosen such simplicity to operate our computers(binary language). Is this all a game of logic boiling down to binary operations of 1 and 0. If it is then why even do anything. 1 represents yes or true and 0 represents no or false. Every statement can be broken down with the help of Logic Gates and represented with a simple Truth Table of 1’s and 0’s. We Have no free will, everything is just two states at the most fundamental level. Because everything science is only because of reason and logic which are nothing more than binary operations and logic gates fundamentally. Lets trace this free will down to its most basic unit, some particle deep down within our brain just switched states and started a reaction that would grow into a faint etching on our mind, slowly taking place as an idea and finally executed by an action that our brain took just because some other particle got excited and set of a reaction that grew into electrical impulses, set off hormones and gave our ‘consciousness’ a sense of emotion and this coupled with so called previously stored cases of earlier free will called experiences makes us feel that we have taken a decision. A decision which is just a interaction of electric pulses from neuron to neuron started all by a particle just switching quantum states which was not prompted by us. To further provide a little scientific evidence to my theory I present the Butterfly Effect : Something as small as a flap of a wing of a butterfly is enough to create a tornado a mile away. This further supports the free will theory That you will soon see – one quantum state change in a small/tiny subatomic particle somewhere is enough to set of a chain reaction thus leading to the creation of a thought then an idea then an emotion and finally give forth an action.

Since we( a unit of atoms and energy) cannot comprehend the subtle changes deep down we look as far down as we can see and conclude it as the truth(just as our ancestors looked at the ocean saw the circular circumference of the horizon and concluded that earth is a flat disk). And in the process we forget the words of wisdom – “Half knowledge is dangerous”. We can feel the formation of a thought and we believe that it is a product of free will but actually is some undefined phenomenon that is so abstract that it shifts the burden of proof so dramatically – even more than that of God. Atheists don’t believe in God but they do believe in Free will which is as undefined, abstract and superstitious as a God by their definition. Liberals believe in….. but…. The game of 1 and 0 : Let me give a small introduction to those not versed in the binary language. Everything we do today electronically is just a 1 or a 0. It’s the way we communicate with the computer, if electricity is on it’s a 1 and if it is off it’s a 0. We can make numbers with binary definition where 0 stands for 0, 1 stands for 1, then 10 for 2, 11 for 3…… 1000 for 8, 1001 for 9, 1010 for 10,…..(the numbers in bold are the everyday numbers we interact with and the strings of 1’s and 0’s are the binary equivalents of these numbers) So we can interact by defining our own letters and numbers and whatnot with this system. But my real question is : Is everything in this world electronic or nonelectronic or emotional or physical just 1’s and 0’s at the most fundamental level? Or similarly : Can everything be broken down to a series of questions which ultimately have a yes or a no answer? (the answer to this leads us to the Question of Free Will and we shall see how in further chapters) Free Will: Every particle in the universe is all the way down to 2 states because every phenomenon can be burned down to a tree of questions with final answers a yes or a no. Setting each state is only a matter of choosing a 1 or a 0. So as time elapses every thing we see as a change is just a change of some states(some flip others remain the same). Suppose we have a grid of the entire universe where each pixel is of the smallest required size(Planck’s distance), then if a pixel is 0 then it is

empty and if it is 1 then it contains the smallest substantial particle that quarks, antiquarks, leptons, mesons are made of. This seems to be the concurrent with the notion of everything being quantised including energy – quantised finally to 1’s and 0’s. So everything in this Universe is just a matter of 1’s and 0’s. So if I know the state of every possible particle in the Universe as of now, I will be able 100% predict the future because all that is happening now is known. This is so similar to John Conway’s Game of Life where one simple algorithm and a few initial states we can create amazing stuff and everything that is going to happen can be predicted – it is really cool and you should check it up. In such a case God is the all knowing all deciding algorithm. Me realising all of this is possible because some states are set to make this happen as I type this. There are 3 big theories as of now with respect to the universe namely -Pulsating Theory – continuous Big bang followed by Big Crunch -Big Rip – Dark Energy and Dark matter -Big Freeze or Heat Death And I don’t see any contradiction with my theory with any of these. But this is not the case because we have something called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where we cannot know the state and location of a particle simultaneously, So basically there is some Chance/Free Will out there which cannot be predicted and I call it God for the time being. So now it kind of seems that one of Free Will and God exist, both may exist but if one does not exist – the other has to. But seeing that Free Will and God are kind of same…….. I am getting confused and would stop now. I just want to keep searching and not that I want to but I need to know. It seems like I am contradicting myself over and over again but actually they are different perspectives and if one is wrong the other has a chance of being right.

Now that all the recapping is done…

The biggest bricks in human evolution were neither <guns, germs and steel> nor <survival instinct and power hunger> but the fear of intrusion upon ones free will and the fear of confronting the truth that we may at the end of the day not possess what we believe we do. This places us ahead of the rest of the universe which consists of both the living and the non-living and adds fuel to the justification of our superiority. We believe free will enhances our responsibility and therefore elevates our natural actions to that of an artificial one but free will is what we believe it to be while it is just another idea just like god and can neither be proved nor disproved. But it is required for human progress. Our actions may seem artificial because of our natural phenomenon that we call â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;free willâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, which I believe is just like what our ancestors thought god was. They believed that something natural was actually a work of the supernatural thereby rendering it artificial. We are not evolving because we are forever just moving on from problem 1 to problem 2 to problem 3 while we have to realize that these problems are infinite and realizing this is a surge forward, but that does not imply I am right, this theory is a problem 2 while all the other infinite problems are problem 1. We have to move on and reach new dimensions rather that surveying a given dimension and calling it progress. Technically even jumping dimensions will just keep us in another never ending loop till RInfinity. Which we can further extend to a meta loop. And this we can cycle on for ever, creating more and more meta loops. The inconvenience with logic is that there is place for paradoxes which cannot be explained by it, thus helping in creating more confusion when we were trying to cure confusion in the first place.

Defining Stuff through the Axioms of Philosophy Lets look at us. We are citizens of this vast Universe and we are in a constant search to check whether we are alone. Assuming the ‘Truth’ is that we are alone. The Good thing is that there is nothing out there, nothing that can scramble our minds thinking about hypothetical situations. The Bad thing is that we are alone in this immense, huge expanse with nothing else out there. It’s very creepy to even imagine. So there it is Truth transcending Good and Bad. It’s like Truth is the coin while Good and Bad are 2 sides of the coin. Have we correctly defined Truth by our above statement? No, The point is that the true definition of Truth is not the Truth of the definition because True and False are just synonyms to Good and Bad. Confusing…? Well then you are on the right track because when it comes to Philosophy nothing is perfect or defined because Philosophy is a/an …. , I am confused. (when I say nothing I mean nothing, the purest form of nothing that doesn’t even contain nothing) The only state a Philosopher or the art of Philosophy can exist in is the state of confusion, If you are not confused then it’s not philosophy. I am not sure but I think the axiom might or might not be that Philosophy and Truth are confusing. Well I am confused and cannot really go ahead because it is confusing to write confusion. Um… Axiom’s of Philosophy, can we list out something that is neither finite nor infinite because Truth can neither be limited nor unlimited for it is partial to neither but truth is everything and thus is both finite and infinite and thus holds a contradiction to listing it out so I won’t even try to. Now to define stuff through axioms of ……

Love : In the chapter Equality and other ideals, in the paragraphs describing marriage we have shown how love is nothing but the amalgamation of ego and that ego carrying out it’s primary or rather it’s only function. You love the ego which you think is most compatible with you and best for propagating your ego, even cases where biological propagation is not possible your evolved ego(discussed earlier) dwells in the realm of satisfaction and thus love is just the enrichment of an ego and nothing more. That is why love is considered so pure and universal because it is both by definition and function –Pure Ego. Osho: When you like a flower you pluck it but when you love a flower you water it.

Dharma : In the chapter God under construction we have seen how Dharma is nothing but one’s duty towards the greater good or realising that one is a smaller ego and a part of a bigger ego. The main function of the smaller ego is to ensure the propagation of the supreme ego even if it results in the destruction or impairment of the smaller ego. But then we have a saying “Dharmo rakhshathi Rakshitaha” which means Dharma will protect those who protect Dharma, and thus we can work towards the greater ego without worrying. Neither does this imply each one of us has to know about the supreme ego nor will we be blasphemous if we work against it. It just means that each one of us have to do our duty no matter how insignificant it may seem and hope to achieve utopia by ensuring that we do not ignoring morals, not anyone else’s morals but our own self morals whatever it may be; it is neither your fault nor your greatness that you possess some or the other morals, thus it is not wrong and you should accept it and do what you think is right and for the betterment of all. Thoughts : Ego at play which believes to be the one to discover absolute/supreme Truth. Thoughts are just parts and souvenirs

along the journey to do what ego does best – think that it is superior ( I know that is a recursive definition their with ‘think’ but then what fun would it be if everything was plain and simple. Try defining fun ) Life : Life as earlier mentioned in one the ego chapters is just ego or rather a system of system of system of egos. Ideas : Ideas and thoughts are different. Ideas occur when a smaller ego attains a state of bliss before the larger system of ego does. It seems like a glimpse of truth but the sine rule (theory of nonsense page ………..….) may rule otherwise. Truth and Bliss have been constructed throughout and trying to do it here after all that you have read would be like explaining who Rama is after telling you the whole Ramayana. None of these definitions are anywhere near final, they are all just thoughts and ideas along my journey and are surely going to change, keep an eye out. Trust me when I say I won’t be fully believing in everything I wrote by the time I finish because to be honest I learnt a lot while trying to write this book, One of my greatest learning experiences so far in my life and trust me because ‘I’ believe ‘I’ am telling the ‘Truth’. The following is yet another excerpt from 15 year old myself. It formed one of the many core ideological pillars in my journey when I started.

Synonymous Oxymoron - inininc No.3 Synonymous Oxymoron's are basically a matter of relative perspective. If one views zero from the +ve side of the number line he observes that zero has no value, but if one views it from the left he sees that zero has more value than every number on this side. In both cases we refer to the same zero but there is a difference because of relative perspective. Now if we take the value referred in the previous paragraph on a scale from 0 to 100, we can place zero at 0 as we do in our day to day lives. Now looking from the left hand side every value is lesser than zero, so now we have to place an infinite series of numbers above or equal to 0 but always lesser than 0 (since zero ia already at 0). Technically speaking this is impossible but our entire mathematical world dwells on such a concept misunderstood by us everyday. Referring to the same scale and same element zero we can induce a concept of synonymous oxymoron by using the catalyst of relative perspective. So if one actually opens ones mind and perceives the world one can decipher synonymous oxymoron's all around oneself. Synonymous Oxymoron's may not be words but they can be expressed as an essence of relative perspective. For example, we humans are so engrossed in absolute stance that relative stances are considered inferior. Are these really different: Having clarity about confusion that one has gotten himself or herself into or the confusion about the supreme authority that clarity holds psychologically. Having clarity on life or a situation or in fact clarity on anything in this world of confusion is considered a superior trait and is obviously given more credit than a state of confusion. But really is the confusion that I have about clarity, different from the clarity someone else has in a cloud of confusion. Both are synonymous and clearly oxymoronic, but this was not the implication the above paragraphs were meant to give but the understanding the hypocritical nature of clarity or in clearer words a substantive stand itself. We tend to take an absolute stance on everything because we want to limit the power of the Universe hoping to one day conquer it but the Universe is infinite and we will never ever even get close to trying to understand how to understand it. A world misunderstood by our mind the limiting scale. Everything misunderstood by being ….. because the subtle beauty of being human is that ‘normal is not normal’ and ‘abnormal is not abnormal’.

Some Short Stories of the internet These stories of the internet will help understand the fact that our perception is sometimes or rather almost every time ………. wrong. Once an old couple and their son who must be in his 30’s were travelling in a train. The son looks out of the window and marvels at the sight. Excitedly he turns to his parents and tells them that the trees and clouds are running away from the train, The outside world is moving really fast but so mystically in the opposite direction. The boy continues to speak about the amazing mysteries this common train journey possessed. By now a passenger next to the boy gets irritated. He turns to the parents and in a rude voice asks them to take their son to a doctor as he is acting so weirdly, as though he is a child. The parents with a smile reply tat they had just come from the doctor and this was the first day in boy’s life that he has seen the world as he had been born blind. ----- A 9 year old boy goes to the ice-cream shop. Waiter: ”What do you want?” Boy: “How much does a Cone Ice Cream cost?” Waiter: “Rs. 15” The boy looks into his pocket and then asks: “How much is a small cone?” The waiter gets really irritated and angrily replies: “Rs.12” The boy ordered a small cone, paid his bill and left. When the waiter came to pick the empty plate tears rolled down from his eyes…………The boy had left 3 Rupees as tip. -----

Three engineers and three accountants are traveling by train to a

conference. At the station, the three accountants each buy tickets and watch as the three engineers buy only a single ticket. "How are three people going to travel on only one ticket?" asks an accountant. "Watch and you'll see," answers an engineer. They all board the train. The accountants take their respective seats but all three engineers cram into a restroom and close the door behind them. Shortly after the train has departed, the conductor comes around collecting tickets. He knocks on the restroom door and says, "Ticket, please." The door opens just a crack and a single arm emerges with a ticket in hand. The conductor takes it and moves on. The accountants saw this and agreed it was quite a clever idea. So after the conference, the accountants decide to copy the engineers on the return trip and save some money (being clever with money, and all). When they get to the station they buy a single ticket for the return trip. To their astonishment, the engineers don't buy a ticket at all. "How are you going to travel without a ticket?" asked one perplexed accountant. "Watch and you'll see," answered an engineer. When they board the train the three accountants cram into a restroom and the three engineers cram into another one nearby. The train departs. Shortly afterward, one of the engineers leaves his restroom and walks over to the restroom where the accountants are hiding. He knocks on the door and says, "Ticket, please." The Banana Experiment A group of Scientists placed 5 monkeys in a cage and in the middle, a ladder with bananas on top. Every time a monkey went up the ladder, the scientists soaked the rest with ice cold water.

After a while, every time a monkey went up the ladder the other ones beat up the monkey on the ladder. After some time no monkey dared go up the ladder regardless of temptation. The scientists then decided to substitute one of the monkeys. The first thing the new monkey did was to go up the ladder. Immediately the other monkeys beat him up. After several beatings the new member learned to not climb the ladder even though he never knew why. The second monkey was substituted and the same occurred. The first monkey participated in the beating of the second monkey. Similarly the 3rd, the 4th and the 5th monkey were replaced with the beatings and the learnings occurring each time. What was left was a group of 5 monkeys that even though never receiving a cold shower continued to beat up any monkey who attempted to climb the ladder. If it was possible to ask the monkeys why they beat up all those who attempted to climb the ladder, I bet their reply would be: “I don’t know. That’s how things are done around here.”

Just in case you were wondering: • What is the purpose of this book? Well just pure simple Trust that there is something to trust in and the joy and happiness I am sure it will bring. Well in this book it may have seemed it was Truth but really was it? • I think I am a Possibilian (a follower of Possibilianism). I am neither agnostic, atheist, theist, nihilist, deist or anything else. I am a follower of Truth and my path is the path of Nonsense which accepts every path and also no path. (I may soon wind up as any of the above theist, atheist, nihilist…. again because my search can take me back just like the Sine Rule from Asymptotic Law) • Well my 2 favourite ideals as of now are Respect and Trust. I want to see a Universe where everyone and everything, living/nonliving/sentinent/evil/sadistic/criminals/chubby/ nonsensical/matter/dark matter to just be happy. The only right ever needed the ‘The Right to Happiness’. • It might seem that I have contradicted myself throughout the book by trying to reason with you and show evidence despite not believing in it’s authenticity. I am just trying to show that science and reasoning might lead us to these absurd paths if used so you are left with believing in these absurd paths or scrapping science.( See I used one of the most fundamental axioms of logic – ‘Every statement is either True or False’) • In a book full of disclaimers the one final big disclaimer. This book is a compilation of thoughts of my 15 year old self, written down by an 18 year old, with the records of my

written stuff from 10th grade, being published when I am 20. I wrote this book in first year of college. So Yeah, I don’t think anyway close to this anymore. So ummm…, I don’t think I can defend these writings as well as I would have 3 years ago, but I will surely unless I am on a path of forgetting the past and embracing onslaught without defence.(LOL!) • Why am I publishing this book instead of just putting it up as articles online? Every time I am at crossroads: “If no one from the future comes to stop me, how bad can my decision really be?”

Acknowledgements Everyone I have ever knowingly or unknowingly interacted with. So basically everyone living and those who have ever lived. Even those who are yet to be born, well because they didn’t travel back in time and stop me from writing this book. I would like to specially mention Mrunmay Jaggadale for immense inspiration he has given me to pursue some chapters in this book.

Bibliography Throughout the book there are multiple references to India and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s philosophy. It is not intentionally placed to elevate India but used as a point of reference in this book just like : I - My ego My mind My experiences The amazing world of nonsense Wikipedia Online Blogs Vsauce videos Quora Reddit Random memes on Facebook Finlotic

References https://www.technologyreview.com/s/422809/when-thebutterfly-effect-took-flight/ http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html http://www.brainfacts.org/sensing-thinking-behaving/sensesand-perception/articles/2012/taste-and-smell/ http://phys.org/news/2015-10-galaxies-faster.html https://futurism.com/why-you-can-never-actually-touchanything/ http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Binary.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2621584/Thebird-impersonates-MEERKAT-steal-food-Drongo-catchesquarter-meals-imitating-creatures.html http://corruptiongate.blogspot.in/2013/01/corruption-inanimal-kingdom.html http://www.medpagetoday.com/hematologyoncology/lungcance r/2536 http://www.thebody.com/h/hiv-positive-and-wbc-count.html/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.f orbes.com/sites/davelavinsky/2014/01/20/pareto-principlehow-to-use-it-to-dramatically-grow-yourbusiness/&refURL=https://www.google.co.in/&referrer=https:// www.google.co.in/ http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/what-is-theplacebo-effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arrows-theorem/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_marriage http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GameofLife.html