What-if theory - Revisited

It is time to revisit one of my old posts from this blog titled "What-if theory". The post was about the theory made by one other than Satman during one of our crazy but good old crazy  (I said crazy before, didn't I?) discussions in Charlotte.

Basically, this is what the theory states.
“In a not-so-realisitic world, there exists beings of two kinds, one getting paid for not doing any work and the other paid the same money for doing work, provided one is given a choice to choose between the two eccentric kinds.”

And my choice at that time was as simple as "I want work". The question seemed so simple to me though the choice raised eye-brows of quite a few around me at that time. People kept questioning me "Why? Why when you are being paid for not doing any work??". I just shrugged.
But now, I think if I am asked the same question, I wonder if my answer would be different. Atleast the question is no longer simple to me anymore. And this is scaring me a lot. How can I imagine myself feeling fine getting paid without work. That is not the same person I was few years before when I wrote that post. What changed in me that made me doubt my answer now. I try to press myself think hard about it. Various reasons arise. Am I being money-minded (more than I should be)? Am I being unjust and unfair to the world? Has the evil part of my taken over my actions and thought? Have I just turned lazy? Or am I enlightened to know the non-necessity of work? Have I finally realized what all others around me had realized long back? Am I coming back to reality? Do I think the world has mis-used me because I took the road less travelled? Is it because I am married and have a kid? Or does it have to do anything with what I am doing right now for work?
I believe the last sentence makes more sense any other questionable reasons I can think of. The answer was simple to me because I loved the work I did before. I loved things around me when I am work. I just simply believed that I was doing what I wanted to do and what I thought I can do forever. And Because I loved what I did as work, I simply said "I want work". What is clearer more to me is my earlier answer was indeed incorrect. I should have said "I want work that I love". That makes more sense. People can be fine (strong possibility) if they are allowed to work on what they love and the factor of money may not matter much.
So my friends who answered against me may not have been wrong either. They felt they are fine with being paid without work because the work they did was not what they wanted but had to. We just need to find the one we love and make it as our "work". Then everyone's answers will align to mine. May be people will realize when they seek money they are just chasing happiness but with wrong directions.

This makes me rewrite Satman's what-if theory. Let us call it Satman-Injey What-if theory.

“In a not-so-realisitic world, there exists beings of two kinds, one getting paid for not doing any work and the other paid the same money for doing work they love, provided one is given a choice to choose between the two eccentric kinds.”

After all, if your heart is not in it, you are nothing but a Zombie calling "Brainzzzzzzzz".

The Radiance of Love

What is Love? Is it an emotion? Is it a feeling? Is it an expression to show your affection to someone? Or is it just the overflow of hormones in the body? Each person defines it in their own way they see it. It is universal and known to every life being on the earth or at least that is what we limit to believe. Who knows if love extends beyond this material earth? Quite possible too. But still we have not defined Love. There is no single answer. Even science, the religion of all questioning could not find answer. It could neither prove nor deny its existence. It appears that Love seems to be peculiar that it can be expressed in both scientifically and through faith and therefore could not be answered as one. That makes it dual in nature. There are one another that exist in this way, viz Light. Light exhibits a duality in nature that wonders everyone. It is proved both as a wave and particle. Depending on the circumstance, it exhibits either of the characteristics that are still not understood by the scientists. For a human mind, which knows "Right" and "Wrong" as two distinct opposites, it still tries to figure out the dual nature of light.
Similar to Light, Love as a wave is not substantiated by weight. It acts as an emotion or feeling making an inner presence that cannot be quantified. It is a disturbance in the mind that affects everything and everyone around it. It makes you feel its presence by sheer vibrations in the heart. The heart of each person vibrates in a particular frequency that when met by a similar wave exhibiting the same vibration causes resonation to occur. Like a coherent wave, it matches the other keeping the tune synchronous with each other and plays music to the inner soul that is only felt between the two. It is not known but only understood. It traverses through obstacles reflecting and refracting through the universe reaching its destination. It is an emotion that cannot be answered why. It is expressed to be everlasting in nature and cannot be destroyed. 
On the other hand, a very arguable but apparent nature of Love is its existence as a particle. People who have accepted the wave theory as the truth find it hard to believe and deny this and few of those who have not realized the touch of Love on them doubt it. But against all disbeliefs and concerns, Love is also particle in nature. Though wave nature of Love could sustain its existence, the creation of Love and the continuity of it need a solid presence of showing itself to others. Sometimes, Love has to be quantified to prove its presence. When the waves could not create the bond between two beings at the first sight, it requires its particle nature to show the affection between them. And here, Love is not based on emotion but on an understanding. This does not make it any less than the former. It still has its radiance spreading in all directions but the source is a particle or a reason. In the motion picture, "Dan in Real Life", the author speaks of love as an "Ability". Love is an ability that you have to see if you can spread it to others. And it is not based on unexplainable feelings. It is the question of "Can you love someone?” To prove this statement, let us revisit the intrigued question of the whole world on the custom followed in India also known as "Arranged marriage". Though this is a debatable topic of its purposefulness or the closed culture or the human rights violation woos or the easy method to find a girl as argued by some others, the success of its practice and the happy families that are formed out of it raises our eyebrows that is it not the proof that Love is an ability and is based on our understanding and not on emotion? You decide upon your life based upon the decision already made before you have shared Love. If you could shower a person with care and true Love on facts and reasons, there exists the truth which beats the most widely considered belief of its wave nature. Though the wave nature may hold on to your long last first love keeping it felt forever, the particle nature teaches you that Love is an ability and it exists as long as you capable of showing it to others.
And again, similar to light, Love needs to exist as both wave and substantial quantum together all the time. It cannot sustain as one nature alone. The emotional love needs the particle nature to balance it from losing the logic of the worldly existence and the particle half must appreciate its wave half to keep it alive and truthful in the heart. Loss of one of its characteristic means loss of everything.

Without Light, life ceases to exist. 

Without Love, there is no point for the life to exist.

Pirates of the WorldWideWeb

With almost everything possible in the internet, and though everything is available through internet, not everything have made way to us legally. Now don’t imagine any weird stuff that does not fit to the conscience of my wide range of readers (I could count them from 1 to 10). I am talking about the copyright violations. Many might not even know that not every eBook is free on the internet and when you download something you might actually be stealing it without the Author or Publisher's notice. And it might be surprising for you to find that people actually SELL e-books for money on the net. If you are disappointed by this, don’t think it is a joke when I tell you that the MP3 songs collection of 5 GB that you downloaded from the net can also be illegal. This is another reason why many of your favorite music websites like Raaga and esnips allows you only to stream songs and not download them. There can be exceptions depending upon the copyright principles of the author. Now don’t ask me, if streaming is legal. I am yet to find it out. You might call me a liar when I say that my house owner in UK who did not know that you can download songs for free in the net. Thanks to music store like iTunes that brought the cost of songs to 99cents which is easily affordable to everyone, they did not have to go to the illegal sites at all.

So do I think starting an online music store for India can help in bringing down piracy? That is a tricky question to answer. Let’s say any song is available for download for 2 rupees. A movie on an average with 6 songs will cost 12 rupees compared to 35 or more for an Original audio CD. But do you think we will be happy paying 12 rupees when you can get it for free somewhere else? That’s a moral question everyone should think of. If you ask me, I would pay. But I have always been a weird thinker against the rest of the world and I cannot answer for the rest. (Read my opinion on Satman's What if theory) So there is need for different campaigns to make people go legal. One idea that I believe would work is by creating promotions like "Buy 1 Get 1 free" or "3 songs for 10 rupees". Portal owners can even use the "Aadi" and "Diwali" celebrations and give 10 to 50% discount for downloading songs. Or Shopkeepers selling garments can even give it for free with saris and dress materials. I would love to hear comments like "Get Surya songs free with Surya shirts or "Hear Shreya's songs while wearing our Shreya saris." May not be saris. Which heroine wears sari these days.

And not to forget the US and UK desi’s delight "Online Movies" portal are also against the law. What’s more, several copyright protection agencies are trying hard to close down these sites. But Internet being a free world, this is so far an impossible task to them. But we are seeing many websites like movieforumz being shutdown for the same reason. The tricky part is to bend the cyber rules. If the rule says that it is illegal to host or upload pirated movies in the net, there are some smart sites which just link themselves to the videos already hosted on the net. This is more like

"I did not break into the house.

I just misplaced the goods from the already broken house".

And there is another group of portals, who will host songs and movies with a disclaimer.

"All the media we host are for preview only.

Please buy the original DVD if you like them,

so that the original author is not affected"

And apart from movies, we see this disclaimer a lot on the warez sites which lets you download software’s. Aren't they providing a social service by advertising the author's work? May be they are over advertising by running the whole movie instead of the trailer.

Ok. Now you would be having the million dollar question in your mind. "What about you? Aren't you the one who actually told me about the fast metallic screen website (name obviously hidden) that links Hollywood, Bollywood, TV shows and even cartoons on the net?" I will just answer "No comments!" to you. But I do have Blockbuster account for watching English movies of my choice. I am trying hard to be pure as much as possible in this dark world. And I am vowed not to buy pirated movie DVDs as long as the original ones are available to my reach. But it is difficult to find original DVDS of Indian movies in US and that has been my excuse. So if I had to stop using my excuses and if we are to bring an end to the illegal activities, (Kindly not the IF) we must work together in changing ourselves for cleaning up the wild internet.

As a first step, I have decided not to watch any more English movies on the net illegally from my system. This is limited to viewing the movies through streaming and does not include the movies that can be downloaded completely before watching them. And please note this decision is no way related to the closure of all the movie hosting sites that I know or the poor speed of Veoh and Megavideo networks and is definitely not related to me unable to find any good movies in the internet.

Equi-benefitial what-if theory

Equi-benefitial theory states,

"There exists a world where people are benefitted equally

irrespective of doing or not doing work."

This theory is an advancement of "What-if" theory which is disproved by "I-like-work" community.

As stated, work is not rewarded in this non-existing world. As people are rewareded in either ways, work is independent of rewards or benefits as mentioned in the statement. But as given in the theory, there exists people who work which means that people take up work by their own choice. Therefore, work becomes a choice in this non-existing world and people are present in either side of the world, still making the world a balanced one. And as said before, I like to be in the "I-like-work" community with my own choice.
Now for the final part, as work is always a choice in the EB-what-if world, as work is related to any benefits, the statement can be rewritten as

"There exists a world where people are benefitted equally."

But this defeats the essence of life, "Survival of the fittest". As all are benefitted equally, everyone is fit for survival which will go on increasing finally exploding the stability of the world. Therefore such world cannot exist anywhere other than Satman's what-if mind.

What-if theory

It all started with Satman’s “What if” theory which is “thought-while-not-working-during-work” theory to me. It is a crazy thought, but also a delight to the majority kind disliking the word called “work”.








The “What if” or “TWNWDW” theory states,

“In a not-so-realisitic world, there exists beings of two kinds, one getting paid for not doing any work and the other paid the same money for doing work, provided one is given a choice to choose between the two eccentric kinds.”

In simple terms, people can choose whether or not to work, though they will be paid the same either way. And the question he throws at you is “Which kind will you choose?”

As a person who believes in working not only for money, I will choose the latter kind obviously.
Though this might sound foolish to the other kind, before you get to answer the question, let us understand the theory in detail.

If persons of both kinds are paid the same regardless of doing work or not, then the money paid to the latter kind cannot be accounted for the work he does. Therefore money is not paid for doing work in this “what-if” world.

A person who chooses the latter kind will not be paid in money. But even in the “what-if” world, as the beings we are discussing about are only humans, there is always some benefit expected out of work. Remember there is nothing in the world called social service, because it avoids monetary benefits only. As the “What-if” theory talks only about the monetary benefits, there is an expectation on non-monetary benefits for doing work which the latter kind alone enjoys. This still makes the person on the latter kind getting better life in this “What-if” world.

As this explanation raised voices from the “I-like-money-with-no-work” communities, a new theory was created as advancement to the “what-if” theory. This is called “equi-benefitial what-if” theory.
You can provide your inputs, arguments, discussions and choice on the “what-if” theory now. We will discuss the “EB what-if” theory later.

E.T

Its a busy time over here and I didn't want to be distracted for sometime. Thats why the long 10 days gap with no updates. Anyway, Couldnt resist myself from updating the blog and using the few mins I got here.

So here we go again. This time, I am giving my input on another bizarre, unrealistic thoughts that arise in my always-thinking-or-dreaming-something mind.

Have you ever wondered how an alien from space looks? Of course. Everyone would have imagined that. Or atleast agree with any idea of an Alien thats projected by great hollywood. Can those things be real? Do aliens really exist in this silent universe which is considered to have life only in this planet earth? Again, i cant guarantee you anything here. But as usual, I will put my views. (Looks like I am escaping all the time )

Can you notice that in most or all of the movies, you can compare the alien with an earth creature or may be a combination of two or three earth creatures. Many aliens have many legs like a squid or may be a tongue like a lizard able to pull the humans with its tongue. Some aliens resemble human the most with legs and arms and to support thats its still an alien, it might have large round eyes which humans dont. But think again. We do see humans with round eyes in cartoons. So whats happening here. Movies create aliens with the imagination of an art director and not a scientist.

I recently read a novel, "Andromeda Strain" by Micheal Chrichton. The novel made me think more on this topic. When I was reading the book, I had to nod my head more often agreeing to the points he talks about. Ok ok.... Let me come to the point.

The novel talks more about viruses and bacteria from space which can also called as aliens. Rememeber the definition of alien. "Anything that doesnt belong to your own place is an alien." So its highly probable that we can take that viruses and bacteria from space as aliens. But wait. I am not saying there are any discoveries of micro organisms from space. But I feel that there might be a higher possibility of micro organisms from space rather than our own assumptions of aliens invading earth with a space ship. Keeping away the idea of micro organism aliens, lets discuss on the possibility of our movie stars (aliens).

Most movies show aliens as green with oval shaped head and no hair. They have large eyes and small mouth. The reason I feel behind this is whoever gave this idea, just wanted to make sure it resembles human. Even the color is given green. But the artist has again depicted another earth creature. It looks more like a standing frog.

So how can the aliens look like, if they still exist. Looking at a scientific perspective, The appearance of humans and every earth creature is influenced by the climatic condiitions that surround them. So if there is an alien out there, it should be appearing according to its habitat. And no ones knows whats a suitable habitat for an alien. Also if there is alien outside, how could it be a single species. In earth, we have thousands of species. So there should be thousands of species The limits of imaginination about ET is infinite. But one strong feeling that I have about ET is that humans have an equal possibility of finding an alien to the way the aliens can have a possibility of finding us. And what is the possibility of these to happen is out of calculation. So lets look at the stars and wonder if there is a space ship waiting to pull us in the same way the aliens are looking at the stars.

If you have already got bored reading this post, bear with me. I have a few more time left and I want to talk more on this.

This is a more bizarre thought or may be the most bizarre thought you can digest. What if we are living with aliens? No no.. Dont go to "Men in Black". I am not talking that way. But just think about this. From when do we know about Infrared and microwave rays?? When do we know that the air is composed of oxygen and other gases. Its all learnt. Its not that we experienced on our own. Till the time, the existance of microwave ways were proved, we didnt know it doesnt exist. But they were still there and they are always there. So why cant there be aliens which or who are here though you cant feel them. May be like what some games call it, "Realm". What if there is more than this physical world. What if there is a "Spirit realm" where the same world exists in the same place at the same time, but its all different. Cant we call the living in that realm an alien. But all that matters is how to make the "Contact". I dont know if this concept can be true. Buts its just not proved that it doesnt exist. In science, anything thats not proven doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Its just may have not proven, including the existance of God.

PS: If any alien is reading this post, please leave your comments. If you are not able to write the comments or read them properly, please make me feel of your existence by any way that you know.

Reality is relativity

The world is not the same to everyone. Everything in the world is real to you only by the way you look at it. Even reality is considered with relativity. For someone, it exists. For others, it doesnt. Thats how the world works. Or atleast in my perspective.

This is something that can be applied for a lot of discussions. Right now, I am using this for one point. Existance of God. Am I talking too spiritual these days ;). Few days back, I had a discussion with a collegaue regarding religions. It started with Dan Brown novels and went towards Big bang(Angels and Demons), Bible(Da Vinci Code) and slowly towards Hinduism and even to Sai Baba. But nothing was about preachings of God. Its the perspective that we have towards God. I will save that talk for later use.

Now coming to the my point of view now, we see the world only through our own perspective. So if you believe that God had His work in the creation of universe, He had. If you disagree and take out God from the picture, there is no God. Its as simple as that. May be you can think, that I am just saying "Believe it or not. Its your choice". But I am not saying that. Choice is just made to avoid the confusion. Its just to make lives easier. Let me put it in another way. Just because we dont believe in something, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. May be we dont have much knowledge yet to understand them which helps us to believe them. Also, things dont just exist because we accept them blindly as we could not understand them.

So is there God? I cant say that. I am not enlightened to answer that question. But I like to think that God's creation of the universe can be accepted as a different perspective to the Scientific creation of the Universe. You call the big bang came with a sound which I think can be said as microwaves disrupting the matter and exploding the matter in the space. Vedas call the sound "Om". The sound that started the big bang. I have a lot to say that make me belive in what Vedas says. But I cant ignore Science too. I understand that what science calls by massive sound!! is called in some other way in religion. (I dont want to talk about Bible which says against Big Bang. To me, Bible is written by humans to group people towards God. It doesnt say the truth much).

So the point is you can see the world with or without God. Its all in your perspective. You can think that the earth revolves around the sun beacuse of some mathematical forumla that describes the momentum and velocity or you can think of the presence of God in it.

To make my statement more simple, think of Microsoft office. It can be thought as a software in Windows that helps you in your day to day activities. Or you can think it as ones and zeros written in a way that helps you store whatever you type in some other form of ones and zeros. Both refer to the same document and the application. But they have a different perspective. Think about it.

Science of God

This is an extract from http://www.geocities.com/science_of_god/big_bang.htm which explains the big bang theory in God's perspective.

Its very interesting actually. I am not talking about God created the universe. We are childrens of God like that. Its just another perspective to look at. Read it if you want.

And the last lines chilled me. The abstract is talking about "A greater individual arsing from time to time, which is inferred as incarnation of God". But see one more word in this text. It talks about "One".

My thoughts are racing back to the words of the architect from "The Matrix Reloaded". Is Matrix really inferring this same thing!!!!! Were we taught about Vedas in the movie without our own knowledge. Looks true. Read for yourself!

The Big bang and Big–Collapse is banished from nature once for all. It is replaced by initial pulse [small –bang]. The first pulse of the Universe is located in a human life at the maximum point of evolution. New life to the Universe is located in the sacrifice of "I" factor. Every flow should have a leading point. The flow of the Universe there by evolution also should have a leading point. This leading point of evolution should lead us to new life because death cannot be end of evolution. This leading point and new life to the universe is located in a supreme being and his action. The birth of the universe and the first pulse of the universe are located on the Cross-, where "I", which is the cause of death is sacrificed. From the previous arguments [ see path to death] one can clearly conclude that this sacrifice was done in order to save the whole world. This point is the minimum point at which the gravity was maximum and the anti-gravity was minimum. Such a situation id forced on it by humanity, the individuated souls that exists to the left and right of the Central Soul. It is the "O" of the chancy chancy world.

The second coming of Jesus is the maximum point where Anti- gravity is maximum and gravity is minimum. It is the "One" of the chancy chancy world. The universe thus exists between two limits. At the minimum, "I" is sacrificed and at the maximum, "I" is expressed. Our universe should be viewed in a non-linear manner. At the maximum critical point a Great Attractor would develop, around which the universe would collapse into a new order. The whole exercise mingles science with age-old Philosophies. The intervention of the creator was necessitated because ordinary mortals cannot conquer the force of "I"

More in the webpage

http://www.geocities.com/science_of_god/big_bang.htm

Deja vu