My dad has this habit of getting all our arguments down to caste system in India. The tales of Shambuka and Eklavya are very frequently heard in any conversation with him.

I read this in Romila Thapar's History of Ancient India Today:

Mythology and history are often counterposed and myth cannot be treated as a factual account. Yet the prizing out of social assumptions implicit in a myth can be helpful to reconstructing some kinds of history. The interpretation of myths, if handled with caution, can invoke some of the fantasies and subconscious beliefs of their authors, while the structure of the myth can hint at the connections and confrontations in a society of those sustaining the myths.

An Explanation

Not many people agreed with me in one of my earlier post. I guess I was not able to make the exact point and the violence part of it got focused too much. Pardon this newbie writer.

However, having studied evolution and economics a bit more, I think I can put my thoughts bit more precisely. I was trying to critique the Social Darwinistic rationalization of Laissez-Faire economic policies. I feel like a philosopher already :P .

Social Darwinism is a theory that suggests that since evolution is essentially "survival of the fittest", cut-throat capitalism is the a naturally right economic policy.

A second way pseudo-evolutionary concepts were applied to human interaction was in the development of cut-throat capitalism in the United States. Here the ideology was that the cream naturally rose to the top; the successful made a lot of money simply because they were superior to the unsuccessful. Those who found themselves in poverty were poor because they were intrinsically inferior. This political philosophy resisted suggestions like universal education, welfare, minimum wage — in short, anything which interfered with the business of the "superior" ascending to the top of the heap and squashing the unfit beneath their expensive shoes.
(Source)

I was trying to see if this theory could be falsified without getting into the question of ethics. I realize that what I had criticized was only a small part of the theory. The theory goes on to rationalize war, racism, eugenics on the basis of "survival of the fittest" doctrine. Evolution has been criticized for the lack of morality in this theory. I am looking for a good critique of the theory that does not deal with ethics. There are some critiques of the theory available online, however, I haven't studied them in detail. Will write more once I read them.

The Art of Numbers I: Zero equals Infinity

I am planning to write a series of articles on the way I have seen numbers through my life. This is the first post in that series.

In these posts I will try to be as logically accurate as possible. However, at some points the logic may appear fuzzy. At this point, I would recommend to lay back and enjoy the beauty in the patterns. Get a little philosophical. Also, you might find some of these observations in number theory/vedic mathematics(which ironically has nothing to do with the Vedas). My arrogance has prevented me from studying these, however, if you notice some similarity, let me know. Finally, do not think to much in mathematical terms of x and y, you will destroy the beauty.

The title of this post was inspired by this post by Karthik, which caused a lot of controversy. I do not agree that you can just move the number line randomly to any position, however, there is a slightly more logical way of showing similarities between zero and infinity.

To put it in fuzzy mathematical language, there are certain series of numbers, which as you go higher in series, exhibit zero-like behaviour.

To start of, consider the number 1000. Observe how the last three numbers are zero. Now, because of these zeros, 1000 exhibits some zero-like behavior. Now if 1000 is like 0, then 1001 would be like 1. Now 1001x2= 2002. The last three digits are 002. This is 1x2=2. Thus, if we consider only the last three digits, then the number 1000 exhibits zero-like behaviour for positive multiplication. Now let us look at some more properties. Similar pattern is observed while scoring,

1001^2 = 1002001,

again if we consider only the last three digits, we could be squaring one.

Now let us look at one more interesting property we see around 0 on the number line. Which is -1x-1 = 1. Now, around 1000, (1000-1)*(1000-1) = 998001. Again, for the last three digits, the behaviour is zero like. You can extend this logic to other simple multiplications like -1x1 =1, -2x4 = 8, etc.

Now, consider the series 10,100,1000, 10000 etc as we go higher up the series, we can find this pattern for more and more number of digits. Thus higher up in the series, numbers will exhibit higher degree of zero-like behaviour. Thus further we move from zero, more zero-like the number becomes. Strange?

Eulogy

Vijay Tendulkar, whom I had briefly mentioned in my previous post passed away today in Pune.

Tendulkar revolutionized the Marathi stage and he did this in both style and content. Not just, were his plays hugely political, but they were also presented in astyle that was previously unknown in Marathi stage. Ghaashiram Kotwal, was probably the epitome of this revolution in style.

Violence was the under-running theme of all of his plays. However, his plays made statements far beyond raw violence. His plays were known to make strong political statements. The themes of his plays ranged from domestic violence (Gidhaade: Vultures), feminism(Shaantata, Court chaalu aahe: Silence, the court is on) to caste system and other social issues. You will also see a strong hint of leftism through all his writings.

Although Tendulkar wrote chiefly in Marathi, his themes definitely had a global appeal. Still, for those who cannot comprehend it, I would recommend wtching Ardhasatya, which brilliantly expresses his Kafkaesque style.

Evolution and Economics

One of the biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it is cruel. It does not have any self-imposed rules of culture. And that is also probably it's biggest strength. Since it works on the simple rule of "survival of the fittest", it could be applied to just any system which evolves and has a diversity.

Now consider the divide between the rich and the poor. The rich folks definitely have an advantage over the poor in terms of being "fitter for evolution". They have more resources, better health facility, longer life span etc. Hence going by the rues of evolution, they should survive in this game and the poor should become extinct. In reality, however, the human society in structured in such a way as too provide artificial means for the poor to survive. In communism, the state owns all the property and hence resources are distributed equally, in a welfare state like India, the government proactively takes a lot of steps (affirmative action) to reduce poverty, and even in capitalism, you always have some measures taken to reduce inequality in resource distribution. Question is, why are such artificial means of redistribution of resources?

Here is an attempt to find the answer. Human beings, at some point of time in history decided to form civilizations. Man became a social animal. He had probably realized that staying together and helping each other, probably gives a higher payoff to everybody in the group. This payoff would be in terms of protection from other animals, protection from other forces of nature and production of more resources. Now, it may have happened that initially due to selfishness of each individual, the cooperation may not have been so successful. Hence, human beings had to impose certain rules to this game. These set of rules are what we call culture. These rules probably included detestation of murder, rape etc. and also some altruistic virtues. I am not very sure on the point of altruism but somehow I find that human altruism may not always be driven by genes. This phenomenon culture was not arbitrarily started one day. Just like evolution of species, culture has also evolved over a long period of time.

As human society progressed, man became more and more of a social animal. Everybody specialised in some activity and had his place fixed in the society. With these complications, the earlier rules of culture had to be given a more structured form and that gave birth to law. Human civilizations had now shaped into kingdoms or empires with a fixed set of laws. Money had by now evolved as a token of resources you have because you could trade money for them.

However, this system gave rise to inequalities. Some people were able to make more money than others. And this is where the debate starts. One argument would be that some people were able to make more money because they possessed some skills that were rarely possesed by anyone else. This argument would be perfectly in line with the "survival of the fittest theory". Another argument would be that the arbitrarily developed system of culture was giving some people a distinct advantage over the others. This would be the debate between right and left. But that is besides the point here.

Although human beings have imposed this system of culture upon themselves, the inbuilt selfish nature of their genes continues to manifest from time to time. Remember, that the game of evolution has no rules. The contestants are allowed to lie, deceive and cheat. Hence, when a human being's survival is at stake, he would throw away this mask of culture and show the true color of his genes. The most severe of this manifestation is violence. Thus when a man is oppressed to the point that he finds his survival is at stake, he will tend to become violent. This violence is what was captured by the Marathi playwright Vijay Tendulkar through all his plays.

This is one explanation of why Naxalism started in India. This is a reason for the violence in the African nations. The poorest regions have most violence. I have not read much about his theory, but I think fundamentally, this is what Karl Marx tried to say. Thus the need to strive towards social equity comes from the more fundamental need to preserve the rules of human culture.

Book Review: The Selfish Gene

My first encounter with Dawkins was when I heard excerpts from his book "The God Delusion", and I must say I was not quite impresed. My belief in atheism was strong enough and I did not need one more book telling me flaws in religion. Anyways, I haven't really read that book and hence shall not criticize it much. Dawkins, however, kept coming up in arguments with friends after that.

Recently, having heard about it a lot, I picked up Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", and unlike God Delusion I was quite liked this book. This book takes your understanding of the theory of evolution to an entirely new level. The book introduces the concept of the Selfish Geneand then tries to explain the various questions in the evolution theory using this concept.

I would definitely recommend this book to every student of logic. That is because while reading this book you would be constantly thinking about the cause-effect relationship. The book may at times take you to a point where you start belieing that the gene actually has a conscious and being selfish. The author, however, is constantly aware of this fact and will pull you back from time to time.

Another interesting concept in this book is the application of Game Theory in the understanding of evolution. Although not Dawkins' idea(John Maynard Smith has done a lot more work in this field), he has put this idea nicely in Layman's terms. These ideas definitely give a new perspective and broaden your understanding of nature.

I think one of the weakness (or maybe the strength) of this book is that it deals with behavioral evolution rather than physical evolution. This becomes a weakness only because the book is then not very useful for an absolute beginner in this theory. But I guess the book was never meant to be so.

At this point, I would like to note some of the most interesting and and controversial points the book makes:

1) The most fascinating idea I found in this bookwas that of treating two symbiotic lives as one. There exist symbiotic species in nature who are interdependent on each other not just for sustainnce but also reproduction. Their genes evolve have evolved in such a way as the survival of one without the other is impossible. This idea, as complex and logical as it may sound, is also very very poetic.

2) Memes: As an analogy to the Selfish Gene Theory, Dawkins has tried to explain the evolution of culture through the concept of Memes. Although a very nice analogy, I would be much more fascinated if this concept could be given a physical meaning. My knowledge of neurology is next to zero, but I would be really fascinated if Memes could actually be represented by a physical structure in human memory.

3) The Extended Phenotype: Dawkins proposes that a peculiar nest of a particular species of bird is an extended phenotype(or an extended effect) of it's genes. Thus the genes do not just affect the physical organs of a body but may also have an extended effect on the surroundings of a bird. Dawkins mentions that he has elaborated this idea in much more detail in his book titled "The Extended Phenotype". I am quite anxious to read that book now.

The whole reason I like the theory of evolution so much is that it is a theory that teaches you basic priciples of science and rationality in a very intuitive way. You do not have to understand complex laws of physics in order to understand this theory. It's beauty lies in its simplicity. Simplicity however, is not an easy thing to define. But that's another story.

Let's start with a joke

Bartender: Would you have your usual drink, Sir?

Descartes: I think not.

Descartes vanishes in a puff of logic.

And now for something completely different.

I hate x. Consider a power of 2. Say 2³, 8. Now consider 7*8=56. Add 1. You get 57. Multiply this by 9. 57*9=513. Subtract 1. 512. which is 2⁹.
Ah! What a beautiful observation. I was ecstatic when I found this. But soon realized that (x*(x+1)+1)*(x+2)=x³.
Hence I hate x.

If you have stumbled here by chance and could make any sense out of this, post a comment.

P.S.: All plagiarism in the above post is highly intentional.