Mathematics with Minimum Raw Material, Part 2 Re: Fozia

Yep, they are absolutely beautiful. Maybe we should present Cantor`s proof in the next article in this series.

Your suggestion about cutting a Mobius strip is very interesting, I am sure people will be surprised at what happens.

Talking of simple proofs, here`s one short elegant proof of the Pythagoras theorem.

Take a right angled triangle ABC. Drop a perpendicular to the longest side AC from B. Since the area of the two new triangles ADB and BDC must sum to the the area of ABC, and the area is proportional to the square of a side of a triangle, the Pythagoras theorem follows:

AB.AB + BC.BC = AC.AC

regards

Bangladesh Memories Pakistan is still not ready to face the reality of the Dhaka tragedy. The major criminals in this are either revered (ZAB) or still alive and influential. I remember some time ago when Jang decided to hold an open court and try Gen. Niazi to see who was responsible for the fall of Dhaka. Everyone found him guilty and blamed him for the debacle. The thought did not even cross the mind of many that maybe the crime was communal, and that there was something basically wrong with the way East Pakistanis were viewed by the West Pakistanis.

What happened had to happen because one group considered itself to be absolutely superior to the other --they did not want to be fellow citizens but new colonial rulers.

I have personally apologized many times to Bangladeshis for a crime that was committed before my time. And everytime I have done so, I have seen their faces light up. I hope that Pakistan, as a state, has enough courage and self-esteem to recognize its repugnant role in this tragedy and deliver an apology to the Bangladeshi nation.

Evolution 101 Owais(55):

Whatever makes you happy brother.

cheers

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Actually I know what the theorems are, knowing about them I wasn`t convinced that what you said a while ago was generally true. Therefore I asked you to demonstrate it to me.

I have seen so many allusions to Godel`s incompleteness theorems that it appears that it is a good buzzword -I doubt that many people have actually spent the time to try to understand what they say.

regards

Killing Iraqis Before Ramadan Starts We know what these missiles are called: Monica missiles. All he has to do is to bomb Iraq for 2 more weeks , then the new congress is sworn in. End of troubles!

Re: bg(14)

Thank you.

The City of Gargoyles I guess someone has got to defend Lahore! Being a Lahori myself, I really enjoyed reading this. But something leads me to suspect that you probably hung out with the wrong group of people ...

(I didn`t see many smiling faces in Lahore).

Lahoris are a funny bunch, and by funny I don`t just mean to look at.

(their body language spoke of obsession with appearance and the suppression of anything natural and uninhibited.)

Any culture that has produced dhoti and kameez as a traditional dress cannot be uninhibited. Dhoti wearers have known the meaning of the term ``air-conditioned`` before there was something called an air-conditioner!

The people you describe are not the Lahoris I know (unless of course they have drastically changed in the recent past). Maybe it would help to not stay in the ``posh`` areas next time you visit Lahore.

Dancing in the ruins Really enjoyed reading this. We should have more work like this on Chowk.

Evolution 101 Shafqat (49):

Actually it helps me relax, and take my mind off other things.

Saeed (51):

You`re right, I should read the whole article. Would it be possible for you to post it here if it is available on the Web?

My reply of course was prompted just by the abstract, which even when I read it again now, appears not very focussed.

``Arguments derive from religion (creationism)--disagreement with the Darwinian reduction of teleology to physical causation, from science--nonselective mechanism, and from logic--negation of the possibility of proof of any scientific theory allowing only for validity thusfar.``

a) religious arguments: then is it turtles all the way down? which religious argument should one choose from the dozens out there?

b) logic: are the philosophies of Popper and Kuhn sacrosanct? how does that imply anything about just the idea of evolution?

c) the inability of a Darwinian theory to explain life is not surprising, it is a scientific theory, that has to evolve on its own to better conform to the world around it. it is the norm in all scientific endeavour.

I guess all I said was that one should admit that evolution has some evidence, while creationism has none. Therefore, evolution, even in the way formulated by Darwin carries some iota of truth to it.

BTW, do you know about the recent experiments that seem to support the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium (Gould et al.), and where do things stand now?

Aamina Ahmed (52):

Well said Aamina. One basic difference is in how people in the two camps approach knowledge: to a believer any knowledge worth its name is immutable. the scientific method on the other hand works only because of its skepticism. the usual creationist arguments do not reach beyond their way of looking at things (and conversely the scientists way of looking at things disturbs them).

One book that comes to my mind is ``The Moral Animal`` by Robert Wright. I don`t know if you have read it, and what you think.

regards
Wasiq

Evolution 101 Dear Mr. Owais,

If I may say so, your simple acceptance of the fact that a creationist theory cannot be substantiated says a lot about you.

An unfortunate consequence of discussions on evolution versus creation is that one starts to deal with people`s beliefs, and then the discussion quickly degenerates into a big pissing contest. I wish to avoid that.

I would like to have a regular discussion with someone, who is as interested as I am, in understanding some of the mysteries of nature. Due to the fact that we have limited lives, I hope you agree that neither of us have the time or the energy to deal with argument for the sake of argument. I will gladly read what your views on this matter (evolution 102), please post them in this replies section.

I must say this for the record anyway. I have been through this multiple times, and there is nothing that I can do, for people come in with a belief in something. And beliefs can very seldom be changed. So this might just make you more defensive and hardened in your opinion, and frankly, it does not matter. Things will go on.

Also I apologize in advance for the directness and on moments, harshness, of my message.

I think you accuse me wrongly of bigotry. I merely intend for you to accept evolution as a scientist and not as a believer. At the very least give it a chance as a theory and do not reject it before you know what it means. I suspect that you are interpreting what science has to offer in the same way as one interprets religion. Whereas religious thought is based upon what is deemed to be immutable, the scientific enterprise by its very construction, strives towards a more complete understanding through incomplete understanding of the world around us. There is a simple observation of Feynman, who was a very influential physicist of this century: everything that is learnt in science today, is unlearnt tomorrow. That is the nature of the process. (But then I suspect a die-hard believer will not understand any of this. After all he/she must believe for the sake of belief...)

When I read your quotations, I realized how you were approaching this issue. You were dealing with this in EXACTLY the same way as a religion, you were establishing your argument by quotation of an ``authority``. (Hadrat Aisha said ..., Hadrat Abu Huraira said, ..., Hadrat Omar said, ... sound familiar?). That is how you are used to thinking about this issue, and I do not think about it this way. And unfortunately, we cannot do anything about this.

I differ with you fundamentally: I will and do accept creationism as a possible model for the emergence of life, if you provide me enough evidence for it. Even if I were to take your word for it (though I think your ``scientific`` understanding is sketchy at best), evolution is more credible than creationism -- it has SOME proof, creationism has NONE.

Now coming to your quotations, if I may point out the obvious, which I think make them an extremely weak ``supporting evidence``:

a) Some of them talk about the ``mystery`` of the world around us, which no scientist denies. In fact the biggest reason they are scientists is probably because they feel that sense of wonder more than normal people do.

b) Some of the quotations talk about the functional aspects of one possible evolutionary theory --and all of these are before 1980`s. To say it another way, your quotations in this category are out of date. (Hell if you had quoted from 1890`s you would have gotten even more material). But the basic point that you CONTINUE to miss is that science is a cumulative process, unlike most religious thought that STAGNATES once completed. This unfortunately also colors your way of looking at science and how you interpret it. (I know how uncomfortable it is for a thorough believer to be faced with a situation in flux). This unfortunate bent of your mind is again beyond me to change.

c) You have other quotations that talk about the ``hand of God`` in the process. The usual creationist propaganda that employs such a tactic is very predictable --the quotations are usually incomplete and taken out of context.

d) Let me go through your quotations now:

--Consider your quotation from Eugene P. Wigner. You do not continue on with the essay, perhaps you would have discovered that he believed that the origin of life would be explainable entirely through a biological process. The same idea of incomplete quotation applies to the quotation by V. Prelog and W. Arber. The quotation by Rosazak also falls in this category, it is a statement that does not support or deny creationism because it is incomplete.

--Now coming to the quotation by D. Pilbeam and T. Kemp (last two): Maybe you should read them again or ask a third party to confirm this. They say NOTHING about creationism. Maybe you should not have quoted them in the first place!

--The quotation by D. Ager falls in the character of cumulative and mutable nature of science, as I have discussed above (c.f Feynman). The same applies to the one by H. P. Yockey. The quotation from Darwin (in H. Enoch) is even more indicative of the working of a scientific enterprise. What you see there is the HONESTY of Darwin as a scientist to question what were the deficiencies in his theory. BUT THAT IS THE NATURE OF SCIENCE, IMPROVEMENT THROUGH SKEPTICISM.

--The quotations from A. Clarke and J. Sullivan are thoroughly USELESS, since they are thoroughly out of date. You should have quoted members of the Royal Society from 1890`s if you are really into ancient history. Rather, let`s go back to the Medieval ages ... would that be good enough for you??

After reading your argument this is what I see:

1) It is incoherent. Your quotations are either incomplete, out-of-conext or outright out-dated. Your complete incoherence follows because you are not proposing anything, you are merely opposing something for the sake of opposition, which makes it appear all the more ludicrous.

2) You seem to have made up your mind beforehand.

3) Maybe a good place to start would be to write down the reasons why you think life was spontaneously created, and how you would justify it rigorously. How to deal with the issues of specialization and speciation? That will undoubtedly lead you into realizing why an evolutionary point of view comes about.

4) Your offer to take me under your enlightened tutelage: I will be glad to take you on as my mentor, but first you`ve got to prove your mettle :)

5) May I be so bold to say that the ``quiz`` you offered me is, in the politically correct parlance of the day, severely challenged intellectually. There is a clear demarcation between the arenas of faith and the natural sciences. An astute person would have quickly realized that no logical proof exists of God, much less of his attributes. Therefore the very formulation of your questions betrays something you would not be very ready to admit.

Best wishes

The Daily Grind Re: Futema (39)

I am sorry for responding to this message, intended for Saad:

It will be good to write an article in response, but please make it more original and sound than the replies to ``Evolution 101``.

As they say, ``Hum jantay hain woh kiya likhain gay jawab mein!`` ...

cheers

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Venki (46)

``WHO wants to know?``

I believe that I have indeed seen who you describe as the `seer`. The difference between us is about the origin and nature of the `seer`. I thought that was what we had been talking about all along.

You`re right about meditation, it is developed over time, just like everything else. However, all of us face the peril of deluding ourselves.

-W

Evolution 101 Peeran-e-Peer, Aqa-e Naamdar, Muallam-ul Ullama, Shams-ul Ilm, Badr-ul Iman Hazrat s_owais:

I humbly affirm that you are the wisest man on this planet, in fact the wisest ever born and every word of what you say is absolutely correct. I also declare that I am an ignoramus, and after reading your erudite response, I am almost convinced to become your follower. Hell, had our Prophet not been the last of the prophets, you just by your wisdom, depth of analysis, calmness of purpose, intelligence, expansion of mind, and wisdom would have given me a very good chance of considering becoming your devoted follower.

It is not worthy of me to talk to a sage like yourself, because I am a mortal endowed with ordinary intelligence. You on the other hand are beyond intelligence because you already know the truth. What my feeble mind clamors to attain, you have already surpassed. In the presence of such luminescence, my very existence is to be questioned.

Whereas my feeble mind merely observes that science is a cumulative process which should not be interpreted as a religion (therefore the invalidity of your examples), you through your divine blessing have surpassed the cumulative knowledge of every other feeble minded fool like myself, and presented me directly with the glorious truth itself. All praise to you, my sage, my leader, my peer, my guide. Help me to attain the truth, remove all traces of logic and reason from my mind, make my mind clean as the day it was when I was born. And then teach me your ways of attaining the truth directly, without any effort, simply by believing in it.

While my feeble mind says that all religious logic, as presented by you, is metacircular, for it has no basis except itself, you set me straight by pointing out to me that the truth is what one believes in, regardless of how strange it seems.

Whereas I in all humility try in vain to say that in science nothing is belief, everything is to be suspected, so that one continually improves ones ideas, you show me the right path by pointing out that any knowledge that is not permanent is not knowledge. It is a mere illusion. The only knowledge that even qualifies its name is the divine knowledge, as known to you.

Since you are the absolute master of all learning, I humbly prostrate myself in front of your excellence, with the hope that your priceless pearls of wisdom will continue coming my way, or rather it should be OUR way. We are all poor deluded fools, who are bound by the confines of our feeble minds, LEAD us exalted sage to a new world of knowledge and wisdom. Raise us from our depths and show us the light of truth, for without you we will always be lost in the dark corridors of reason, logic, evidence and common sense.

From now on your devoted and humble servant.

Evolution 101 Re: s_owais (43)

Dear Mr. Owais,
You are entirely entitled to your opinions, however, I must note that your ideas regarding evolution/creation are not based on firm ground. Please let me give you some examples: I would ask you to calmly read my message before you respond. Thank you.

1) Within the context of a religious interpretation, your viewpoint is not shared by believers who consider evolution to be creation in a broader sense of the word. Some notable examples of such an interpretation coming from Qom --Chowk has an article by Nobel Laureate Abdus Salam, who always considered himself to be a believer, and interpreted evolution as creation in a broader sense.

The point of view that you wish to expound is extremely narrow minded, and you cannot rigorously defend it from the Book.

The process of creation of Adam in the Book MUST be interpreted metaphorically, otherwise it does not make any sense. The terms `clay` which after being dried possessed the quality of `acoustic resonance` cannot be supported by ordinary observation. By insisting on a literal interpretation you are unfortunately condemning yourself to a path you cannot (logically) defend.

2) Now let me come to your ``criticism`` of evolution as a process. You quote to me from an article in New York Times as your proof, whereas you conveniently choose to ignore the immense amount of scientific literature that has accumulated in favor of evolution. I hope you realize how ridiculous your argument seems to someone who has actually tried to understand the basics behind this theory or spent years looking at the basic premises of the theory verified in front of his eyes.

3) I should however go straight for the core of the issue. Let`s be honest about it: Evolution, as you view it, gives you a deep sense of insecurity (since it takes away one basic premise of faith). With life itself reduced to an explainable and ``mechanical`` level, there is nothing special about human beings. THAT is the reason you find it hard to accept evolution as a hypothesis, it has nothing at all to do with the details of the theory. The ``reasons`` that you bring out against evolution are a posteriori rationalizations which try to cover your sense of insecurity. Please take a minute off and really think about why does the idea of evolution bother you, and you will realize that what I am saying is correct.

Let me give you a simple example: every day, people routinely discuss theories about the structure and the origins of the universe, and these theories should be far more disturbing to a believer than evolution. After all, if a physicist shows that the whole universe comes from nothing more than a quantum fluctuation, ALL basis of religion disappears, including GOD. However, the opposition to these theories is much less because first, people do not really understand them in technical detail and second, its effect upon the place of the human being is not immediately realized. Evolution, unfortunately slaps one in the face, by clearly showing that animals and us are in fact related, and are products of a basic process that defines us.

It is very hard for people to unlearn what is learnt on the mother`s knee. THAT is why you refuse to even treat evolution as a viable scientific idea.

Remember, in science, ideas always evolve, but certain principles stay intact. The basic process of evolution is undeniable, however, fortunately, science is not a religion, and what is learnt today can be unlearnt without causing a sense of insecurity.

4) There is really no discrepancy between faith and science, provided one has enough intelligence and insight to realize it. By insisting on a narrow minded point of view, and vehemently insisting on it by providing glaringly stupid arguments, proponents of creationism have done a big disfavor to themselves and to the image of religions.

I invite you to think why it is acceptable to view evolution as a beautiful process of life without causing any negative impact on your religious sensibilities. Remember the words of the Quran, ``La shay Ka Mislay-hi`` ... ``There is nothing that is like Him``? So why should you insist on interpreting everything according to a limited point of view. Don`t fit something so big into a cramped space, you will distort it. Instead let your mind expand, and you will discover that there really is no conflict here.

best regards,
Wasiq

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Goga(44)

Terribly sorry for questioning, however since you do have an understanding of this result, and I do have some mathematical understanding, maybe you could demonstrate to me, at least semi-formally, what would be the limits of his theorems?

It`s okay, we can talk math, no one else is listening :) (Plus I must admit I have a secret fetish for metamathematics!) I would love to talk Godel grammar for once ...

best regards
Wasiq

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Venki

I will then just have to try this experiment again for myself. I have tried meditating, for many years of my life, but I have never been able to see the `seer`. But then you would say that I was not clearing my mind enough.

My question would be: How does one know that one is not concocting the `seer` from one`s imagination? I have personally concocted many things in some episodes of my life, and they are every bit as real as anything else. Godot asked a question, and a part of my reply to it was: ``If a lunatic in an asylum thinks that he is the king of the land, is he really so?`` I know that I have the capacity to be a lunatic, so how do I know whether the `seer` actually exists or is a figment of my overactive imagination?

I will defer the discussion of there being as `essence` of things to another time, since that topic is very vast, and my knowledge of it is very sketchy. But off the top of my head, the opinions of Heidegger and his camp on this may be interesting to you.

regards,
Wasiq

The Daily Grind Re: Saad (14)

The whole verse is (I do not know who the poet is though):

Taza khwahi dashtun gar dagh-hai seena-ra
Gahay gahy baaz-khwan ean daftar-e pareena-ra

If you want to refresh the stains of your heart
Occasionally go back to the memories of yesterday

My father used to quote to me a lot when I was growing up.

I really did enjoy reading your article. It was wonderfully written and very moving. Brought back a lot of memories for myself when I was growing up and going to school. In fact, after reading your recollections, I am inspired to go back and to conjure up all the memories that are buried somewhere and write them down.