Escape Velocity: Transcending Gravity and Mortality

 

Escape velocity is not just about breaking free from a planet’s pull; it’s about breaking free from limitations, fears, and the confines of mortality.

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI: Escaping Mortality

Summary: Gravity and mortality are ever-present forces shaping existence. While gravity pulls objects toward Earth, mortality incessantly draws life toward death. Just as escape velocity allows freedom from gravity, spiritual experiences offer liberation from mortality’s constraints. Through transcendence and deeper connections, we can momentarily escape life’s limitations, embracing the infinite and timeless.

Gravity and Mortality

In a previous discussion, I highlighted a striking similarity between gravity and mortality: both are ever-present forces, constantly exerting their influence. Unlike electric charges, which can repel or attract, gravity is always an attractive force, pulling masses toward the center of the Earth. Similarly, mortality inexorably draws every living being toward its own center: death. From the moment we are born, we embark on a journey that is inescapably oriented toward the ‘center of gravity’ of mortality. Though we may temporarily resist or evade their effects, both gravity and mortality assert their presence with unrelenting certainty.

Understanding the Pervasive Nature of These Forces

To grasp the ubiquitous nature of these forces, consider the trajectory of a stone thrown upward. Gravity allows the stone to ascend only temporarily; as the influence of the initial force dissipates, gravity takes over, pulling it back to Earth.

In much the same way, the force of birth propels us into life with a burst of vitality. Initially, the horizon of our possibilities expands, and our trajectory appears limitless. But as time progresses, the pull of mortality begins to manifest, gradually narrowing that horizon. Aging, with its attendant physical and cognitive declines, underscores the inevitability of this pull.

The Concept of Escape Velocity

Yet, the realm of gravity offers a loophole: escape velocity. At the Earth’s surface, this velocity is approximately 11.2 kilometers per second. A stone propelled with sufficient force to reach this velocity will overcome Earth’s gravitational pull and journey forever into the void of space.

This observation prompts a question: is there an equivalent “escape velocity” for mortality? Can human beings, seemingly forever bound by the constraints of aging and death, achieve an analogous state of liberation? Could we extend the similarity between gravity and mortality even further? Possibly so.

For mortality, the notion of ‘escape velocity’ may lie not in the physical realm but in the spiritual.

The Spiritual Experience as Escape Velocity

Spiritual experiences have offered individuals a glimpse of something beyond the limits of space and time. These moments of transcendence often reveal an infinite expanse, connecting us to a larger, timeless reality. Mystics, saints, and seekers from various traditions describe a state that transcends the ordinary constraints of life. In such experiences, the boundaries of the self dissolve, and the finite life merges with the infinite.

Consider the teachings of many spiritual traditions. In Hinduism, the concept of moksha represents liberation from the cycle of birth and death. Similarly, in Buddhism, the attainment of nirvana signifies the cessation of suffering and the transcendence of worldly existence. In Christianity, the promise of eternal life through faith offers believers an escape from the finality of mortal death. Across different traditions, the common thread is the belief that through spiritual practice and experience, one can break free from the gravitational pull of mortality.

The spiritual experience that liberates us from the constraints of mortality need not be tied to religious traditions alone. Such moments may arise from listening to music, experiencing a sudden insight during scientific research, or simply gazing at the infinite expanse of the night sky on a clear evening. Spiritual experiences, which momentarily propel us beyond the confines of mortality, can come in any shape, size, or guise. They could be embedded in a grain of salt.

Conclusion

Gravity and mortality are profound forces that shape our existence. While we cannot escape their influence entirely, the analogy of escape velocity offers a framework for understanding how we might transcend their constraints. Through spiritual growth and the pursuit of deeper connections with the infinite, we can break free from the fear of the center of mortality: death. In this way, we become like the stone that, propelled with enough force, escapes the Earth’s gravitational pull to journey endlessly into the cosmos.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Gravity and Mortality: Brothers in Arms

It is the push against the boundaries that is the essence of what it means to be human.

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI:  Gravity and Mortality

Summary: The parallels between gravity and mortality are striking. Both are ever present in our lives and are forces that cannot be escaped or ignored. They are universal, affecting all matter and all living beings, regardless of circumstance. Both are also attractive in nature, drawing toward a center — gravity toward the center of mass, mortality toward death.

Gravity and mortality! Who would have thought that they are brothers in arms.

Gravity and mortality are forces that shape our existence, each in their own profound way. While gravity governs the motion of planets and the fall of a stone, mortality effects the trajectory of human life. Both are ever-present forces that exert an incessant pull. Exploring their similarities just happens to be a fun exercise, and so, here we are.

Gravity

Gravity is an attractive force that acts between two masses. It is fundamental to the structure and order of the cosmos. Without gravity, the stars would not form, planets would not orbit, and life as we know it would not exist.

Gravity is the reason we remain bound to Earth’s surface, preventing us from drifting into the void of space. When a stone is thrown into the air, gravity slows its ascent, brings it to a halt at its highest point- the vertex, and then accelerates its descent back to the ground. The elegant parabola the stone traces embodies gravity’s pull.

Among the fundamental forces of nature, gravity is unique. It is always attractive, never repulsive, drawing masses together rather than pushing them apart like electric charges of same sign do. This universality gives gravity a special role in shaping the universe on a cosmic scale. From the clustering of galaxies to the tides of Earth’s oceans, gravity is a silent hand, always at work.

Mortality

Mortality is a constant presence that shapes the arc of human life. Its influence begins with birth.

At this starting point of our life, we are helpless and are entirely dependent on the care and goodwill of others. The horizon of our choices is very limited. Chew on a toy, claw on the leg of a chair.

The nurturing instincts that natural selection has embedded in us ensure that the fragile beginnings of life are protected and allowed to flourish. As we grow, our capabilities and choices expand. As we enter youth, life’s possibilities seem boundless.

However, just as a stone thrown into the air starts to slow down and reaches a vertex before descending, so too does life’s horizon of possibilities start to shrink as we grow older. Under the influence of mortality, with aging the horizon of our possibilities starts to narrow. The physical and mental vigor that once characterized youth begins to wane.

Life, in its later stages, becomes a process of consolidation and reflection, a return to simplicity of its beginning akin to the stone’s descent to the ground.

Parallels between Gravity and Mortality

The parallels between gravity and mortality are striking. Both are ever present in our lives and are forces that cannot be escaped or ignored. They are universal, affecting all matter and all living beings, regardless of circumstance. Both are also attractive in nature, drawing toward a center — gravity toward the center of mass, mortality toward death.

Gravity and mortality also evoke philosophical questions about existence.

Gravity binds us to the Earth, providing stability and a sense of place in the universe. Yet it also reminds us of our limitations, as we are unable to escape its pull without extraordinary effort.

Similarly, mortality gives life structure and urgency. The awareness of life’s finite nature compels us to seek meaning, to create, and to cherish the moments we have, qualities that also require extraordinary effort.

Both forces also inspire efforts to transcend their limits.

Humanity’s desire to overcome gravity has led to remarkable achievements in science and engineering, from the first flight to the exploration of outer space. Similarly, the desire to transcend mortality has driven advancements in religion, philosophy, medicine, the search for longevity, and the pursuit of legacies through art, knowledge, and culture.

These efforts reflect a fundamental aspect of human nature: the drive to push beyond the boundaries imposed by the forces that surround us. It is the push against the boundaries that is the essence of what it means to be human: to rise, to reach above, aspire to experience the limits of our potential, and ultimately, to return to our beginnings.

Gravity and Mortality are brothers in arms.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

On the Origins of the Wisdom of the Middle Path

 

Antonyms are found because life gives so many opposite options. A life well lived, selects a path that weaves in between antonyms.

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI: The Wisdom of Following the Middle Path

Summary: The concept of balance, often referred to as following the middle path, is regarded as timeless wisdom. It is said that to achieve happiness and contentment, one should embrace the middle path. But where did this idea originate? The notion of balance may trace its roots to the earliest stages of life, with the emergence of self-replicating molecules. Over time, the principle of “survival of the fittest” evolved into the understanding that thriving requires an optimal fit with the environment — a realization that now aligns with the wisdom of the middle path.

The boundary conditions

The Earth was immersed in an ambient environment with specific characteristics, fueled by energy from the Sun. Within this setting, a “chemical soup” existed where countless chemical reactions were constantly occurring and being tested.

There was no design or designer guiding these chemical reactions or the emergence of complexity. Instead, progress was driven by trial and error, naturally favoring characteristics that proved advantageous in harnessing the available energy.

The beginning

Certain chemical reactions within the soup led to the formation of self-replicating molecules that efficiently utilized available resources. These molecules gradually developed greater complexity and organization.

This marked the onset of a competitive “arms race” for consuming the energy present in the environment. The self-replicating chemistry that thrived under ambient conditions laid the foundation for the concept of survival of the fittest.

Among these, the chemistries that excelled in energy utilization and replication gained a significant advantage, allowing them to proliferate.

From these pioneering self-replicating chemistries emerged the first cells, which developed intricate chemical processes to harness energy and eventually enclosed themselves within protective membranes.

At the cellular level, there was no inherent design or deliberate path to follow. Instead, under the prevailing environmental conditions, the chemical reactions most efficient at acquiring resources naturally thrived and proliferated.

Had consciousness existed at that time, these successful chemical pathways — supporting self-replicating molecules — might have been labeled as having the “mojo” or the “right balance.” But, of course, in that primordial era, there was no one to make such observations.

The concept of following a path of balance, therefore, originates from the context of chemical reactions occurring within an environment that gave rise to self-replicating molecules.

Similarly, a unique, but a different, concept of balance, shaped by environmental conditions, can be seen in the chemistry that evolved near hydrothermal vents or in the depths of the ocean — each adapting to its surroundings with its own distinct equilibrium.

The middle

Earth’s ambient conditions remained relatively stable, allowing successful cellular life forms to continue relying on the same chemical reactions and maintaining their established notion of balance.

Over time, increasingly advanced organisms evolved, all adhering to this enduring principle of balance that was first established.

However, if ambient conditions had changed, the original balance might no longer have been advantageous, prompting the evolution of a new equilibrium. Just as balance was achieved once before, chemical reactions would have inevitably adapted to establish another suitable harmony.

The arrival of humans

Evolution, driven by the principle of survival of the fittest, continued, and humans eventually emerged.

Along this evolutionary journey, the capacity for consciousness also developed.

Consciousness — The state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings; a person’s awareness or perception of something; the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world (source Oxford Living Dictionary) — began to identify and name the elements that permeated the environment.

Consciousness also introduced a psychological dimension, presenting options such as attachment and detachment, independence and interconnectedness, between which choices had to be made. The right choices were those that improved the chances of survival and typically aligned with the middle path.

Religions emerged, each recognizing and emphasizing the virtue of following this middle path.

Conclusion

Thus, there is no inherent requirement for a first principle dictating that balance or the middle path must be followed.

From the human perspective, however, and without awareness of the underlying processes of evolution, the pervasiveness of balance often feels like the result of some fundamental principle.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Understanding the Prevalence of the Sweet Spot

Life’s sweetness lies in the balance: where effort meets ease, ambition meets contentment, and everything feels just right.

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI: Life and Need for Balance

Summary: The Goldilocks Principle highlights the value of balance and moderation for optimal outcomes. Found in nature, behavior, and systems, it emphasizes avoiding extremes. Its pervasiveness may stem from observational biases, as systems in balance are more likely to endure, or from physical laws, such as thermodynamic equilibrium or competing forces in ecosystems. While not inherently dictated by first principles, the principle’s ubiquity underscores its significance in understanding and navigating the world around us.

The Goldilocks Principle

There is the old folk tale of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Goldilocks, a curious little girl, wanders into the forest and stumbles upon a house belonging to three bears: Papa Bear, Mama Bear, and Baby Bear. The bears are not home when Goldilocks enters. Inside the house, Goldilocks explores and tests three sets of items that belong to the bears — the porridge, the chairs, and the bed. In the end Goldilocks chooses the porridge with the temperature that is just right, sits in the chair that feels just right, and falls asleep in the bed that has the right amount of firmness.

The moral of the story is about making choices in life that are ‘just right.’ The tale conveys the merit of moderation and the idea of finding a balance in various aspects of life to be successful and thrive. Extremes, although may feel good in the short term, have long term consequences that are sub-optimal. But alas, readily discounting the future and for the sake of immediate gratification, extremes are what we so readily fall prey to.

The Ubiquitousness of the Goldilocks Principle

How pervasive is the reach of the Goldilocks Principle? Even though we may not connect the dots and realize, the Goldilocks Principle is evident in many aspects of nature, including our behavior. Nearly everything you and I do requires balance to thrive. Eat too much and we become fat and are prone to many health issues. Eating too little and its consequences have been seen in disturbing pictures of fellow humans surviving in war zones or drought-stricken regions. Similarly, excessive or insufficient exercise or sleep negatively affects our well-being. In the end it is the practice of moderation — finding a balance between extremes — that enhances our chances (but no guarantees though) of achieving a longer, healthier life.

Or consider some tasks of learning a new skill or a new subject matter where the notion of balance helps us keep interested and keep along the path of learning. If the tasks given to us as part of learning are too easy, we lose interest; if they are too difficult, we feel discouraged and are tempted to give up. A sustained interest in learning occurs when the level of the challenge of tasks presented as part of learning fall in the middle of being too easy or too hard, i.e., when they are engaging enough to keep us motivated while not making us repeatedly fail and leaving us discouraged and deflated.

For one more example, we turn to macroeconomics, where policymakers strive to balance unemployment and inflation. Low unemployment increases labor demand, driving up wages and spending, which can lead to inflation. On the other hand, high unemployment often suppresses wage growth and spending, keeping inflation low or even causing deflation.

And so, the Goldilocks Principle and the need for balance are pervasive in nature and across all aspects of human activity and perception. All we need to do is to recall the Goldilocks Principle when we see positive outcomes of following the middle way.

Alternate Renditions of the Goldilocks Principle — The Sweet Spot and the U-Shaped Curve

The Goldilocks principle also has related concepts. The graphical representation of the Goldilocks Principle is often a U-shaped or inverted U-shaped curve.

Consider graphing the relationship between exercise and its benefits to health. Plot the intensity of exercise on the x-axis and health benefits on the y-axis. At either extreme — too little or too much exercise — health benefits are minimal. However, at a moderate intensity of exercise falling in between the two extremes, health benefits are maximized, forming an inverted U-shaped curve on the graph.

Then there is also the concept of the ‘sweet spot.’ On the U-shaped or inverted U-shaped curve, the lowest or highest point represents the sweet spot — where level of input (exercise) maximizes the output (health). Moving the input away from the sweet spot only results in sub-optimal outcomes.

And so, while the Goldilocks Principle describes the need for balance, U-shaped curves often illustrate the same principle graphically, while the sweet spot identifies point where balance is achieved.

Why the Goldilocks Principle?

Given its pervasiveness, one might ask: why Goldilocks Principle? Is the preference for balance rooted in some first principle dictating that it shall be so? Could it be a physical inevitability for the systems embedded in a certain environment? Could it simply be an outcome of an observational bias (or an anthropic outcome) that systems in balance last longer, and therefore, have a stronger imprint on our consciousness. The configurations trying to flirt with extremes implode and are not around to draw our attention.

Goldilocks Principle as an Observational Bias

So, which of the explanations for the pervasiveness is correct? The answer, as often the case– it depends.

Perhaps in some cases, systems in which the balance is perceived as the norm are just a reflection of observational bias, i.e., it is when the path that weavs in between extremes is taken the outcome is a stable configuration. The resulting configuration, and the interactions that allow it to be so, are tagged as the conditions of ‘balance.’

Consider natural selection: as wheels of natural selection turn, various options are tried and tested, and only those best suited to the prevailing environmental conditions thrive. These “winners” are often perceived as the embodiment of following the path of balance between extremes. Furthermore, because these successful systems surround us, we naturally ponder the reasons for their existence.

A key point to note, however, is that the interactions that get tagged as ‘balance’ are not an outcome of an intelligent design but are inferred post facto in that whatever configuration happens to survive is credited to have the property of balance.

May be in larger scheme of things, there is no inherent reason for anything in the universe. It may simply be that our existence — and our consciousness that allows us to ask interesting questions — imbues what is out there with a sense of significance and with an outcome of an intelligent design.

Towards that, it does not help that we humans also possess a relentless curiosity, a drive to find reasons for everything. While this desire for explanation has fueled tremendous advances in our understanding of nature, it has also given rise to fantastical constructs such as religion or palmistry.

Goldilocks Principle as an outcome of physical laws

In some cases, the perceived existence of the Goldilocks Principle may simply result from underlying physical laws.

In the universe, fundamental laws and constraints shape the behavior of systems. For instance, the laws of thermodynamics dictate that when two objects at different temperatures come into contact, they exchange energy until they reach an equilibrium — state of balance.

This drive toward equilibrium can be understood at the molecular level. The temperature of an object corresponds to the agitation of its molecules. In a warmer object, the molecules are more agitated and transfer their motion energy to the less agitated molecules of a cooler object. This energy transfer continues until the molecules in both objects reach the same level of agitation — or, depending on your perspective, the same level of calmness. The tendency to achieve equilibrium is not the result of a grand design but rather an inevitable outcome of thermodynamic and dynamic constraints.

Some systems are governed by competing forces, such as the predator-prey dynamics in an ecosystem. In these, energy originates from vegetation, which herbivorous animals consume to survive. However, the availability of vegetation is limited, naturally constraining the population of herbivores. Adding to the complexity, carnivorous animals rely on herbivores as their energy source.

The dynamics among the three components, maintained by feedback loops, forms a delicate balance where vegetation supports herbivores, which in turn sustains carnivores. For the ecosystem to remain stable, neither the population of herbivores nor carnivores can grow or decline unchecked. This intricate interplay, the balance that ensues, ensures the continued well-being of the ecosystem.

Summary

We seem to be surrounded by systems that maintain some form of balance to survive and thrive. From an early age, we are taught that physical, psychological, and financial well-being often depends on following a path of moderation — avoiding extremes that may appear beneficial in the short term but rarely prove sustainable in the long run.

Some examples of equilibrium arise naturally, governed by the immutable laws of physics, while others emerge from competing forces finding a stable state to ensure their survival. Our understanding of balance is also shaped by an observational or anthropic bias: systems that follow a middle path are the ones that endure, and their ubiquity invites curiosity about whether an underlying principle compels systems to settle into balance.

While the necessity for balance may not be dictated by the first principles, its pervasive presence makes it a compelling possibility.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Eternal Bodies, Finite Minds, and the Notion of Reincarnation

 

I did not believe in reincarnation in my past life, and I still don’t — Woody Allen

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: Imagine a world where our bodies are immortal, but our brains have finite capacity. In this scenario, life would become a cycle of forgetting and re-learning, much like reincarnation but without the retention of past memories. With cognitive limits in place, perpetual rediscovery could ensure that life, despite its lack of temporal boundaries, remains dynamic and engaging rather than becoming a tale of boredom.

Immortality

It is the opposite of the finiteness of our existence — a finiteness that, once encountered and internalized, has the potential to shake our comfortable, often unexamined lives. The realization of our finiteness has led to many profound (and mundane) explorations and inventions throughout human history, including religion, various constructs of the afterlife, reincarnation, fortune telling, and dreams of finding the fountain of youth.

The notion of immortality in this discussion focuses on the physical body. It does not concern the continuation of our soul or self in any form; these concepts may simply be constructs to soften the harsh reality of our finiteness.

Can We Become Immortal?

The immortality of the physical self may not be such a far-fetched idea. With medical and technological advancements, most of our body parts might become replaceable. The possibility of 3D-printed body parts may not remain science fiction for much longer. Just as we walk into an auto parts store to buy a replacement for a worn-out windshield wiper, imagine one day walking into a human body shop, providing the required genetic information, and walking out with a new thumb to replace the one feeling twinges of arthritis.

There is, however, a part of our existence — the brain — that has unique limitations. Even if it could be considered physically immortal, its functional capacity has limits.

What About the Brain?

The brain is always working, constantly communicating with different parts of the body to keep us alive. It stores our memories, experiences, and everything we have learned. For humans, it is the seat of our consciousness. With its neurons and the connections between them, the brain is the organ that creates the self. Ultimately, however, the brain’s capacity for information is finite.

For all the intricate functions it performs, the brain has high energy requirements. This small, three-pound organ consumes 20% of the body’s energy. One could imagine that adding or augmenting the brain’s capacity and functionality would only increase its energy demands. Another unique aspect of the brain is that unlike other bodily organs, the brain — and what resides and occurs within it — uniquely defines who we are.

Following this chain of thought, a plausible scenario is that while the physical parts of the self could be immortal, the brain’s capacity and functions might remain limited.

A Counterfactual World

Let us indulge in imagining a world where our physical bodies are immortal, but our brains have finite capacity.

In such a world, our capacity to retain past experiences and memories would be limited. As we accumulate memories and knowledge, we would eventually reach a point where new information could only be retained at the expense of letting some go. This would lead to a cyclical pattern of learning and forgetting, somewhat akin to the notion of reincarnation. We live, accumulate memories that help define the self, die, and when we are reborn, nothing is remembered, and we start from scratch to build a new self.

The cycle of learning, forgetting, and relearning might seem tedious, but it has a silver lining. Even with immortality, we would not face eternal boredom or a lack of novelty. Despite the repetition, the human capacity for novelty and pleasure would persist. Each cycle would allow us to rediscover activities and experiences, deriving joy from them as if they were new. This perpetual rediscovery could sustain our engagement with life, even as our cognitive limits constrain our ability to retain all our experiences.

Sounds Like We are Talking About Reincarnation

Functionally, this existence would mirror reincarnation, with each cycle offering a fresh perspective unburdened by the weight of past memories. The finite nature of our cognitive capacity would necessitate a continuous renewal of our experiences, ensuring that life remains dynamic and engaging along with our immortal bodies.

In conclusion, while physical immortality with a finite brain capacity presents challenges, it also offers a unique form of existence where the joy of discovery and the novelty of experiences can perpetually renew our engagement with life.

The same is true for our finite existence — it is the joy of learning, discovery, and novel experiences that help us age gracefully and ensure a sense of vitality and interest. The challenge, of course, is to balance our desire to thrive with our awareness of mortality, without letting the latter become overwhelming.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Would Immortality be a Cure for the Existential Crisis?

 

I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying — Woody Allen

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI: Bored

Summary: This blog post delves into the concept of existential crisis, examining how our awareness of mortality shapes our search for meaning. It explores a counterfactual world where immortality might seem like a solution, only to reveal that existential angst could persist in different forms. The discussion highlights the complexities of finding an optimal lifespan that balances health, novelty, and purpose and minimizes existential crisis.

The Existential Crisis

All seems to be going well, or at least it appears so. Mornings come, hours of the day are spent engaged in various activities, and by 10 pm, it’s time for bed again. The cycle repeats over and over. Indeed, it all seems to be going well, and then…

…one afternoon on a brilliant September day, sitting outside a café, enjoying a glass of crisp Sauvignon Blanc and watching people pass by, for a moment, the usual sum of two and two does not add up to four. There is a momentary flutter in the fabric of space and time, a glimpse of us watching ourselves from high above, and a sense of unease that the us below is a complete stranger. Does that stranger have a narrative of where he has been, where he is, or where he is heading? Or is the narrative just an incoherent story of random steps that add up to zero? That, after all, is the hallmark of random walk.

It is only when we take a break from the motions of living, sit back, and try to put the meanderings of our footprints in the sand into a coherent story over a time span longer than merely a day, a month, or even years, that the question of a larger narrative strikes. Those are the moments when the alienation of an existential crisis emerges.

The concept of an existential crisis is deeply rooted in human experience, often arising from the awareness of mortality and the search for meaning of our finite existence. Perhaps it is the price we pay for the gift of consciousness. The luxury of consciousness did not turn out to be a free lunch.

Given that an oft-cited cause of existential crisis is our awareness of mortality, wouldn’t it be interesting to consider a counterfactual world where we were immortal? Would we then be free from the ailment of existential crisis (if I can call it an ailment)? Starting with the role mortality plays in sustaining existential crisis, let us explore that counterfactual world of immortality.

Existential Crisis and Mortality

In mortal life, the finite nature of existence shapes much of human experience. The awareness of death brings several existential concerns to the forefront. The inability to discern a coherent narrative about being born one day and dying later, along with trying to attach meaning to everything we do in between, can be disorienting. This cognitive dissonance leads to significant unease, anxiety, and fear. With a limited lifespan, we frequently wonder and strive to find purpose and meaning in our lives.

The question about the meaning of our existence may lay dormant most of the time, only to awaken when jolted by life transitions — such as the death of a loved one, the realization of our aging and the magnified reality of mortality, or transitioning from a long career into retirement, which can upend many facets of our identity. Such events are rife with the dangers of awakening the sleeping giant of an existential crisis.

The realization of life’s temporariness can lead to feelings of insignificance and dread, prompting philosophical and spiritual explorations. This might involve developing narratives like the notion of an afterlife or a universal connectedness, where our present physical form, although dispersed, continues as part of something else, all in attempts to soothe our unease.

The awareness of life’s finiteness can also inspire a desire to leave a lasting impact or legacy, driving many of us to achieve accomplishments, create, and contribute to society. The cure may also lie in developing a portfolio of engagements that align with what we value.

What would happen if we were immortal? In such a counterfactual world, would we be free from the angst of an existential crisis? Let us imagine life in such a world.

Existential Crisis and Immortality

Imagine living in a world where we are immortal. Without getting entangled in the logistical issues such a world might present, let us focus on what might happen to our feelings of existential angst.

With the fear of death no longer haunting us, the questions about comprehending the grand sum of the meanings of our engagements should no longer exist. It is only within the finite limits of a beginning and an end that questions like “Why am I here?” and “What is the meaning of coming into existence one day and then dying at a later time?” are magnified. These questions are further complicated by the lack of assurance that the self we are aware of will continue to exist in some form beyond our death. With those edgy questions gone, it seems like such a world would be a kiss of death to the existential crisis.

Or would it?

If you were to zoom in and look closely at humans in that world, you might notice a different kind of existential angst etched in the furrows of their brows. The inhabitants of that world might grapple with a sense of eternal boredom. With endless time, the challenge might shift to finding ways to stay engaged and avoid monotony over an infinite lifespan. Without the pressure of a finite life, finding a sustained sense of purpose and motivation could become a different flavor of existential angst.

Over an eternal life, maintaining a coherent sense of self and identity could become challenging. As experiences and memories (particularly the negative ones) accumulate indefinitely, their weight might become burdensome. Observing the humans in that counterfactual world, life does not seem as rosy as we might have imagined.

Is There a Sweet Spot?

It is beginning to sound like there is no escape from the existential crisis, and it may come in different flavors. If we are mortal, there is the struggle to find meaning in finite existence. If we are immortal, the problem may then be overcoming boredom and lethargy, not knowing what to do with infinite time. The desire for novelty and engaging in new activities urges us to get out of bed and look forward to tomorrow. Take that away, and suddenly, an immortal life starts to sound drab. Perhaps there is a sweet spot of longevity between mortal and immortal life where the feeling of existential crisis would reach a minimum.

What could that optimal lifespan be? Perhaps the answer lies in considering several dimensions — the interplay between healthspan and lifespan, the novelty of experiences, the financial well-being. Balancing these dimensions involves trade-offs and personal preferences. In essence, an optimal lifespan may be a multidimensional optimization problem.

Like other aspects of life, the acuity of existential crisis in the context of lifespan may follow a U-shaped curve. If the benefits of sleep, food intake, stress levels, and exercise hours often follow a U-shaped relationship, why not a similar relationship between the length of lifespan and the level of existential crisis?

In summary, an immortal life may not be a cure for the existential crisis that consciousness brings.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Life Without Randomness: An Exploration In a Counterfactual World

 

In life, as in a game of poker, the cards are dealt randomly, but how you play them is not random — Unknown

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: Imagine a world devoid of randomness, where the future holds no uncertainties. Would such a place be monotonous and dull? Without randomness and with a complete understanding of causality, would we have missed the opportunity to build the rich superstructures of religious and philosophical traditions?

I get fooled by a 30% chance for rain

As I walk home during my evening stroll, I nervously eye the ominous dark clouds gathering in the sky. The morning forecast had predicted a 30% chance of rain after 3 pm, but I wasn’t sure how to interpret that number and decide whether to bring an umbrella.

I don’t quite know at what probability threshold to carry an umbrella. Or perhaps, at the risk of looking like an overcautious old fart, I should just carry an umbrella as a mitigation strategy and forget about looking up at the chance of rain all together. That would be a workable strategy to circumvent future outcomes that are probabilistic. This strategy, however, is not always feasible, for you see, carrying an umbrella (if you have one), does not cost anything extra. Bur mitigating strategies and accompanying actions can cost an arm and a leg.

Randomness Is Prevalent

In the afternoon, whether it will rain or not is uncertain because its occurrence depends on numerous local and non-local factors in space and time, making it beyond comprehension. Given infinite resources, by tracking every butterfly’s wing flap and every molecule’s motion, we might narrow down the cone of future uncertainty. But is it worth the time and effort?

Without understanding the causality that takes water molecules from their morning meanderings in the air to coalescing into rain clouds by 4 pm over my head, it’s easier to lump the countless hidden factors shaping the future into a convenient concept called the Randomness.

All would be well if the afternoon rain was the only consequence of randomness, a minor hiccup, but the consequences of randomness do not stop there. Everything about the future is uncertain and, in one way or another, attributable to the complexity of invisible forces shaping outcomes that get lumped into the mysterious dark force of randomness.

Randomness Is Stress

The uncertainty about the future is not a good feeling to have. We are always trying to narrow the cone of uncertainty and wishing that we can have a peek into the future. Would it not be wonderful to know what the stock market was going to be one year from now? Knowing that single number be such a huge advantage for our well-being (of course, only if I am the privileged one and no one else knew about it).

Knowing the future, and thereby, minimizing the consequences of randomness has obvious evolutionary advantage to it. It is no wonder we are wired to favor certainty because is good for the notion of the survival of the fittest. Lack of uncertainty is good for keeping stress at bay.

But let us assume that humanity does get its desire. What would be counterfactual world without randomness be like?

A Counterfactual World Without Randomness

Imagine a world where randomness does not exist, where every event and outcome is predetermined by where you start from and a set of immutable laws that propagate them forward. In this counterfactual world, the future is mostly deterministic, and the concept of chance is nothing more than a relic of our imagination. Would such a world be boring and monochromatic, or would it be a realm of unparalleled clarity and understanding. Would it be enjoyable?

In a deterministic universe, every action and reaction follows a predictable path. The state of the universe at any given moment would be an inevitable result of its previous state, governed by unchanging laws of nature.

The Appeal of Clarity

One of the most compelling aspects of a deterministic world is the clarity it offers. Without randomness, the universe operates like a well-oiled machine, where every cog and wheel has a defined purpose and function. This predictability could lead to a deeper understanding of the natural world, as scientists and philosophers could trace every event back to its origin with precision. The principle of sufficient reason, famously articulated by Leibniz, would reign supreme: everything would have an explanation.

In such a world, the mysteries that currently baffle us — what is the chance we exist today, where are we going, what would be the moment of my death — could be unraveled with certainty. This clarity could foster a sense of security and confidence, knowing that the universe is not subject to the whims of chance. Before closing my eyes and calling it a day, I would know for certain that I will wake up tomorrow.

The Risk of Boredom and Monotony

However, the absence of randomness might also strip the world of its vibrancy. Randomness introduces variability and novelty, making life unpredictable and exciting. Without it, every event would be a foregone conclusion, potentially leading to a sense of monotony. The thrill of discovery, the excitement of the unknown, and the joy of serendipitous moments, the joy of occasionally drenched my summer rain, would be lost.

Moreover, human creativity and innovation often thrive on randomness. The unexpected connections and spontaneous ideas that drive artistic and scientific breakthroughs might be stifled in a deterministic world. The richness of human experience, characterized by its unpredictability and diversity, could be diminished.

So, what would we prefer? A state of clarity or a falling into the risk of boredom and monotony. Or perhaps, there is a sweet spot in between with just the right amount of randomness and uncertainty about the future that will dampen the stressful aspects of uncertainty while keeping the interesting parts.

Optimal Level of Randomness

Could there be just the right amount of randomness to keep the anticipation of future feeling us engaged but not too much to get us stressed. If would be like the notion of right amounts of spice in a dish or the pleasure of enjoying a balanced wine.

The balance between clarity and monotony in a deterministic world would, however, be deeply individualistic. Each person might experience and interpret this balance differently, shaped by their unique preferences, values, and outlook on life.

For some, the predictability and order of a deterministic universe could be a source of comfort and satisfaction. These individuals might find joy in the clarity and certainty that such a world offers, appreciating the ability to understand and anticipate every aspect of their existence. The absence of randomness could provide a sense of control and stability, aligning with their desire for a structured and comprehensible reality.

On the other hand, others might feel constrained by the lack of spontaneity and novelty. For these individuals, the excitement of the unknown and the thrill of unexpected discoveries are essential components of a fulfilling life. The predictability of a deterministic world could seem monotonous and stifling, depriving them of the serendipitous moments and creative sparks that make life vibrant and dynamic.

Ultimately, the perception of a world without randomness would vary from person to person. Some might embrace the clarity and order it brings, while others might yearn for the unpredictability and chaos that add color to their lives. This individualistic balance highlights the diverse ways in which people find meaning and satisfaction in their experiences, underscoring the rich tapestry of human existence.

How do you think you would perceive a deterministic world? Would you lean towards appreciating its clarity or the excitement of randomness?

For me, oh well. I would love to know where the S&P 500 will be a year from now, but I will not mind getting drenched in a summer deluge just because the forecast said 30% chance of rain and I decided not to being the umbrella. So much for wishful thinking though.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

I attribute therefore I am

 

I prefer to make up my own quotes and attribute them to very smart people, so that I can use them to win arguments — Albert Einstein

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: Attribution is a science that seeks to explain an observable phenomenon by something that may be responsible for it. It attempts to do so by dividing the world in two — a world of observable that is being influenced and a world that is the influencer. Attribution gets progressively challenging as the role of probability in shaping the observable increases.

Attribution refers to the process of identifying the factors responsible for an observed phenomenon. Take the example of epidemiology.

In epidemiology, attribution is the process of determining the cause(s) of a health outcome or disease. This involves identifying and quantifying the factors that contribute to the occurrence of a disease or health condition within a population. For example, attributing lung cancer (the observable phenomenon) to smoking (the cause).

In general, a single factor may not be able to explain the totality of the observable. In such cases, the notion of attributable fraction is used to measure the part of the observable phenomenon that can be attributed to various causes.

In another example, the concept of attribution is of significant interest in the context of weather and climate, where it is used to discern the causes of observed climatic variations that include societally and economically devastating extreme events. The approach of attribution in climate science relies on dissecting the totality of the Earth System into an internal component that is being influenced by the external component (the influencer).

For instance, scientists use attribution analysis to assess how much human-induced changes in the atmospheric constituents (e.g., carbon dioxide, ozone etc., treated as an external forcing, the influencer) contribute to the changes in intensity and frequency of extreme weather events like hurricanes, heatwaves, and floods (the phenomenon).

The approach for attribution involves comparing observed data with model simulations that are done with and without the inclusion of human induced changes, thereby isolating the impact of human influence.

The separation of the Earth System between internal and external is arbitrary. One can put variations in Earth’s atmosphere and ocean in the box tagged internal and changes in the atmospheric constituents in the box tagged as external. One can then treat what is in the external box as a known forcing (i.e., not worry about causality of its origin) and attempt to quantify to what extent variations in the internal box are linked to the former.

One can also put Earth’s atmosphere only in the box that is tagged internal and put variations in the ocean and atmospheric constituent in the box tagged external. In this paradigm, the exercise of attribution is an attempt to explain variations in the atmosphere when variations in the ocean and atmospheric constituents both are prescribed.

The boundary between what components in the Earth System get tagged as internal and what get tagged as external is an artificial construct and depends on the question one is posing. The question — What changes in the frequency of climate extremes is due to anthropogenic causes — slices the Earth System into influencer and influencee (which is not a word in in the English lexicon but so what) in one way. Asking the question — what changes in the frequency of climate extremes is due to anthropogenic causes during an El Niño — requires a different strategy for slicing the Earth System.

If you are not a climate scientist, you will think this discussion about climate attribution is not terribly interesting. There are, however, aspects of attribution that transcend the specifics of a single area of interest.

The necessity for the science of attribution stems from the fundamental role of randomness in how the world operates. The future of stocks is uncertain, knowing if it is going to rain two weeks from now starts to resemble flip of a coin. Life is known for throwing curve balls and hence we are advised to “Hope for the best, prepared for the worst, and unsurprised by anything in between.” Without the role of randomness, there would not be a need for the science of attribution.

The very existence of attribution science underscores the significant role of randomness. The greater the effort required to identify causes, the more pronounced the influence of randomness in the system. One could even envision the effort needed to find causality and the role of randomness as complementary variables — similar to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle — in that their magnitudes are inversely proportional.

On that note would the world not be a boring place if randomness does not have a role in shaping our future? In the absence of randomness and with the ability to understand the causality of it all, we would have missed out constructing superstructures of religious and philosophical traditions. The world would have been a boring monochromatic place.

Humans have an innate desire for certainty and understanding, which stems from our need to predict and control our environment to enhance our success for survival and reproduction. Uncertainty can lead to anxiety, discomfort, and stress, because it challenges our ability to make informed decisions and anticipate future events. This aversion to uncertainty makes the science of attribution particularly attractive and important.

The science of attribution is also synonymous with prediction. If we can attribute an observable phenomenon to an external cause, and if that cause can be anticipated ahead of time, we can predict its consequences. For example, in epidemiology, if we can attribute an outbreak of a disease to a specific pathogen and understand the conditions that lead to its development and spread, and subsequently monitor it, we can predict future outbreaks. This allows public health officials to implement preventive measures, such as vaccinations or quarantine protocols, to mitigate the impact of the disease.

Attribution science also has significant ethical and policy implications. Attributing extreme weather events to climate change can influence public policy, disaster preparedness, societal practices, and international agreements on climate action. It can also affect legal decisions, such as liability for damages caused by climate-related events.

In the grand tapestry of our desire for understanding, attribution serves as the thread that weaves together the intricate patterns of cause and effect, the influencer and the influencee. It attempts to transform the chaos of randomness into a coherent narrative, allowing us to predict, adapt, and thrive. Whether deciphering the mysteries of climate change, unraveling the complexities of disease outbreaks, the science of attribution empowers us to see beyond the surface. It is a testament to our innate curiosity and relentless pursuit of knowledge, bridging the gap between uncertainty and insight. As we continue to refine our tools and expand our understanding, attribution will remain a cornerstone of our quest to make sense of the world and lead us to a better future.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Understanding the Basics of Natural Selection Through Tetris

 The essence of life is statistical improbability on a colossal scale — Richard Dawkins

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: The game of Tetris serves as a simplified analogy for understanding the mechanisms of evolution. Tetris and natural selection bear similarities like randomness, selection, and adaptation.

The Evolutionary Game of Tetris

At some point in your life, you may have played Tetris. If not, then you may have watched someone else playing, sitting next to you while waiting for whatever you two were waiting for. Tetris is a game that, on the surface, seems simple: various shapes, known as Tetriminos, fall from the top of the screen, and the player must rotate and position them to create complete lines, which then disappear. However, beneath this simplicity lies an interesting parallel to the process of evolution by natural selection.

Tetris: A Game of Randomness and Fit

Tetris is a game where random shapes are thrown at the player, and only those that fit into the existing structure are useful. Each falling Tetrimino represents a random guess, and the player’s task is to find the best possible fit for it within the current configuration. The goal is to create complete lines, which can be seen as a metaphor for achieving a stable and functional state.

Natural Selection: The Ultimate Game of Fit

Natural selection operates on a similar principle. In nature, random genetic mutations occur within organisms. These mutations are akin to the random Tetriminos in Tetris. Just as in Tetris, where only the pieces that fit well into the existing structure are beneficial, in natural selection, only the genetic variations that enhance an organism’s fitness (in the backdrop of the current state of the environment) are likely to be passed on to future generations. Over time, this process leads to the evolution of species, with traits that are well-suited to their environments becoming more common.

Commonalities Between Tetris and Natural Selection

• Randomness: Both Tetris and natural selection involve an element of randomness. In Tetris, the shapes of Tetriminos are random (although selected from a limited pool). In natural selection, genetic mutations also occur randomly.
• Selection: In both processes, there is a selection mechanism. In Tetris, the player selects the best plays for each shape to fit. In natural selection, the environment “selects” the random mutations that are most advantageous for the survival and reproduction of the organism.

Differences Between Tetris and Natural Selection

• Agency: In Tetris, the player actively makes decisions about where to place each shape. In natural selection, there is no conscious decision-making; the process is driven by the interplay between environmental pressures and random mutations.
• Time Scale: Tetris games are fast-paced, with decisions made in seconds. Natural selection operates over much longer time scales, often spanning generations.
• End Goal: The goal in Tetris is to clear completed lines and achieve a high score. In natural selection, there is no specific end goal; the process is a trajectory of evolution that can go in any direction over time, potentially stopping, bifurcating, or merging.

Conclusion

While Tetris and natural selection operate in vastly different contexts, they share intriguing similarities in their reliance on randomness and selection. Tetris provides a simplified, game-based analogy for the complex and ongoing process of evolution by natural selection.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Science, Engineering, and Evolution

 

Details may vary (and figuring those out is more of an engineering problem) but some basic, or self-evident facts, lead to inevitable outcomes that shape a vast range of downstream consequences.

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: Starting with a couple of basic facts, emrgence of the principle of survival of the fittest is inevitable. The various nuances of how survival of the fittest exactly operates, and has resulted in self-replicating molecules evolving to become complex forms like you and me, however, are still being investigated. Survival of the fittest is a fundamental understanding of the workings of nature; the rest (i.e., the exact trajectory of evolution) are practical solutions that the principle of survival of the fittest, operating within the constraints of the environment, finds.

Consider a car. I have a notion of what a car is. At the mention of the word “car,” the image that comes to mind is a metallic box that sits on four wheels. The box has a certain shape; it is longer than it is wider. On two sides of the box, there are doors that can open and close, allowing me to sit behind a steering wheel to get me from here to there.

Beyond the general notions people have about cars, what is under the hood differs from one car to another. Differences also exist in the details of the exterior. The notion of a car could be thought of as the guiding principle (or the science) of a car, while the details represent engineering.

The understanding of the diversity of forms and phenomena of things in the universe works along the same lines. There are some underlying notions that explain a vast majority of general features among individual objects, while specifics for each differ.

This combination of science and engineering works something like the following: The consequences of some simple, self-evident facts result in guiding principles. These guiding principles may, in fact, be inevitable outcomes of a few self-evident facts and interactions among them. Once there, these principles become powerful tools for understanding a wide range of solutions that can emerge. At a granular level, the specifics of solutions differ (like details differ under the hood of a car), but their fundamental workings can be understood by a few guiding principles.

A specific example will help drive this point home.

Limitation of resources is a basic and self-evident fact. The Sun is the provider of energy on the surface of the Earth. Vast as that energy source may be, it is a resource that is still limited and either has to be shared or competed for.

Now let us assume that, for whatever reason, some nascent forms of biology (e.g., self-replicating molecules) were to emerge on the surface of the Earth. Without worrying about the nuances of what the definition of biology may be, a sensible fact to differentiate it from a rock would be that biology has the innate drive to survive and reproduce, a process that requires energy.

When these two self-evident facts are brought together, the inevitable consequence is the emergence of the principle of survival of the fittest. In the quest to survive and reproduce, the traits that facilitate procuring a bigger share of energy get favored and proliferate in future generations, and the nascent forms of biology evolve along a trajectory.

One can argue about the details as to what the definitions of biology may be, or why traits among the members of a class of biological forms have to differ, but given the facts that (a) resources are constrained, and (b) the prime directive of biology is to survive and reproduce (a process that requires energy), the emergence of the principle of survival of the fittest is an inevitability. Once there, then working in the environment it operates it guides the specifics of evolution.

Following the same argument and guided by the principle of survival of the fittest, since biology also needs to be aware of its environment, senses emerge. Senses are the solutions biology has engineered to know the state of the environment. The exact details depend on the environment that biology is in and what solutions the principle of the survival of the fittest can produce.

To seek energy, biology needs to know where plentiful sources of energy are. To do that, it has to know about its surroundings. It just happens that there are various forms of carriers of information — light, sound, molecules — that permeate the environment and encapsulate some details about its state. If a biology comes to possess a means to sense its surroundings, having that capability will make it better at getting a larger share of energy and in its quest for survival and reproduction.

Starting from a couple of self-evident facts and the inevitability of the principle of survival of the fittest that followed, here I am with a collection of senses that are finely tuned to see, hear, smell, taste, and feel the surroundings in which I exist. Beyond serving their primary purpose, with the evolution of consciousness, these senses now let me also appreciate other pleasures in life.

The subtle beauty of the feat of engineering achieved by the principle of the survival of the fittest is that it does not require a conscious or predetermined design. Sensing the environment in which it operates, it tailors the appropriate solutions.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.