Logically Irrational

Fiction Lag - Part III

2011-06-08T05:42:00.000-07:00

Year of the Garuda
Kireeti, Lakshadweepa

Sanity, a terrible gift, thought Vrata. He sat hidden in a thick bushy shrub, watching a cheetah chase down its prey, a gazelle. It was his daily ritual, to watch wildlife go about its rituals. To feel the nature around him like he felt his own body, detecting every motion, appreciating every scent, rejoicing every sight. He was one with the forest and the wilderness was, in turn, one with him. He breathed in the humid, fresh westerly winds of the spring season as he watched.

If only I didn't feel this guilt weighing me down. And this love, and the hatred, he mused. To slay another like him had always filled him with a sense of grief. Yet, he had done it numerous times. Men had often tried to break down the world he shared with the lives he could sense - every plant, tree, bird and beast. Men with machines killing the forest they had named "Forest of Man" - he sensed the irony.

In the past, he had tried to justify it to himself by believing that the greed that drove men to their acts against nature deserved the punishment he had dealt. But he knew what he sensed the men feel, and it had seldom been greed. It was apathy, boredom and on most occasions, regret. He had witnessed and sensed waves of life come and go, but taking one came at a terrible price. At the same time, he grew increasingly protective and possessive of his habitat. A long time ago, he had been a patient man who waited to judge the intentions. But every wait had been near fatal. Now he slay any man or woman who wandered in.

Yet, do I have a choice?, he pondered, running his hands over his face and head of mangy, gray-white hair. A long life I have lived, but one where I have only lost trust in humanity. Is there anything left but greed, war and destruction of life? He sighed and settled himself against the large trunk of a banyan tree.

He breathed heavily and looked away into the distance, somewhat lost in thought. He had been in numerous wars himself, but he believed them to be wars of righteousness, not lust. Thin line, that.

His senses tingled that moment. He tried to read the feeling in his head and felt space and time tugging his life force around him. A moment later, the tugging ceased. He looked about frantically, as though searching for a sign of something. The cheetah still chased gazelle, the winds were unchanged, there had been no intrusion. His face took a mildly surprised expression - nothing had changed.

A leaf from a nearby banyan tree broke off, flew a few yards with the wind as it fell, and landed on Vrata's forehead. He picked it off his face, looked at briefly and let it fall to the ground.

"Subtle, and beautiful". He spoke out aloud for the first time in months, perhaps years. A slight smile sprang up on his worn out visage.

"So you still live, gurudeva", he mumbled, and laughed heartily at the thought. He was truly happy to know. It was time to meet an old acquaintance. And with the decision, Vrata began to make his way out of the wilderness for the first time in decades.

Fiction Lag - Part II

2011-05-07T04:31:00.000-07:00

(Please read last post before this one)
More "untethered" fiction. Be warned, I don't write in a particularly readable manner.

***

Year of the Pigeon
Sia Raht, Göktürks

Tsao Jun Wen sat at the precocious edge of Mt.Tsao Lin's peak overlooking both the seemingly infinite abyss below, and the perils of a slip. Ever so often he found himself perched here, at the highest point in the empire that sat above Bùlǎng hǎiyáng, the Brown Ocean. Clear skies meant he could see into a distance spanning over a day's travel by ship of enemy navies. He was Wèi bào, the Guardian.

The king's faith had been his fuel, in a world and an empire he liked less by the day. Treachery and corrupt thought was gaining strength, as the king grew weaker, and in Tsao's eyes what it needed was a cleansing. All he would have to do was to turn a blind eye to oncoming battleships, and the Northerners would crush the kingdom to dust within a week's battle. In past wars the kingdom had survived attacks because the day he had given them had been enough to engage the armies, and to deploy from every border to protect the North coast. But there was war everywhere at this time. And Tsao suspected that it was the war within the minds inside the kingdom that caused actual war without. All a game to weaken the king further.

But who am I, he wondered, as he squinted to see far into the distance. He saw the fleet of warships making their way into the brown ocean, their intent apparent. He stood to get a better look. There was a sense of calm in the way he moved, a sense of stillness that made him seem safe standing where he did.

But who am I to cleanse what is rotten, he asked himself. His great-grandfather had been the greatest of the protectors of the kingdom - Tsao Lin, a legend revered among the armies as the man who single-handedly protected the kingdom from malicious attacks emanating from the North. His father, another man who achieved great honour in the ranks, served as one of the then king's elite protectors.

He calmly kept his gaze into the distance, watching - he realised - a fleet of many thousand warships. Who am I to protect the empire, the thought came back to him. Who now, after the king's faith was lost? He regretted his decision to speak up before the king. Disregarding the late Tsao Lin's advice on being the silent guardian had led to his fall from grace. All the same, he felt that the kingdom did not deserve his faith.

He had a decision to make. Letting the warships come in unnoticed would flatten the empire within days. A fitting way to be cleansed of evil. Yet, thousands of innocent, righteous men, women and children would be killed.

He continued calmly gazing northwards. Anger welled up inside him at his own thoughts. There was no decision to be made, there never had been. He turned to look towards the sun, and bowed with his hands folded.

He was nowhere the next second. No sign of him existed on Mt.Tsao Lin.

Another second passed in quiet.

He reappeared, his hands an icy blue and still held together.

"Li", he said.

In the distance, the skies were broken by lightning, and a rain of heavy droplets slapped the oncoming northern army's ships. The ocean remained quiet and calm even as the skies screamed.

"Yi", he said

Rain turned to sleet turned to hail turned to knives of ice, as it descended on the army. Within seconds, the lead warship's demise began, precipitated by the ice-bullets from the sky that continued to puncture its hull.

"Ren", he breathed, but even as he said the words, a force hit him and he was unconscious.

And then the warships never existed. The rain never happened. The brown ocean was calm and quiet, as it always was.

Tsao Jun Wen picked himself up from the ground and examined his hands with a bemused expression. He looked towards the ocean only to find no oncoming navy, no rain.

Astonishment gave way to realization. He had felt this feeling before. The fabric had been tugged. Wondering what else had changed, he made his way slowly down the mountain and towards town.

Fiction Lag

2011-04-30T17:06:00.000-07:00

Fiction lag is something we've all experienced. Or perhaps it's just me. No, surely not. Maybe. Anyhow, Urban Dictionary's definition of fiction lag is spot on - "The temporary change in personality that occurs after being deeply involved with a movie, book, game, or some other work of fiction".

I've been consuming content - books, movies, comics, cartoons, music - with a voracious appetite lately. The only comparable or rival is the Indian government's ravenous appetite for public money. (I was going to use the word "rapacious" there, but interestingly this word is defined as "extremely rapacious" by Dictionary. So am I to infer that ravens, quite clearly, are hungrier than rapists? (Random etymology disclaimers apply)). Anyway, on second thought, I think I'm a far second to the government...mainly because I tend to pay for the books I read etc.

So when I decided to write this blog post, fiction lag (of a book, a cartoon, and some other mythological stuff) got to me, and I wrote some piece of fiction even I don't understand*.

EDIT: Clear influences I can discern are the following: 1. Gardens of the Moon, Malazan book of the Fallen 1; 2. The Fullmetal Alchemist; 3. Indonesian mythology (Context: Prambanan)

Decided to post it anyway, but with this short description. Note that if you think I copied something from somewhere, I probably did**. I have no ethics when it comes to copying ideas, but my ethics are back at full force when it comes to admitting I copied it. Oh sorry, that's how referencing works. Anyway, here goes:

Chapter 1

"..behold your senses,
for the fabric mocks you...
Steel is but an illusion,
for it is the universe that bears death.."

Year of the Garuda
Kakulmul***, Malayadweepa

The battle at Sarayu dragged on into its ninetieth day. Emperor Shandilya's defence creeked, and often cracked at the edges - In the face of Vedanti Preranaambasaara's unrelenting force, a battle to quell his thirst for vengeance, a battle where he had nothing to lose.

A wizened old man in saffron garb approached the battle line on Shandilya's side. His white beard was long and wavy, and his hair tied up into tall knots. He moved slowly and deliberately even as hundreds fell before his eyes, other hundreds replacing then on the front lines. Unperturbed, he walked on.

"It seems that a war is never won, child", he said to Shandilya's general, Trivikrama.

"So it is, gurudeva", he agreed, bowing. A hardened human with a hard stare. "A victory is but meaningless at this point. Countless have perished". The old monk smiled genially at the general. He gently placed a hand on the man's forehead. "He has nothing to lose, child. We took his life, his hope and his all from him", the monk said gently.

"Inevitable". The general nodded his head slightly in agreement and continued, "...but the extent of his power was underestimated by the... by us". Deafening screams of soldiers distracted the monk. Hundreds more fell. "A summoning", the monk whispered gently, squinting into the distance

He looked back at the shell-shocked general. "It is time", he said. "Although, what is time?", he added with a small grin. The general merely stared. The monk slowly made his way to the front lines. Two more rows of soldiers fell, to be replaced by nameless and faceless others at the front-line.

"Please step back", he whispered. The command rang through the ranks as though screamed out and within seconds, he was the solitary front line of the emperor's army.

"Aham brahmasmi", he breathed, as he closed his eyes. Explosions continued around him. A violent force of gravity tugged him towards, and pulled him away from Preranambasaara's summoning at the same time - a force that could tear a man apart within seconds. He stood unmoved, breathing deeply. His garb flayed and hair flailed about.

Suddenly, he snapped his eyes open. To an unmoving, tranquil, unfettered world. The monk was a drop of water in an ocean of dead quiet that was the Fabric of the world. A ripple was born, and made its way through the ocean and soon died.

And the world moved again. The war had ended. Shandilya's forces lost a mere few tens in battle. The emperor's second in line, Shiladitya, was no more. Indeed, he had never been born. The battle of Sarayu was but a skirmish, no more.

The monk breathed, "Aham brahmasmi". He was now one-eyed, with a patch over the other, scars of past encounters with the Fabric.

"Aham brahmasmi", he breathed again. It was done.

Epic, isn't it? In the spirit of open source (Note: I know it isn't the same), I hereby authorize the use of this in any epic work of fiction.

*No, actually I do understand what I've written
**No I didn't
***Stole this name from another work of fiction, Credits: The legendary Great Celestial Beast

Ze Zomato

2011-03-29T19:57:00.000-07:00

Zomato. The word "Zomato" brings to mind a certain fruit/vegetable.

Let's agree on this - Tomato is at the cutting edge of confusing humanity's capabilities of drawing boundaries. The average person doesn't know if it's a fruit or a vegetable. This is good, because I have a tendency to ask questions like "What's the different between soup and juice?". Typical answers are "Soups are hot, juices cold" and "Soups are made of vegetables, juices of fruit". WRONG!

To the first answer - Are you telling me that if I put my orange juice in the microwave for 10 seconds, it becomes orange soup?! Or that if I put my minestrone soup in the fridge for an hour it becomes minestrone juice? O_o

The second one is almost true...but our beloved tomato comes to the rescue - We have both tomato soup and tomato juice. Whether it is a fruit or a vegetable is irrelevant to this - but it does sink the fruit-vegetable logic for soup vs juice. Anyhow, I welcome more answers as comments to this post :)

So let me add an interesting variable to the other Tomato debate, i.e. To-may-toe vs. To-maa-toe. In my mother tongue Telugu (Note: Yes, this is different from Tamil) and its neighboring language Kannada, the very same tomato is referred to as - eat this - "Tamota".

But coming back to the original point of the post - Ze Zomato. So a fat ol' friend of mine, Pramod Pao (no bhaaji in his name), from KGP has decided to go C-level. Firstly, the guy eats a LOT. Secondly, he has entrepreneurial instincts. Combine the two, and you have the best foodie business.

His company/website, Zomato, is the best restaurant/food guide in India - covers restaurants in NCR, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Pune, and finally Bangalore and Hyderabad (where Zomato would be fittingly called Zamota, I guess). Check out the site, you will not be disappointed. And they have Android and BB apps as well. So all you need to be is hungry for Zomato to be your best friend online.

And feel free to leave feedback on www.zomato.com as to the exact differences between soup and juice. They will appreciate it as much as I.

(Disclaimer: I have no investments in this company, but I did receive a fat bribe to write this post)

A tribute to the Holy Dio

2010-11-28T06:57:00.000-08:00

So. A few months ago, Dio, a metal god, passed away. Seeing as he was one of my favourite artists of all time, I undertook a small project. A tribute to the Holy Dio - A cover of his classic, "Holy Diver".

4 months of recording, mixing and affiliated effort....and here we are.

The contributors are as follows:
Me - Vocals, Backing vocals, Guitars, Bass, Drum programming, Mixing, Mastering.
DevB - Strategic Inputs on DAWs/Tones, Mixing, Mastering other engineering aspects.

Here is the link for the high quality audio download: http://bit.ly/ewofIr

Notes: Am particularly pleased about my guitar solo starting 2:04 :P
P.S for general audience: Like all metal, this is not for the faint hearted

The Dynamics of a Homeless mind

2010-10-02T08:50:00.000-07:00

I'm back after a long long hiatus. One obvious realisation over the past few months has been, of course, that creating content takes far more effort, time, and dedication than consuming content.

Anyhow, as I sat sipping on my expensive yet decidedly average Starbucks coffee at the rather swank indoor+outdoor set-up close to my apartment in Kuala Lumpur last night post-midnight, realization hit me. In the form of an SMS. It hit me hard. As hard as an SMS possibly could, I guess.

It was from my flatmate, and read thus: "Dude, we're locked out"

My mind reacted thus: "Hmm"

I was in deep shit and a coffee shop. I began to feel a rising sense of worry and the hardness of the wooden chair I sat on. I was angry with myself and sipping coffee.

"Oh crap, I'm homeless. HOMELESS!" Thoughts wandered...flitting across the world in seconds.

Dammit. Homeless. Why is there no sugar in this bloody cafe Latte?. Why the hell does starbucks call these jackasses 'baristas'?. Phew, atleast I'm not missing Sehwag's batting. Flip, I told my club I'd play cricket tomorrow. Cricketwithballs. Writebadlywell. Bleotharg, son of Pleotharg. LOTR. Goddamnit, I'm homeless. And hungry. Africa. Nigeria. Goodluck Jonathan. Holy Babaloya, I'm homeless. Allbest Nair. Wheel of Time. Need a locksmith. Blacksmith. Nynaeve's breasts. Elayne. Elaine. Seinfeld. Grr....my hair's getting like Kramer's. Damn, it might rain. Kramer guitars. My Jackson! Phew, atleast I didn't leave my guitar next to an open window. Bloody rain, my suede shoes. "Why does moisture ruin leather? Aren't cows outside a lot of the time?". Cows on the road. CWG. Delhi. Why can't they just hire a few thousand maids and clean the place up for a few days? THE MAID! The maid has keys to the house, just have to call her tomorrow morning. And that CWG tiger is stupid, though. Why Delhi?!. Delhiites. Mayank and Chanani. MAYANK AND CHANANI! I just have to call them and crash at their place *snap*

Homelessness: Solved. I went back to my coffee and my book nonchalantly. Nothing one night of homelessness could do to me that would change me forever.

The point is this - In those fleeting moments, I realised that homelessness was but a state of mind, rather than an actual situation. "Kisi ko homeless kiya nahi jaata...homelessness ho jaata hai". Being homeless is like being in love (or self-enamorment), you just know it. Infinite possibilities, infinite time. And undeniably fun.

Of course, All stunts in this blog (especially the following section) have been performed by professionals (professional world class idiots, i.e.). Please don't try this at home.

Prelude - I escaped from work at 6:30 or so, all smug and happy at having sneaked out undetected. I reached home to realise I had left home without keys. Deliberately. Knowing fully well that no one would be home if I got there anytime before midnight. Plain stupidity. Meaning I was locked out. Until midnight, atleast. My flatmate would be back around then. He did get back from work and into the house, while I was out at Starbucks. In a moment of "Perfect stormdom", a subprime-crisis level confluence of events, he stepped out to buy something and forgot his keys inside and locked the door (button lock). *Boom* we're homeless for the night.

Other notes for the interested - Do click the links, some of them are extremely funny. Nonetheless, some explanations below:
1. Goodluck Jonathan is the president of Nigeria, the first lady is Dame Patience. "Babaloya" the name of a Nigerian lady I have heard of. Allbest Nair is but Aditya Nair, renamed after his UNDP internship in the country of Goodluck and Patience.
2. The blacksmith, Nynaeve and Elayne are characters in the Wheel of Time series. The author is obsessed with Nynaeve's breasts. Lecherous readers beware, it is a 15,000 page small-font read.
3. Elaine, Kramer are legendary Seinfeld characters, of course. "Why does moisture ruin leather? Aren't cows outside a lot of the time?" is a Seinfeld quote.

The Mother of All Bad Poems

2010-02-05T22:40:00.000-08:00

Disclaimer 1: This is not going to be good.
Disclaimer 2: I don't believe in poetry as a form of expression.
Disclaimer 3: No, this does not link back to my theory of free will
Disclaimer 4: If you believe the deus ex machina bit refers to the controllability/observability of all dynamical systems and hence, refers to determinism, feel free to continue to believe so. I didn't even think of this :P

Behold.

The ship-smoke flew far and wide,
His highness' day'd be spent by the shipman's side,
"Filthy seaman, my orders dare you override?!",
He bellowed, as the captain'd been a tad more than snide

"I was distracted from duty, my lord", he said
"Taken aback by her beauty, oh god!", said Fred
His highness stared, he chewed Domino's garlic bread
"If that be the case, me you must dread", king yelled,
"For soon you shall be a duck dead, with no head"

With steel in eyes and sword in hand, the Emperor walked up
Fred eyed blade with avarice and simply said, "wassup?"
His highness narrowed his eyes and mumbled, "what the fup?"
Far far away an investment banker used the rather useful vlookup.

In a swing that betrayed naked eye he cleft him in two,
and watched his head not roll away, nor red-blood stream through.
His highness went O_o, Fred said,"Great Emperor! Screw you"
Speechless tens wondered if with fat pandas he'd mastered Kung fu.
Fred parked self at the emperor's seat, done and survived by few, phew.

"Let me tell you my story, oh matchless emperor,
But it is a terrible secret, dare tell no other.
Don't be afraid, come sit with me hither,
But say a word and I shall hashtag #emperorFAIL on twitter"

"Once upon a time, there was a man who travelled through time,
Ank 'Ur Rahman his name, eating camel burgers for lunch his crime,
He was decrepit, old, filthy-rich but never did have a dime,
Couldn't speak a language, but was pretty damn good at his mime"
(See how simple it is to make the randomest of lines rhyme?)

"At just about every point in time was an anomaly of a man,
Kuttappan his name, mallu his tongue, but oft spotted in Japan,
Was immortal, but like mortals, liked his beer cooL and off a can,
Was e-daft, always asked "what're the proxy settings on the LAN?""

"And then there was a third man who could reincarnate himself,
Bot his name, Sabnism his religion, Penny occupied his mind and his shelf,
Couldn't pronounce a 'p' - when need arose, always called out for "Helf!",
Looked like overfed Uruk-hai, but felt he be a Legolas-level elf.
Impecunious Ank 'Ur cited rotund Bot as the one with pelf"

"A fine afternoon they met, yet again, under a tree,
No, not to discuss implications of global warming on the oil industry,
That's for green-conscious terrorists, they just wanted to chat and have tea,
Ank 'Ur and Bot at each other, while Kuttappan delivered witty repartee"

"Suddenly they heard a voice, "No, no no! Not you retards again!",
Great beasts they had seen, but none that spake, and spake with such pain,
"Oh creature!", they called out ,"Who you be, and how do you know us, again?"
"Above Average Tortoise is my name, and for 400 years you've driven me insane!"
"400?", they asked. "Na zyaada na kam, bubblegum?", he be not mundane"

The ship-smoke flew on far and wide.
Chuck it. Ship sank, everyone died.

Bass and the Art of being Irrelevant yet Omnipresent

2010-01-15T09:47:00.000-08:00

"The bass guitarist never gets his due...."

- Random bassist

"A drummer's true worth is never recognized....!"

- Disgruntled drummer

I won't dare attribute the above quotes to any single bassist or drummer - The truth is, they all think their "Life eej hard". And fair enough as well...think about it - who the hell cares about the bassist? Okay, some do.

Let's begin with a small thought experiment - Name your favourite 2 guitarists, 2 vocalists, 2 bassists, and 2 drummers in your head (Do comment with results, will help substantiate theory coming up)

Odds are, one of the following things might happen:
1. You will come up with 8 names in a jiffy
2. You will come up with names of vocalists - Additionally, you might wonder why the instrumentalists matter when the music director is the one handling everything
3. You will come up with names of vocalists, perhaps guitarists, and acknowledge the drummer of a certain band is superb, though you don't know his name

or of course,
4. You will wonder (and I will sympathize with you for this) just what in the blue hell a bass guitar is.

Just to satisfy all the viewpoints, I will make my statement a bit more specific - If you're not a musician or belonging to the I-live-and-die-for-music group, you won't care about the bassist and the drummer. One line summary for the impatient - Bassists and drummers claim, and I agree with them, that no one cares about them

Is this fair?

The question of fairness is a fair question. Metrics are ample, as usual. And various people will use various metrics to good measure. For example, musicians themselves.

Drummers - the professionals, and the amateurs (that's both superb ones like Mishra and horribly bad ones like Patil) - will unify in their claim that it's quite unfair - they've put in hundreds of hours into it. Pragmatic guitarists and vocalists will remain neutral, or perhaps support their cause. They get to go on stage and do their thing properly with some support from them, after all. Bassists, of course, don't admit on public forums that they play the bass, so will pretend to be guitarists and will have the same views.

Connoisseurs of finance (note: I'm not one) will note that the RoI on bass guitar and training investments isn't good enough to justify taking it up - meaning if you did take it up, you're an idiot (a.k.a "irrational investor") and deserve to be treated badly a.k.a "It's fair"

Cricket fans will probably seek out statistics for average time spent on stage per show, average distance covered on stage per show, number of "steal the thunder" moments per show, and perhaps note that the fattest bassists deserve recognition as they "steal the thunder" from others by simply being on stage (and blocking the crowd's view of any other band members).

Anyway, tens of similar bad examples buzzing in my head (Including one that describes how Chetan Bhagat would say it's fair because they, unlike him, aren't trying to change the Indian education system), but I will move on.

Well, if you ask me, it is fair. I will prove, as always, using scientific theory. This time, sound engineering basics.

The Equalizer Speaks.

If you've ever used winamp, you'd have seen that little window on the main pane - it's a bar graph that moves/shows changes as the song plays. Well it's a graphic equalizer (pic from on-machine) which basically shows what frequencies in the human ear's audible range (20-20k Hz) are playing and with what amplitude (i.e. how loudly). These things (what frequencies are loud etc.) can be controlled for each recorded instrument, of course. That's where the equalizer comes in.

Let's just say (approximately) that the voice and all the instruments have to be spread across the 20 - 20,000 Hz in a non-competing/conflicting manner for everything to be audible clearly. To keep it brief I'll just point out in brief where each of the instruments is given it's "full bandwidth", so to speak.

The bass guitar - Basically between 0-200 or 250 Hz (with some carving off, will explain)
The drumset consists of various parts, most important ones being the bass drum, the snare, the hi-hat and crashes/cymbals (Attached: pic from infovisual.com). Each of them has a small dedicated frequency range, for example the bass drum takes the 70-100 Hz range off the bass guitar, and some small frequency range around 1500Hz for some additional harmonics/resonance frequencies.

In summary,

A guitar exists across the audible frequency (almost, but nevermind).
Vocals in the entire mid-section (starting from 400 Hz or so to 10,000Hz-ish).
Bass guitar takes a humungous frequency range - around 150 Hz in total.
The drums a teeny bit more, though the stalwart of the drumkit - the snare - takes up the whole spectrum (mainly because no one wants to bother EQing it :P).

In executive summary, even sound engineering says the bass is just in the mix to chill out and occupy some small space no other instrument wants.

The verdict from science is clear.

Key takeaways for everyone - The guitar and bass are very different instruments, although one looks like an obese big brother version of the other with fewer strings attached. In music, though, unlike humans, the more strings attached the better.
Key takeaways for musicians - If you're recording anything, please use a guitar and some software simulator to make it sound like a bass guitar. Ask Banerjee. He's even convinced Bappi Lahiri, probably a distant relative, to switch out of bass.
Key takeaways for bassists - Look cool on stage, no one will know when you make mistakes!
Key takeaways for drummers - Okay, you guys actually matter, don't give up!

And I didn't want to say it, but well, the synthesizer isn't really a musical instrument. It's a computer chip :P

(The author is a half-decent heavy metal vocalist and part-time guitarist. Genre biases are not accounted for...why should they be? :P Also, there are more than 3 superb bassists in the world, the author can name atleast 5 off the top of his head. Also, the author is only trying to be funny (and perhaps failing, who knows) but the EQ numbers are purely indicative and sometimes completely wrong)

Sehwag, the Sehwag of professors and Free-Will

2009-12-13T18:24:00.000-08:00

(I will borrow from Sehwag's cricket, mathematics from Russia, and my theory of free-will to explain what it is, mathematically, that we love about certain people and perhaps suggest a way of life. Or maybe not.)

Part 1 - Sehwag's Batting

So he slapped the daylights out of the supposed free-will of Sri Lankan bowling, as I mentioned in my last post. His batting has always warranted the use of interesting phrases by past cricketers, commentators and critics alike - From the likes of "Throwing the kitchen sink at the opposition" and "Taking the bowling to the cleaners" to a more recent one in Hindi which echoes a similar sentiment - "Bowler ko pochha banaake saaf kar diya", literally meaning he cleaned the floor with the opposition's bowling. He has a religious following among fans of cricket worldwide. Others views include "Shall we say that Gilchrist and Sehwag are the true post-moderns?" (Lelo, 2009); "He occupies a niche all by himself in world cricket" (Naga, 2009).

“I see the ball and I try and hit the ball”, he said, after his latest. That's ridiculously simple. Almost too simple to be true. But isn't it his simple approach what we all love so much? This seems like the right moment to bring in mathematics and try to screw with the "We love Sehwag's simple approach" slogan.

Part 2 - The Markov Process

Andrei Andreyevich Markov was a Russian mathematician. He is the first person I've heard of being appointed as an "Extraordinary Professor" at a university. Yes, that was his official post. So there are assistant professors, associate professors, professors, emeritus professors...and then there's the Sehwag of professors a.k.a. extraordinary professor.

This man fittingly came up with the concept of a "memoryless" system or process. Put simply, a system/process whose future is past independent. So any value it (= a Markov function, for e.g.) takes in future is independent of it's past. I won't explain the technical aspects any further, so you may proceed to breathe freely.

Part 3 - What's my point?

The point is - What we call "simplicity" in Sehwag's batting is actually the Markovian nature of his batting.

He drives and misses. He drives the next delivery and misses again. He drives a third time and it runs away to the boundary. Normal men tend to stop and think when they miss two deliveries like that - "I could've easily edged that...have to be careful". Apparently not Sehwag.

He's Markovian to the extent that the next shot he hits is independent of his own score. He may have scored 190+, but like a true Markov process, his next shot depends on the next ball and not the fact that he has scored 190 runs prior to that. And that's what we love about him.

My larger point is - We love people who are undeterred by past failures ("Determined") and unbloated-up by past successes ("Modest") etc. And that, my friends, is what we should all try and do in life - Screw the past and look ahead. That's what works and that's what will make you likeable/admirable.

How is this connected to my theory of free-will?

The less you are tied by past actions/decisions/events...the more degrees of freedom you have in your hand. So temporally, as everyone's degrees of freedom decrease with an increasing number of "hardcoded" decisions in life, by staying Markovian (or Sehwagesque, I guess), you keep your degrees of freedom high by not hardcoding (Hell, not coding in at all) any of your decisions. Meaning, you move to the right of the spectrum. And moving to the right of the bell is everyone's pursuit in life (this can be proved, btw). Money, independence etc. are all ways to do it.

But isn't this an easy way to do it? Thoughts, please :)

Virender Sehwag slaps Free-Will in its face

2009-12-09T02:28:00.000-08:00

Well, let's hand it to him. Here I was, extremely satisfied with myself, theorizing on and on about how everyone has free-will and how the amount of free-will varies and how it can be quantified and all that jazz. He arrived at Brabourne and with one innings, delivered as a metaphorical slap to my face via Sri Lanka (anyway we're all South Indians, no?), changed everything.

I admit it - My theory fails in the face of Sehwag. But so do Newton's laws. I take heart as I bite the dust and revamp this hitherto morbid blog.

So why this post? I said this to a trusted friend yesterday "The word cool was invented as a definition of Sehwag...but a chronological f***-up meant it was being misused for other things and people"

Indeed. People have called Akshay Kumar - a.k.a he who needs to be told that thing in front of him in the recording studio is a microphone - cool. They have called David Beckham - a.k.a he who needs to be told that it is South America, not North America they play football in, even if hairdressers do a better job in the latter - cool. They have even called Po - an animated panda with a large paunch - cool. Some have gone as far as calling Kuttappan - a.k.a he who cannot pronounce the word 'cool' and says cooL due to his thick mallu accent - cool.

The point is...I said that to a friend, and she said "Dude, what the hell are you talkin' about on your blog posts? Write something funny...after realising the pointlessness of life etc., I think humour is the only thing that makes sense"

Her realisations about pointlessness of life were, of course, nothing but after-effects of Sehwag's knock. But her point was duly noted.

So here I am. And this time my blog even comes with buttons like "What the hell are you talking about?" and "WTF is wrong with you?" for accurate feedback.

Free-will and The Oracle

2009-11-01T20:15:00.000-08:00

How does the Oracle see the future?
(This article attempts to understand the ability of the Oracle from The Matrix to "see" the future and link it to the Free-Will bell theory)

I will begin by assuming that we've all seen The Matrix. It is undoubtedly one of the best movies of our times, although the sequels (especially Reloaded) weren't quite up to the mark. The Matrix is a delightful amalgam of science fiction and philosophy, although whether the latter was intentional is a negotiable point. I, for one, believe they had a general idea of what they were talking about. The case in point in favour of this being the character called The Oracle. But before you begin to think this is just another post on the internet praising the movie and its brilliance, let me go on to my actual point which - needless to say - has hardly anything to do with the movie itself. It is one line from the movie that gave me this entire idea of a decision based framework for predicting future, so I'm spending this paragraph referencing the movie (like a true wimwian, I suppose)

"You're not here to find out what your choice is. You have already made the choice. You're here to understand that choice"

Let me attempt to put forth an argument to explain how future may be predicted. The contention is simple - The future can be predicted based on past decisions, but only by a person with an aggregate view of the decisions of everyone.

Let's take a simplistic example: Person 'A' decides to write an entrance exam 'X'. During the course of his preparation, he decides to not study a particular chapter, as he judges that this may not be a very important topic. Sitting in his office somewhere in institute 'K' is a professor 'P', who decides to fill this year's paper with that same topic, as it has been a while since the entrance exam had questions on the topic.

The future is obvious - 'A' won't get through exam 'X'. It doesn't even need 'prediction'...it's almost future written in stone. A person who can actually "see" or "know" all the choices/decisions made by everyone would be able to tell the future - This person knows the question paper - professor P's decision - and this A's preparation - student A's decision.

Simply extrapolating this to the whole world, (and perhaps calling this "decision aggregate viewer" person The Oracle), predicting (hell, it's not even a prediction anymore, is it? It is a sureshot result) the future is now a simple matter of understanding and correlating past decisions of various people.

The obvious follow-up questions are - is the future determined, then? Is there free-will?

I will answer these in my next post which will turn up on this blog soon enough. But until then, convince yourself of what I have said above. It's undeniable truth. And for the first time, I feel like it isn't an outrageous theory I'm trying to pitch.

Free-Will and Evolution - Article 1

2009-06-29T01:15:00.000-07:00

BROADBAND EVOLUTION?

(This article attempts to link the communication revolution the human world has witnessed over the past two decades to the concepts of biological evolution. I believe the basic idea can be traced back to "God's Debris" by Scott Adams, though I no longer recall the explanations he put forth in the book)

STRAND 1: THE COMMUNICATION REVOLUTION

Humanity has come a long way since the days of (what is now referred to as) snail mail. Information can now move from one corner of the world to another in a matter of seconds. The (fixed-line) telephone is slowly becoming obsolete with the advent of cellular phones. Voice-only cellular phones have become obsolete in a matter of a few years, with value-loaded phones flooding the market. Dial-up connections were good enough a decade or so ago. Now a broadband connection isn't fast enough. It never is. Never will be, perhaps.

One look at the graph below showing how people have lapped up the concept of faster comunication proves my point. The Y-axis represents the percentage of total world population using the internet/a cellphone. Near zero percent of humanity used a cellular phone upto about 1990, and barely 2 decades later, about 50% of everyone does. Why are people buying cellular phones? The answer is - to satiate their need to stay connected. The question to be asked is - what is it that actuates and fuels this need? I don't believe there is a strong answer to this at the fundamental level. We have forever worked with the axiom "Humans are social animals". Why we are, we know not and we ask not. Without pursuing this line of thought further, let's continue speaking about the communication revolution and it's characteristics. Drawing implications from a holistic view would serve the purpose better.

So - "Convergence" is the key word in this market. The ultimate aim is that internet and mobile telephony converge into a single entity. The "utopia" is a world where your status and location will be available realtime on all your friends' phonebooks, so they know where you are and what you are doing even before they place the call. A "call" would, rather obviously, not just be a voice transmission exercise. Video will accompany every telephonic conversation. Clearly, the insatiable need to stay connected and fast continues to push the supply side of the equation to come up with faster and better technology to enable itself. I will proceed to strengthen this viewpoint with some real-world data.

The table shows the (currently) fastest available broadband technologies and the transfer speeds they can provide. It is quite obvious that transfer rates have become increasingly and astronomically faster, with billions of dollars being spent every year researching technologies and file transfer protocols speedier than the current fastest networks. Quite frankly, it is very difficult to imagine why any person or organization feels the need for an internet connection faster than 160 Gbit/s. Interviewing an organization about this is difficult, so I decided to quiz a few people I know.

I threw this question at a sample set of about 10-15 people - 'Do you need a faster internet conection than your present one, and if so, why?' Most of them said they did need a faster internet connection. Their reasons were varied and interesting, but also inexplicable at the fundamental level. Faster download speed for movies, music, data etc. are a common "need". However, at the first principle level, there is not an answer to the question "Why do you need your song to download in 1 minute instead of 2?". The minute makes no (rational) difference to anyone. We all still do want to save that one minute. The problem in question is 'impatience'. We accept it as something basic, something fundamental to our wiring. I, however, see it as a constraint to ultimate free-will. One degree of freedom - patience - has a pre-defined value for almost all of us. Sure, some of us have more patience than others. But as a macro-entity, humans are impatient. Irrationally so, I claim.

The inferences of this entire ramble are simple - We have an insatiable need to stay connected, and we want information of any nature transferred across the world within a split second.

STRAND 2: BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

Let me begin by quoting the first few lines of text on the subject from the most used reference book of our times - "In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though the changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms. This process can culminate in the emergence of new species". Pretty self explanatory, I suppose.

The concept of biological evolution, for me (a complete layman on the subject), is this - Over centuries, unicellular organisms integrate to create small multi-cellular organisms, which further integrate to form more complex organisms, and so forth. Humans are an integrated, concordant system of billions (trillions?) of cells, each of which has a "life" of it's own.

The interesting thing here is - Every cell in the human body has a purpose. But I doubt if these cells know they're part of the larger whole called a human. Therefore, the claim is that free-willed (of heavily constrained nature as it may be) unicellular organisms integrate seamlessly to form a whole free-willed human. The key is communication. The cellular equivalent of a telecommunication system - The nervous system. We define the world around us on the basis of the information transmitted through this system. Rather - Our brain defines the world around us on the basis of the information transmitted through this system by cells which make a free-willed choice to communicate with each other. There's obviously much more to humans biologically, but I will limit myself to this point for now as it is the most pertinent to the article.

TYING TOGETHER THE STRANDS

The claim/question is simple. Are free-willed humans part of a larger live entity?

We're irrevocably wired to communicate and fast, as the first part of this article indicates. So are the cells of our body, as we know. So are we humans the cells of a larger entity, communicating to facilitate and fuel it's consciousness and understanding? Are our professions equivalent to the functions carried out by cells working for different parts of our body? A simple example would be - Armies of the world act like the white blood cells of the human body, trying to eliminate bad cells (a.k.a terrorists and so forth). Many more examples can be put forth, but I'll take up the exercise some other time.

In his book, Scott Adams refers to this larger entity as God. I don't know whether to agree or disagree with this view. I hope there will be enough ideas around this thought (via comments/other blogs/books) for me to be able to establish a stance.

Srinivas K Chaitanya

(The author still is a complete jackass)

Free-Will Article 1.1

2009-04-14T02:08:00.000-07:00

Human Nature - Addendum to Part 1

(In order to explain the less articulate parts of the introductory article and to facilitate unperturbed completion of the upcoming articles, I bring to you this addendum. I have used some ideas that came forth in the discussion that followed the first article, without due referencing)

Necessity vs. Sufficiency -

An important issue pointed out about the definition of free will presented in the first article was as follows: Suppose a person wants to go visit the Eiffel in Paris. He requires (simplistically) two degrees of freedom - The freedom of money and the freedom of permission (i.e. a valid passport and a visa). The issue pointed out is that state (yes, yes) implies a state 'yes' for the Eiffel Tower decision/degree of freedom. Let me term this the Eiffel Tower problem and try to counter the above with an argument based on the difference between necessity and sufficiency.

I contend that the state (yes, yes) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the Eiffel degree to be in the state 'yes'. Even in a more complex Eiffel Tower problem, where there are a thousand degrees of freedom that are necessary, I contend that the state (yes, yes, yes.....thousandth yes) [A rather shady state, I note] in still not a sufficient condition.
I am simply pointing out that the 'floating' (as opposed to a decision that can't be changed) degree of freedom 'Do I want to go to the Eiffel?' may simply have a state 'no' based on nothing but whim (a.k.a free will?) even after having satisfied all the necessary decisions. I hope this drives home the sufficiency point and substantiates the definition of free will presented. I understand that I am bringing a new and powerful variable (i.e. time - created via the ability to change the Eiffel decision a later point of time based on whim) into the equation. I will ignore its consequences for the moment.

I believe that the above argument not only drives home the sufficiency point, thereby substantiating the definition of free will presented, but also makes a solid case for the normal distribution (More 'necessary' decisions => more states => more variation => uncertainties => amount of uncertainties tend to infinity => the bell curve). However, the possibility that free will might be distributed in a different manner is worth due inspection. At this juncture, I should say I am proud to have convinced people to discuss the whole concept in terms of the idea of 'amount of free will' as opposed to just 'free will vs. no free will'. To me, the most interesting ‘other’ view, opposing the free will bell hypothesis is that free will follows the power law/Pareto law.

The plots below emphasise the difference between the free will bell theory (for which I have presented some amount of proof), and this superb, though somewhat opposing, hypothesis. The latter says that most people have little free will, and an elite population (about 20% of people) has high amounts of free will. Truly compelling thought. I’ll leave the proof to the theorizer, and will continue to use the bell as the free will distribution for now.

Other noteworthy points -
- Basic 'non-free' decisions like time, hunger etc. are assumed not to exist for anyone i.e. are universal constraints. Though it will not make a material difference, the actual Y-axis will be 'N' units displaced from the frame of reference I am currently using, where ‘N’ is the number of such universal constraints.
- At no point in the article is it assumed that a person's free will remains the same throughout their lifetime. An individual's free will may increase or decrease as he grows older. Therefore, the bell curve is for the entire human population, rather than a certain age group.
- The distribution is indeed discrete. However, it doesn't make a material difference.
- The decision process is affected by the freedom to make the decision, but as the necessity vs sufficiency argument shows, the 'end-point' decision is an independent ‘whimsical’ decision, and hence, a degree of freedom.
- All decisions can be broken down to yes/no decisions, implying that defining a measure for each degree of freedom is not fruitful for this (simplistic, yet effective, I hope) analysis.

The first article spoke about 'determinism'. Firstly, I apologise for loose usage of the rather explosive word. I meant to question if the world had a rigid probability structure it followed. An example of a fixed probability structure is an unbiased tossed coin which has two states each occurring with a probability of half irrespective of anything else – the future states are fixed, and so are the probabilities of being in those states. The (faulty) question "Is the world deterministic?" basically aims at questioning whether increases/decreases in individual humans' free will would affect the world's possible future states (and probabilities thereof) at all, and if would it simply follow it’s probability structure irrespective of anything humans do.
With these clarifications and new assumptions, I will proceed to modify and complete the next article in line. Coming up in future articles...The Free Will Bell to explain -

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

The Seven Deadly Sins

Altruism, Trust, Love and Philanthropy

The Subprime Crisis and the Economic Meltdown

....and much more. Thanks for the participation and throwing in great ideas, I hope for more of the same for upcoming articles.

Srinivas K Chaitanya
(The author is a complete jackass)

Free-Will Article 1

2009-04-03T05:31:00.000-07:00

HUMAN NATURE - PART 1

(This is the first in a series of articles which attempt to logically apply stochastic science to human life and arrive at a robust model to explain the way humanity functions and thinks. This article delivers a both micro and macro viewpoint, though trying to map individual choices and preferences based on this may not be fruitful)
Disclaimer - Please be patient as you read this, it may be slightly unredable in parts. Understanding it needs zero pre-existing knowledge of anything, except knowing what a bell curve is :)

FREEDOM

The concept of 'freedom', to me, is the single most worthwhile idea to pursue in any attempt to understand human nature. This belief is purely based on the fact that everything we do, and therefore the direction humanity takes, is based on choice and decision, and decisions are based primarily on freedom or lack thereof. Defining 'freedom' becomes important at this juncture. I have realised over time that the definition of freedom varies widely from person to person - Some more enlightened souls have a specific definition, whereas for most others, including me, it is quite the nebulous idea. For the sake of analytical ease (to begin with), I will give freedom a somewhat simplistic definition.

"Freedom" is a set of 'n' degrees of freedom, each of which is a yes/no decision, and 'n' is the total number of all independent decisions available to be made in a person's life/the world. 'n' would be an astronomical number, but it's exact value is irrelevant.

In simpler terms, a person can be considered fully free if he/she has the ability to make each of these 'n' yes/no decisions (i.e. has all 'n' degrees of freedom). A person who is not fully free, however, will have a number of these 'n' decisions made for them by other people/constraints (i.e. has less than 'n' degrees of freedom). This brings us to the notion of 'free will'. Understanding the concept of free will is the essential next step to understanding freedom, so I will take a bit of space explaining what free will means in the context of this definition of freedom.

FREE WILL

Most of us believe, or would atleast like to believe, that we (i.e. humans) have free will. However, most of us are also unclear as to what they mean when they say this. Does "having free will" mean having the ability to have atleast one degree of freedom, or does it mean having all degrees of freedom, or does it mean having greater than a certain number of degrees of freedom?

Logically enough I hope, if a person can make even one unconstrained decision on his/her own in life, I consider him/her as a person of free will. My definition, therefore, is that a person has free will if he/she has atleast one degree of freedom. Logically enough I hope (again), I believe 'freedom' means freedom to act, not freedom to think. Naturally, when I say a person has a degree of freedom, I imply that he/she can act upon that decision they make. I believe this is an important distinction to make, because a 2 year old baby may actually think "no" to the decision question "Should I eat that holygwakamoly cereal mommy feeds me?", but has little or no power to actually act upon it.

Having made free will a measurable - even if not humanly measurable - integral variable, a countable quantity, the question of 'amount of free will' has an easier answer. The amount of free will for a person would always have a whole number value. Now the stage is almost set to perform mathematical wizardry of the lowest kind and draw implications about human nature.

THE BELL

Before the wizardry, however, I would like to admire and appreciate 'the bell' and it's importance to mathematics and nature.The bell curve is *the* most beautiful mathematical plot. So simple, yet undeniably the most powerful representation of any population attribute. Intelligence, weight, height, weight of people of a particular height, height of people of a particular weight, and almost any other 'basic' attribute of humans lies on a bell curve. Aptly, I suppose, is it referred to as the 'normal' probability distribution. I'll claim without proof, that any attribute of a population belonging to untweaked nature lies on a normal curve. In view of the existence of numerous other probability distributions in nature, it is worthwhile to make note of another essential statistical fact - when samples from a population following ANY probability distribution are picked up and the sample mean values plotted, they lie, not surprisingly, on a bell curve.

So I set out to understand why every attribute in nature was normally distributed. I found the answer in the first principles. Theory says that an attribute is normally distributed when there are numerous independent factors affecting the value/amount of this attribute for each person. In simpler terms, the intelligence of a person is a result of numerous independent factors - we may or may not be able to name them all, of course - and therefore, when we plot the 'amount of intelligence' against the number of people, we find that it is normally distributed.

In essence, all I'm claiming is that nature lies on a bell curve.

THE BELL OF FREE WILL
To cut to the chase, the theory is - Free will lies on a bell curve. Why?
1. Free will is a measurable attribute

2. Given that the possession (or lack) of each degree of freedom is dependent on numerous factors, the amount of free will clearly be affected by numerous independent factors.

We can infer the following three things from the plot:

1. Some people have more free will than others

2. A large percentage of human population has around an 'average' amount of free will

3. Some people may have no free will at all and some people may have absolute, complete, unconstrained free will. However, probability of both these occurences is near zero.

Please note that these inferences that now seem almost too obvious weren't all that evident when I started this article. The question has always been "Do we have free will?" rather than "How much free will do I have?". It isn't anymore.

HUMAN NATURE - FURTHER QUESTIONS

This theory is just a starting point in an attempt to explain human nature - It puts some important things in perspective, but doesn't answer the larger questions regarding why people do what they do. Each of us, of course, wants greater free will (or do we?). To this end, I list out a few important questions to be answered -

Who has more free will? Who has less free will?
Do we say someone is "lucky" if they have more free will? Are richer people more free willed? Do people with higher education possess greater amount of free will? Do babies and old people have lower free will? Are deeply religious people more free-willed or less free willed? Not sure.

What are the ways a person can move rightward in the bell curve?
This is the next logical question. Are there specific things one can do to get to a state of higher free-will? Not sure.A thousand such questions are unanswered, as of now. However, if this small piece of statistical wizardry combined with a deep understanding of human behaviour (not intentions, just behaviour) can provide some of these answers, we may end up with a clearer picture as to why people behave the way they do.

What happens with time?
Does a person expend his free will with time? Or does he have the capability to go back on a free-willed decision later in life? How do we account for such a possibility? Not sure. This temporal element makes the discussion altogether more complex.

Is the world "deterministic" with respect to individuals?
Having assumed that we have free will until now, this may seem like a funny question to ask. Obviously if I have free will, my fate isn't pre-determined, right? Probably. However, if the bell of free will is a fixed, immovable grometric plot, "movement" and decisions of specific humans wouldn't matter to humanity's future states. Simply put - What if humanity was so designed that individuals are endowed with some amount of free will each, but the aggregation has a pre-determined, fixed probability structure it will follow, no matter what individual humans do?

I will attempt to answer each of these compelling questions in due time, in the hope of understanding people further and better. Thanks for reading, and please forgive my reader-unfriendly writing style.

(The author is a complete jackass)