I was reading this book 'Hyper Space' by Michio Kaku and was wondering how god could get into science?  How the vagueness of mythology could be put in rigors of logic.  Famous St. Thomas Aquinas in thirteen century produced the logical proof on explaining GOD and science and he said

 Things are in motion; hence there is a first mover

Things are caused; hence there is a first cause

Things exist, hence there is a creator

Perfect goodness exists, hence it has a source

Things are designed, hence they server a purpose.

 (The first three lines are variations of what is called the cosmological proof; the fourth argues on moral grounds; and the fifth is called the teleological proof.  The moral proof is by far the weakest, because morality can be viewed in terms of evolving social customs).

 Now let's look at what philosophical scientist could say (excerpts from the book 'Hyper Space' by Michio Kaku)

 "To have life in the universe, you need a rare conjunction of many coincidences.  Life, which depends on a variety of complex biochemical constants reaction, can easily be rendered impossible if we change some of the constants of chemistry and physics by a small amount.  For example, if the constants that govern nuclear physics were changed even slightly, then nucleo-synthesis and the creation of the heavy elements in the starts and supernovae might become impossible.  Then atoms might become unstable or impossible to create in supernovae.  Life depends on the heavy elements (elements beyond iron) for the creation of DNA and makes the heavy elements of the universe impossible to manufacture in the starts.  We are of children of the stars; however, if the laws of nuclear physics change in the slightest, then our "parents" are incapable of having "children" (us).  As another example, it is safe to say that the creation of life in the early oceans probably took 1 to 2 billion years.  However, if we could somehow shrink the lifetime of the proton to several million years, then life would be impossible.  There would not be enough time to create life out of random collisions of molecules.

 In other words, the very fact that we exist in the universe to ask these questions about it means that a complex sequence of events must necessarily have happened.  It means that the physical constants of the nature must have certain range of values, so that the stars lived long enough to create the heavy elements in our bodies, so that protons don'ts decay too rapidly before life has a chance to germinate, and so on.  In other words, the existence of humans who can ask questions about the universe places a huge number of rigid constraints on the physics of the universe - for example, its age, its chemical composition, its temperature, its size, and its physical processes.

 Remarking on these cosmic incidences, physicist Freeman Dyson once wrote, "As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we are coming.  This takes us to the strong version of the anthropic principle, which states that all the physical constants of the universe have been precisely chosen (by God or some Supreme Being) so that life is possible in our universe.  The strong version, because it raises questions about a deity, is much more controversial among scientists.

 Conceivably, it might have been blind luck if only a few constants of nature were required to assume certain values to make life possible.  However, it appears that a large set of physical constants must assume a narrow band of values in order for life to form in our universe.  Since accidents of this type are highly improbable, perhaps a divine intelligence (God) precisely chose those values in order to create life."

 If you come this far reading, don’t you feel funny, amazed and wondering as I am?  The anthropic argument is a more sophisticated version of the old argument that God located the earth at just the right distance from the sun.  If God had placed the earth too close , then it would be too hot to support life.  If God had placed the earth too far, then it would been too cold.  The fallacy of this argument is that millions of planets in the galaxy probably are sitting at the incorrect distance from their sun, and therefore life on them is impossible.  However, some planets will, by pure accident, be at right distance from their sun.  Our planet is one of them, and hence we are here to discuss the question.

 AT THIS HIGHEST LEVEL OF THOUGHT PROCESS, I FELT THAT ALL FORM OF KNOWLEDGE EVER KNOWN TO HUMAN KIND UNITE AT SOME POINT.  IN ABOVE PARAGRAPHS I CAN SEE SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY HAVE BECOME ONE.  FASCINATING ISN'T IT?

Last weekend I had been to Kemmannaugundi, company sponsored trip along with several of my colleagues.  Kemmannaugundi is about 6hrs drive from Bangalore.  It's a beautiful hill station in the midst of thousands of square miles tropical rain forests, mountains, coffee estates, water falls, dense forest, whole of the earth is carpeted with green grass, mild and chilling weather, beautiful view of sunset and sunrise.  It is indeed truly a heaven on earth.  It was a much required escape from city life.

I did half an hour truck to a place called as 'z-point', two mountain lines fuse together in the 'z' shape and hence the name.  From 'z-point' one could say huge landscape covered with greenery and clouds kissing the mountain peaks.  I was floated by the beauty of the nature.   Suddenly a thought crossed my mind and brought smile on face.  Being in densely populated and one of the fastest growing city Bangalore, life is so hectic, stressful.  Getting up in the morning, rushing to office work all day long and back to home to sleep and doing all this over next day and days to come for rest of my life.  In this city life, in between jungle of steel, concrete and glasses we often don't see sun set and sun rise for weeks.

Just as to refresh, relieve stress and recharge our biological batteries for next week of work we often escape to places like Kemmannaugundi to breath fresh air, to see sun set and rise, to enjoy the beauty of nature, two days later we are back again where we escaped from.   In the conquest of building luxury and comfortable life we have built big cities and urbanizing the whole world.  In my opinion things are good when they are kept simple.  So is life.  Are we not messing it up and making it more complicated?  The kind of life we want to escape into, like Kemmannaugundi, was the entire life style years ago.  With all those comforts of modern life we have lost the touch with beautiful and simple life, which we try to re-discover by escaping for two days to the places like Kemmannaugundi.

I am so used to the luxury city life, I couldn't walk barefoot for few meters, I couldn't sleep on mat.  There is a part in me that want to go back in time and live life like our age old ancestors lived, living off the land, mountains, trees, waters, eating, laughing, playing.  It was so simple.  I always wonder, what is there in human heart and mind that always pushes us to reach greater height, travel greater distances, to see invisible, to conquer the unconquerable, to do undoable.  In doing all these, life is becoming complicated.

This was the though that crossed my and brought smile on my face.  Few minutes later I got up, looked over the mountain rages, clouds and trees and filled my heart with joy and started walking toward the base camp with this thought still puzzling me.   Eventually, those two days of fun was over, we are back where we came from.  Next morning I am sitting in my office in front of my computer, writing complicated software to solve complex life problems only to make it more complicated!

There I am using computer to write this article and post it on the internet...  Funny isn't it?  Then again the same smile on my face on the very same thought that bought smile on my face in Kemmannaugundi.  Only this time I am in my office, in the real world, the world I choose to live in.   If I really want I could go into live any kind of life I want to.  But I choose to live in the city of Bangalore and I am loving it.  At least, I think I am loving it.  I really don't know whether I am loving it or not...  Life continues...

Analogy between M K Gandhi and Adolf Hitler!!! sounds menacing?  Well, I am not for Hitler here.   It’s about two contemporary leaders.  One changed the world for good and the other for worst.   But my point is both are great leaders of their times.

I was wondering if and only if Hitler had used his great leadership for the welfare of the humanity, how the world would be today.  What ever we know about the history is what we read and what we read is what was written.   History has written that Hitler was a evil (which indeed was cent-per-cent true) and hence generations to come will remember him as evil.

If I look back far into history back into the ages of Egyptians and Romans, I read 'Great Pharos', 'Alexander the Great', 'Suleiman the Magnificent', 'Genghis khan the warrior' and so on...  But what these "Great" people did? Were they truly great as they were described? Pharos built pyramids for their burials, they tortured and killed slaves.  Alexander conquered country after country, not for people, but for his greed to rule the world and in the process killed thousands of innocents.  So is with Genghis Khan (ruthless murderer), Suleiman (built a palace decorate with gold).

The only different was people of those times wrote them as 'Greats', 'Magnificent', 'Warrior' etc and so we know them as great people who ruled and left their legacy.   These stories were written hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

But what about Hitler?  It is only about 60 year since WWII has ended, may be another 100 or 200 years later people might come to know Hitler as something different than what we know him today.   I think it is the time that tells the story.   I think history remembers only winners.  Hitler lost it all.   But in between all his cruality (massacring Jews, holocausts etc), he thought a lesson to all of us (and for future leaders) "The consequences of war".   Today many irresponsible nation have nuclear abilities.  Imagine a war now.  Catastrophic end of the world.

In the above context I tend draw an analogy between M K Gandhi and Adolf Hitler (only their leadership skills and nothing beyond that).  Before Gandhi became 'Mahatma' and before Hitler become 'Evil', they suffered similar struggle & hardships, shred similar principles and both were influenced by social conditions of that time.  It is just like the saying 'with great power comes the great responsibility', Hitler became thirsty of more and more power and with more and more power he lost the sense of responsibility.  His way of expressions was through violence.  I could go on to add more to this analogy.  But I have to stop here to make reader to use their contemplation to come up with their own conclusions...

This blog is only my opinion.  I am not writing this to influence reader to think Adolf Hitler as great.   I myself truly believe that a man like him should never repeat again.    I conclude by saluting father of my great nation M K Gandhi for showing the world a unique way of fighting for freedom.

"Christ gave me the message.  Gandhi gave me the method" - Martin Luther King

While searching on the internet, I accidentally found TIME magazine's December 31, 1999 issue.   Cover page portrayed Albert Einstein picture declaring him as "Person of the century".  I started wondering on how they came to conclude this.   The question that came to my mind was "How different the world would have been, if Einstein did not exist?”

In my opinion person can be judged as person of the century, if his/her existence has changed the world.  Assume Einstein did not exist.  Series of inter-linked question needs to be answered.  What would have happened to theory of relativity?  What would have happened to hydrogen bomb? What would have happened to WWII?

Well, If no Einstein, some other scientist would have cracked E=MC^2, may be it would have taken 5 or 10 or 15 more years to do that, but not 50 years!!! Eventually some one would have explained theory of relativity.   Now this leads me to second question.  America would not have made hydrogen bomb when it needed most during WWII.   However, by the time America bombed Japan, Nazi's were on their knees.   It would have taken more time and more life; eventually Allied forces would have defeated Nazi's.

Given these scenarios, I tend to believe that Einstein's non-existence would not have changed the world.   The world would have been same as it is today.   Now, why TIME magazine choose Einstein?  Only thing comes to my mind is 20th century was the era of technological changes.  I guess TIME magazine has caught the theme of 20th century and attached the name of most famous person of that time associated with technology.  That was Einstein!!!  So TIME magazine has chosen the "theme of the century" and not the "person of the century"

If you remember history, 20th century was not about technological innovations alone, also it was more about global change from communism, monarch, imperial ruling to democracy and civilian rights.   I think these are far more important that technological innovations.   People who are involved in these activities should have been looked upon for the "Person of the century" title.  Great leaders like Churchill, Stalin, Hitler, and Gandhi.  

I can go on and write on each of these great leaders of that time and tell you how different the world would have been if not for these people.   Having said this, I am not against the idea of titling Einstein as "Person of Century".  I am just questioning the fundamental idea behind choosing him.