tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36031784555817255152024-02-08T22:13:24.685+05:30SourceCodeKaustubh Karkare :: BlogKaustubh Karkarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09504704267738812131noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3603178455581725515.post-4185846869758729012013-07-02T18:47:00.000+05:302015-09-14T12:23:49.978+05:30Explaining Emotional Detachment
<p>Not long ago, I took a simple <a href='http://psychology-tools.com/myers-briggs-type-indicator/'>Online Test</a> that concluded that my personality type is <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ'>INTJ</a>. Subsequent introspection, besides confirming that I almost perfectly fit that stereotype (which was disappointing in itself since my emotional side would have preferred to believe that I was somehow special or unique), also led me to explore the consequences of the realization that I will eventually but inevitably no longer be who I am right now.</p>
<p>And that means that every thing I value right now, it may all be just a phase that I am going through. It may all be just a matter of time before I find flaws in the reasoning behind everything that I believe in. And if I don't, that doesn't necessarily mean that there are none. Now, it would have been a reasonable assumption that smarter men and women than I have struggled with the same problems and (factoring in the substantially more time and life experience they have had to think about this than I) would have proceeded beyond this point. But having explored the available answers to the philosophical questions that I obsess over, I already knew that none of the existing ones satisfy me.</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p>In my last blog post, I tried to tackle the question of the purpose of existence and the depressing answer was that there is none ... all we can do is give ourselves something to strive for based on our arbitrary principles which in turn are based on the arbitrary experiences that we have had, coupled with arbitrary genetic factors. But what now? The human mind is fundamentally inconsistent entity with a constant struggle between emotions and the intellect. The key to happiness, as my mom explains the essence of books she reads on spirituality, is to be at peace with this dichotomy and accept reality as it is. However, given my fundamental distrust of emotions, it is currently impossible for me to be a neutral observer in this matter.</p>
<p>What is it about emotions that makes me so wary? For starters, they are primitive and their origins simplistic, which means that they can be manipulated. Aside from that being exactly what self-control entails, it also means that one is susceptible to external control, which may or may not be desirable. I suppose this next point is characteristic of youth, but even after knowing that emotions ultimately can be restrained, it isn't that easy to do so. But most of all, they can result in phenomenal inefficiency by making short-term gains appealing.</p>
<p>Now, I am aware that the question of whether or not a course of action results in a short-term or long-term gain (if at all) can only be evaluated within the context of a greater objective, the latter being is something that pure intellect cannot provide. All it can do is to help achieve it by making better decisions at each step along the way. But the "will to live" is an emotional response to the prospect of death, that has evolved from millions of years of accumulated evolution (and justifying existence using meaningless sentiments like "life is beautiful" and "there is so much to experience" is being dishonest with yourself). It is the combination of these factors that have resulted in the success of our race in terms of population and survival. So now we have an alternative solution to achieve happiness: find a balance between intellect and emotion.</p>
<p>The pursuit of happiness itself (as a consequence of its correlation with survival) is the result of similar evolutionary processes. But evolution has not resulted in us wanting to selfishly maximize our own happiness ... we do have empathy since it enhances overall survival probability. However, most of us are flawed since our sympathies are restricted at most only to a small set of surrounding people ... only those whom we have physically interacted with. The emotional aspect of our mind is far too primitive to grasp the abstraction of an unseen world, justifiable due to (in evolutionary terms) the recentness of long distance travel and subsequent globalization. But the question that haunts me is this: isn't the next logical step obvious?</p>
<p>Now, I know that most of the people in the world are good. Or at least, they try to be. But at the end of the day, it is the minority of the ones that aren't that are responsible for screwing it up. If not directly, then by creating possibly self-perpetuating systems that the nicer people have no choice but to be a part of. And it isn't that I am incapable of understanding their motivations ... the problem is that this is how it is going to continue to be. And while the logical part of my mind justifies its contempt for the ideas, the primitive emotional part is incapable of not transferring the sentiment over to the representatives thereof.</p>
<p>I have come to believe that as long as humanity has the level of emotional freedom that it does now, true progress will not be possible. Consider a world where people have been reprogrammed using technology to be incapable of performing any immoral action to the best of their understanding, the aim being the maximization of justice and happiness. A world where military forces are obsolete, where all software can be open-source, where verbal agreements are just as good as written contracts, where people do their jobs to the best of their ability, where they do not consume more resources than they need, where there is no private ownership that can create divides, and when something undesirable is unavoidable, the burden shared fairly. And now that you have imagined all this, understand that all it takes is a single person like ourselves who will inevitably bring it all crashing down. This is why the Communism failed ... people cannot be trusted. All it takes is need, opportunity and the ability to rationalize one's behavior.</p>
<p>While I know that the aforementioned future is an impossibility and that the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis'>just-world hypothesis</a> is indeed a fallacy, I have not yet been able to overcome wishing that this were not the case. There is a frustration due to the inability coupled with unwillingness to do anything about this, consequent upon the awareness of the lack of skills required, in addition to the emotional bias that "they don't deserve it". Faced with constant hypocrisy, all I seem to want to do is to limit my attention to those parts of the world that do make sense, which could also be expressed as the rejection of the rest of the world. Pathetic, isn't it? Acceptance seems attainable only after (and it shouldn't be long now) my idealism has been completely shattered.</p>
<p>I am at a point where not only do I experience emotions, but in addition to simultaneously perceiving that at this very instant I am experiencing them, I also recognize exactly what triggered them. But the truly irritating part is that even after knowing all this, I still have a hard time regulating them. And the thought of the time being wasted in the effort itself doesn't help the matter. The solutions frequently suggested for this issue are "not to think about it" or "it will get better with time", and while that is how I continue to function, I cannot help but interpret these solutions are avoidance and desensitization, instead of actually trying to fix the problem.</p>
<p>I don't know what to think, but as I write this, I am not angry, bitter, or morose. I know that it is futile. What I am is tired. And all I want is peace.</p>
<p>PS : Thanks to Shreyas Pathak, for helping figure out some of the above ideas.</p>Kaustubh Karkarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09504704267738812131noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3603178455581725515.post-29381190062926684822013-03-06T20:52:00.001+05:302013-07-02T18:13:16.981+05:30Nothing is Sacred<p>One of the biggest goals in each one of our lives is to figure out our purpose. Why do we exist? Not how ... because the answer to that is known, but why? Explanations involving God just result in the question being modified to: Why does God exist? Now, I recognize that I am making an assumption here (which, if proven false, would render this entire chain of thought invalid), justified by the lack of convincing evidence to the contrary, but this is what I fundamentally believe as of now: there is no greater purpose.</p>
<p>The universe, as a result of the fact that it is logically consistent, <i>can</i> exist. But so can any number of other logically consistent universes with different histories or different laws of physics altogether. And why should anything exist at all anyway? Well, the principles of justice that I have been conditioned to think according to (yes, I know that it sounds evil, but if you think about it objectively, the definition does apply) make me want to believe that all possibilities are (withholding the word: equally) feasible, and exist as a superimposition which happens to be most closely described by the term: Multiverse. But essentially, we exist, because we can.</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p>Now, the advantage of existential nihilism is that it is liberating. There are no expectations that you feel you must fulfill, even if you don't want to. However, the psychology that leads you to this conclusion also makes you question everything, which can at times be depressing. There are occasions when I look at a baby looking up lovingly at his mother, and the first thing that comes to my mind isn't how much I love my own mother (sorry Mom), but how billions of years of evolution have culminated in beings that are capable of such emotions. If I see a young couple in love, it occurs to me that hormones must be flooding their bodies, hampering judgment. Or if I see someone who has worked really hard to achieve something, instead of admiring their endurance, I think of how little it matters in the grand scheme of things (assuming it exists at all). And yes, I give the same treatment to my own life too. Now that I think of it, the kind of stuff that makes me feel good invariably involves situations that make you feel how small you are ... a classic case of confirmation bias.</p>
<p>In fact, to understand how I have begun to view the world, consider the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life" target='new'>Game of Life</a> (it is very highly recommended that you follow this link and attain a basic understanding). It is a system whose behavior is defined at a basic level using very simple rules, but results in extraordinarily complex patterns when viewed from a higher scale (ie, when the basic units are insignificant, but the patterns are prominent). Using logical induction, one can propose that reality, as we know it, is nothing more than a similar system, with more complex rules including probabilities (assuming the validity of quantum mechanics), being played out on a much larger arena. In principle, if we have an understanding of how the universe functions at its basic level (which is the ultimate aim of science), and given with sufficient computational power, we should be able to simulate reality itself. And free will, as we experience it, would be nothing more than a manifestation of the probabilities mentioned above (if at all).</p>
<p>And you know what? It sucks. Knowing that everything you do is pointless. That you are just a tiny blob of organic matter that happens to be self aware, stuck in a corner of an incomprehensibly large galaxy, that is insignificant compared to the size of the universe it is contained in. There are times when I wonder what it would be like if I weren't capable of such abstractions ... ignorance being bliss and all. And then I consider religion again ... it gives people hope. And through that, happiness. But I don't think I'm capable of that anymore ... I lose self-respect for even considering deceiving myself. Note that I concede, in all honesty, the possibility that there might be some ideas in worth consideration, but by the time we filter them out, words like "religion" and "spirituality" would have long since ceased to be applicable.</p>
<p>What I have, instead, is complete and utter faith in science. I believe that if there is anything that we don't understand, logical answers do exist, and that science will eventually lead to them. That the God of the Gaps argument deserves condemnation. That nothing is sacred. Of course, the argument is just as applicable to its maker, and Godel's Incompleteness Theorems formally prove that logic too cannot be consistent within itself (in simpler terms, one cannot describe in all entirety any system without making assumptions). And so ultimately, we have no choice but to make some assumptions somewhere ... the least we can do is to be honest with ourselves and ensure that they are consistent with each other.</p>
<p>Now, another issue is that evolution has resulted in me to wanting a greater "meaning" in my life. How? Because individuals that worked together and put the needs of the tribe/group above their own were more likely to survive as compared to purely selfish ones. By working towards a goal together, the process of whatever needs to be done is optimized (each individual does what he/she is best at), efficiency is increased and survival rates enhanced. In fact, all of morality can be shown to derived from these principles of cooperation that were favored by natural selection (and not from religion). And thus, the idea of a greater "meaning" is appealing to all of us.</p>
<p>But why are we discussing all this anyway? Because the overwhelming majority opinion regarding the purpose of life is essentially to be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness#Scientific_views" target="new">happy</a>. Psychologist Martin Seligman articulated that humans seem happiest when their lives consist of the following elements: Pleasure, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning and Accomplishments. But as of now, none of the others are as intellectually attractive to me as the one I am focusing on here. I recognize that I will inevitably change as time passes, but given that I haven't yet had the experiences that will trigger these changes, I cannot possibly comprehend them yet. And therefore, there's no point in worrying about them right now.</p>
<p>So, where are we at? The desire for a "meaning" coupled with the lack of one. How do we fix it? Assign it ourselves. How? Find something that we value enough to dedicate our lives to. This is a point of divergence, as different individual value different things. What do I value? Well ... given the somewhat depressing perspective with which I view the world, aside from one particular goal, nothing seems worthy. Of course, on purely logical grounds, all goals are arbitrary; but this one is appealing to me not only because of evolution (as it involves acquisition of knowledge & power that, in an evolutionary context, can result in food & security which facilitate natural selection) but perhaps also as result of all the science fiction books I have read (thanks Dad). But what is it? The rest of this text is dedicated to its description, but I must warn you that there is a significant amount of speculation involved, and so you might want to take it with a pinch of salt.</p>
<p>There is an argument used by some people while debating the existence of God, that I find particularly interesting. The claim is that the logic we use is not capable of understanding the ways in which God works, and hence will prove insufficient in the long run. That we are operating on a "need-to-know" basis, and that any apparent inconsistencies we perceive are due to our imperfections. The problem with this proposal is that, much like God, there is no way to disprove it for sure. Of course, there's nothing in support of it either, but it does raise the question: if that <i>is</i> the case, can we fix it?</p>
<p>There is a field of Computer Science called "Soft Computing" which involves the calculation of inexact solutions to hard problems that take too long to solve conventionally, due to the extremely large number of potential solutions. Tolerant of imprecision, uncertainty, partial truths and approximations, soft computing effectively takes to, as a role model, the human brain. Now, the human brain is the most complex computational system that we know of, and understanding how it works is one of science's greatest challenges. With a 100 billion neurons in each brain, and a 100 trillion interconnections between them, it is extraordinarily difficult to figure out what is going on.</p>
<p>But progress is being made. Artificial neural networks, which are systems that use functional analogs of biological neurons to build complex networks (in software), are capable of not only of locating solutions to these hard problems but even "learning" new things and intelligently guessing stuff if they don't know, much like we do. They are already being used (although at a much smaller scale than the human brain) in applications like Facial Recognition and Facebook Friend Suggestions. And so while we might not be capable of understanding how our own brains work, there is a possibility that we might indirectly be able to "build" one that is as complex using sufficient resources.</p>
<p>In fact, given freedom from the biological restrictions that we are subject to, it could continue to evolve, surpassing our own intelligence. Applying induction once again, if we can create something smarter than us, it can create something smarter than itself. This could result in an explosion of intelligence, each generation designing the next one to be smarter than itself. A phenomenon called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity">Technological Singularity</a>, it is difficult for us (given our limited intelligence) to predict what will happen after that, but I'd guess that it will never be enough. All matter and energy available would be converted into a computational substrate, until the upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation apply.</p>
<p>Of course, the above is based on the assumption that each successive generation continues to want the same things, which can be debated. The current Zeitgeist, however, is moving towards an ever-increasing valuation of intelligence and information (check out the <a href="http://www.google.com/glass" target="new">Google Glass Project</a>), and I think that we will eventually have no choice but to technologically augment ourselves just to keep up; subsequently sacrificing our individuality (for a greater good) and merging our consciousness with an ever-expanding <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_mind_(science_fiction)">Group Mind</a>. The patterns of information that define who we are are fundamentally intertwined with the emotions that we feel. Along with the realization that emotions are the source of all desires, one could propose that the desires of the individuals democratically become the desires of the group mind, which could be a possible solution to the above stated problem.</p>
<p>Of all the ideas that I have considered, this one appeals the most to me. I don't care that we'll be leaving behind what makes us human. Not that I have much respect for the species anyway. But what we will be gaining is complete and utter control over our world ... the power to do absolutely anything we want. Perhaps even the ability to twist, modify, or even break the laws of physics. Assuming an infinite number of universes, the potential to keep merging with other similar intelligences and become infinite. Beyond this point my imagination fails, but you get the idea ... omniscience, omnipresence & omnipotence.</p>
<p>Nothing is sacred. The only goal that I feel is worthy enough to pursue, is to <i>become</i> God.</p>
<p>PS : Thanks to Tanya Bisht, for helping figure out some of the above ideas.</p>Kaustubh Karkarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09504704267738812131noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3603178455581725515.post-63683227962512630192012-11-09T19:42:00.000+05:302014-01-27T04:54:23.099+05:30Computation using Time Travel<p>Time Travel is one of the most fascinating subject I have ever encountered. Having spent an unreasonably large amount of time thinking about it, the following describes one of the ideas I had regarding how we can use it.</p>
<p>Consider for a moment that humanity has somehow managed to develop the technology for Time Travel, and confirmed that the universe abides by the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle. For the purposes of this discussion, you may assume (although the specific details of how it is done don't matter here) that this is done via a Wormhole (stabilized using exotic matter with Negative Mass/Energy), one end of which (through Time Dilation effects) lies in our future. Now, we can establish a communication link across this wormhole, which allows us to send data into the past or receive data from the future. Additionally, let's assume that we can transfer information over this link via two specific functions in a computer program:</p>
<code>
void send(data) # Sends data back into the past.<br />
data receive() # Receives data from the future.<br />
</code>
<a name='more'></a>
<p>Now, I propose that these two functions can be used to solve any computational problem in same amount of time it takes to check if a particular solution is valid. Consider the following code:</p>
<code>
candidate = random_solution()<br />
if solution_test(candidate) == false:<br />
data = receive() # Get data from the future.<br />
send(false if data == true else true) # Send data into the past.<br />
print "Random Solution :", candidate<br />
</code>
<p>If we run an implementation of the above, we would find that the if-condition is always false. Why? Because the existence of any reality in which this were not the case would be impossible.</p>
<p>It would be easier to understand if you think according to the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Let us start out with the assumption that every possible version of reality simultaneously exists. Now, these realities can be divided into 2 groups: [1] those with correct solutions guessed, and [2] those with incorrect solutions. The realities in the first group would skip the if-block and print out a solution. The realities in the second group would try to execute the if-block, which tries to send data back into the past which is the opposite of what it had received. This is a paradox, which the Self-Consistency principle would prevent, and thus, the realities in the second group cannot exist (the corresponding wave-functions would eliminate themselves). One of the realities in the first group would be randomly chosen (as a result of the wave-function collapse, the results of which are uncertain) as the one we experience.</p>
<p>Now, the above algorithm works perfectly if we know for a fact that at least one solution exists for the problem. However, it does not take into consideration what would happen if there were no solutions. In that case, all futures would have a paradox in them, and thus, all of them would be impossible. To fix that, we modify the code thus:</p>
<code>
if random_number(1,N) == some_constant: # almost impossible<br />
print "No Solution"<br />
else:<br />
candidate = random_solution()<br />
if solution_test(candidate) == false:<br />
send(false if receive() == true else true)<br />
print "Random Solution :", candidate<br />
</code>
<p>Now, if N is small, the probability of the randomly chosen number between 1 & N being equal to some predefined random constant would be 1/N. Now, if this probability is large (closer to 1), the False Negative Rate (realities in which it would be incorrectly guessed that there are no solutions) would be high. But in case N is extremely large, the chances of the if-block being executed would be so small that essentially the only way it would happen would be if all possible futures in the else-block lead to paradoxes. However, I should point out that the probabilities of making the correct guesses here may themselves be so low that events that prevent the execution of the program itself (such as the explosion of the Earth for no good reason) may turn out to be more likely, but let's ignore that for now (because I haven't figured out a way to avoid that yet. I'm still thinking though). Assuming that the program's execution does occur, we want to make N as large as possible, to make the False Negative Rate tend to zero (0).</p>
<p>Now, if it were somehow possible (using methods unknown) to determine for certain that that there are no solutions to the given problem, we could use that to calculate optimal solutions to any problem instead of just random ones. The algorithm would be something like:</p>
<ul>
<li>Receive a solution from the future.</li>
<li>Confirm that it is indeed a solution or else invoke a paradox.</li>
<li>Randomly guess another solution that is better than the current candidate.</li>
<li>If there is a better solution, send it back in time.</li>
<li>Else send the current solution back in time.</li>
<li>Use the solution as you need to.</li>
</ul>
<p>The reason that the above techniques work is that a Closed Timelike Curve is created, which basically involves an event that causes itself (via a chain reaction that travels back in time). Consequently, we cannot iterate over multiple solutions by using results from other realities because the chances of getting correct information from another reality would be outweighed by the chances of getting incorrect information, and as this information is not being verified in this reality, a CTC can exist here. Consider the following example:</p>
<code>
candidate, best = receive()<br />
if solution_next(candidate) != null:<br />
next = solution_next(candidate)<br />
if solution_test(next):<br />
best = solution_better(best, next)<br />
send(next, best)<br />
else:<br />
send(candidate, best)<br />
print "Optimal Solution :", best<br />
</code>
<p>Note how there is no starting point in the above loop. You can never be completely sure about the data you're receiving. The so-called "best" solution may not in fact be optimal, as the only reality that will actually occur would be the one with the final solution being returned from the future. Every possible value of the "best" solution would be a valid CTC, and therefore, the above code would be equivalent to:</p>
<code>
best = solution_random()<br />
print "Optimal Solution :", best<br />
</code>
<p>We need to verify that it is indeed the optimal solution, but that verification would take as much time as actually solving the whole problem without using time travel, and so it is just as useless here.</p>
<p>Of course, all of this depends on the fact that we are able to execute these programs without bringing about the destruction of world, or something much simpler and far more likely such as the shorting out of circuitry that prevents us from running these programs altogether. But this system at least provides us with a way to obtain and use optimal results before proving that they are in fact optimal:</p>
<code>candidate = receive()<br />
print "Optimal Solution :", candidate<br />
solution_use(candidate) # Do whatever you need to using this solution.<br />
best = problem_solve() # Conventionally solve it.<br />
if candidate != best:<br />
send(false if receive() == true else true) # paradox<br />
send(candidate)<br />
</code>
<p>Intelligence Agencies, Military Forces, Governments and Corporations with trade-secrets would be utterly screwed if their opponents got a hold of this technology. In fact, there is a proper ethical dilemma here: How much do we value our privacy? Even if possible, is it something (like WMDs) that should not be implemented? What do you think?</p>
PS : Thanks to Kirtivardhan Rathore and Akshat Uniyal, who helped analyze the merits of these ideas (and many others which didn't make it here).Kaustubh Karkarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09504704267738812131noreply@blogger.com0