The Straits Times was recently inundated regarding news of the death of several Singaporean canoeists, one of which was an NJC teacher. Unfortunately, I have remained indifferent to their passing, but tend towards scorn while observing how the media handled the situation.

So they died. I understand that much, and while I did not really read the news of their circumstances, I find it inexplicable why it warrants as much newspaper space as it does. The first thought to my mind was “big deal”. They died. So what? Do you expect me to feel compassion for them, to be in any way interested?

If five men’s deaths are such big news, I find it inexplicable how the sad situation the poor and hungry in other countries are in is able to pass by unreported. I find it incomprehensible why such trivial reports can be blown into such mind-boggling proportions, to the extent that it has retained places in the headlines for three consecutive days. Once again, I rediscovered the utter redundancy with which the news media work; redundant triviality in the face of daily affairs of the world.

In situations like the tsunami in Indonesia, not much attention paid to the suffering the victims have to undergo. Even today, in Iraq, with so many deaths everyday, it seems as though such issues are forgotten, dismissed with the encroachment of present problems. In Nepal, the Maoists retain the threat of continuing the civil war against the government; in Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers are indeed continuing the civil war; in Africa, Chad and Sudan remain in perpetual pseudo war against each other. There are so many deaths everyday around the globe. Certainly, the death of five men is of no consequence compared to these.

I shall quote a saying: “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of many is a statistic”. How fitting it is with regards to our reaction to the circumstances.
20:54
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

People are never satisfied with what they have, always demanding for more, whether intentionally or not. It is human nature, I suppose, to be perfectionist to some extent, and when we do not get what we expect, we remain unhappy. Simply put, we expect too much, and when the scenario does not turn out well, dissatisfaction ensues.

I guess that the problem lies with what our idea of the world is. Since young, we are fed so many fairy tales about how great the world can be, notions that are half-truths at best and existing only in fiction. If everyone can be the hero of a story, then who will be the victims? When we finally go out to face reality, the mind suffers when results do not conform to the best case scenario, and we suffer disappointment of greater frequency than we experience vindication.

Theoretically, one would be happiest when the results are beyond your wildest expectations. Hence, if you want to be happy, set your expectations to the minimum possible. To find what is great about this world, assume the world to be a cruel, hellish pit; when you discover that what you experience about the world is not as hellish as imagined, naturally you are euphoric; when you see cases when hell is a literal description of a situation, it is within your expectation, and you suffer no disappointment. Of course, all this is in theory, actually attempting to idealise the world as a hell is probably impossible. Similarly, setting expectations to the minimum may be futile, like how people would intuitively feel that an ‘A’ is possible for their exams given the ease with which they blasted through. There is simply little to no reason for them to believe that they may fail.

That is why to always believe in a worst case scenario is impossible, and that is why we will always be disappointed one way or another. Perhaps that simply reveals the futility of pursuing happiness in life, for there will always be things that will make you unhappy. Happiness is like water cupped in the palm; it slips out as quickly as it is scooped, and with much less effort.

It is somewhat ironic that our beliefs complement each other such that we do not remain in perpetual internal conflict, allowing us to find peace instead, yet it is by our beliefs that we are made unhappy. Perhaps that is why humans are so entertaining, for we are paradoxical.
15:22
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

I can understand why people, after their exams are over, feel so lost, as though something dear has been taken away from them. After the initial euphoria over the end of exams is over, rather than the happiness they expect, they feel rather empty instead. My hypothesis is that they no longer have a goal: without the goal (working for academic success during ‘A’ Levels), they lost what purpose they used to have.

A boat without a rudder cannot steer towards land. Purpose and goals are what motivates us, without which we are like lost souls, lacking motivation. Religion is founded on this problem, as most humans feel the need to have some higher motivation and direction in our lives in other to feel at peace. We may all have great latent potential lying within us, but unless we put it to some use, it may simply remain inside, never brought out to its full potential.

Speaking of goals, I have a whole bunch of ideas as to what to do after exams are over (which they are), and I’ll just outline them out:

1. Master classical physics.
Like St. Augustine would say, to reach the sky, you must build the foundations. It’s something useful to learn anyway, considering how JC teaches us nothing about vector applications, which comes into use so often in mathematical physics. The JC syllabus is really over simplified. In other words, it is time to relearn everything again.

2. Blog more.
Considering how much time I will have, rather than waste them all on anime and manga, I must force myself to write more. A lot more. Ok, I shall target to post at least once every four days. That should be reasonable enough.

3. Physical fitness training.
Cycling shall take up a large proportion of my holiday time, as I train myself for NS. Even before I began my hiatus, I could not keep up with the main bunch of Joyriders, which is quite pathetic; it will be even worse now. Well, the imagined humiliation should be motivation enough to force me to train =)

4. Enjoy life.
It is holidays, after all.
20:07
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

Fate is what many people may refer to as an illogical belief, a mythical dimensionless entity that simply does not exist. While it is popular in contemporary fiction, few would think that it actually permeates reality, and should be something limited to the realms of imagination and fantasy.

Let’s think of this scenario: supposing you are to be reborn into the world at a particular instance. Statistics show that for each second, a classroom size of children is born, so you have roughly 1/30 chance of being reborn as any one of these children. Newborns obviously do not have matured and shaped beliefs of their older counterparts; they are subject to religious influences, parental teachings and societal pressures, depending on where they are born in the world.

If each of these children is born into a different section of the world, then it is clear that you would have different lives as any one of these children: you may grow up in Iraq, living through the aftermath of the Iraq War; die of hunger and disease in the African wilderness; struggle under neo-Maoist oppression in the Nepal backwaters; you may also live a comfortable life in USA. For each of these possibilities, you will end up living completely different lives, presented with different choices, and certainly shaped with different beliefs, even though you may retain similar character. Sure, your choices may vary, and there may exist many possible instances of your future, yet few of these possibilities will ever materialise into overlapping circumstances. In a given scenario, the scope of your future, while large, will be ultimately limited.

Fate certainly exists, though not in the strict sense that it is always portrayed. By our mere existence in, say, Singapore, we are brought up in a comfortable childhood; this early influence will become a compass to our scope of possible futures. If, on the other hand, we are stranded in Africa, chances are that we will grow up hungry and die hungry. At least, the probability of that occurring is far higher than dying as a rich and successful politician.

However, just because fate exists does not mean that fate cannot be changed. The problem with it is that it takes a great deal of effort for it to happen, or an occurrence bordering miraculous, or a crisis that completely reshaped your character (since character is the most solid denominator for the choices made in your life). By miraculous, it is like events where a rich businessman decided to choose a random boy off the street to become his apprentice, which naturally involves a whole pot of luck. Such an action will change the fate of the boy (assuming he is poor), delineating a new set of possible futures with higher probability of having a good life.

For most of us, together with our endless quest for success, we can’t depend of miracles to change our fate for the better, but we can make the best possible choices, ending with the best future possible within the pre-defined possibilities. Our fates are determinant; our futures not quite so.

---------------

I finally realised that staying at home for several days in a row is a one-way route towards unproductiveness.

15:45
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

A hierarchy and system of power certainly exists in the world, as well as in Nature. I’m not talking about governments, or CEOs or others of these so called “positions of power”, but… well, I’ll spell out my opinions soon enough.

Who exactly is a person who has power? A man with a gun has some form of destructive power, and a man with a tank even more so. A man with money also has power, and so does a man who simply knows how to charm others with his words. As you can see, power comes in many forms and shapes (and sizes). Everyone has power, and the only difference is its magnitude and its usage.

Power can be used in many ways; we have all heard about cases whereby power is misused as well as cases where power is used correctly, but the former exist in much greater quantity. It leads to the further question of why it is so often misused, but that is another issue altogether.

When a robber enters a bank and threatens its occupants, subsequent events are determined by his actions, as well as the actions of the police (or whoever is responsible for defusing the situation). The bankers, customers, and your everyday shopper waiting in the queue would not play a major role, and can be considered powerless. The robber, on the other hand, has a gun and holds the lives of others at his mercy, therefore holding the reins of power; in other words, the situation revolves around him.

In a war, civilians rarely, if ever, play a major role in determining its outcome. That is the job belonging to the two armed forces involved in the conflict, and civilians are at best, merely observers of the battles. In such a situation, the holder of the reins of power is easily determined: whoever has more troops and uses better strategies are the ones who have the best chance of winning. Those who act, rather than those who react, are the ones who are more likely to force events to conform to their actions, hence the saying that it is always more difficult to defend (in a war, defending sides are disadvantaged in having to react to attacking strategies).

From the above examples, I can hypothesis that power is the means to make events revolve around an action. This is easily demonstrated in other areas like politics. A careless comment by Lee Kuan Yew some nine years ago soured Singapore’s relations with Indonesia – just like that. I believe that some CEO of an oil company nearly caused a minor economic depression with another careless comment earlier this year, but I can’t remember who. In any case, wielders of power are more often than not the cause of an effect, rather than reacting to the actions of others.

In nature, we have a physical manifestation of such a relation of power, and it is sitting right in the stars. The Earth revolves around the Sun, and the moon revolves around Earth, and neither Earth nor the moon can do much to change its course; it was determined by the proximity of the larger body. The Sun, in turn, revolves around what scientists claim to be a black hole, and certainly, the galaxies will all affect the courses of one another due to gravity, however weak their effects may be. The moon, being such a small body compared to its larger beings, can’t help but be pulled and tugged, while exerting little to no change to, say, the Earth and the Sun. A black hole, on the other hand, can easily swallow the moon and disintegrate its structure into radiation without breaking a sweat, a demonstration of the difference in strength between the influential and the weak.

We can do nothing without power – that is certain. Without it, the world (i.e. human society) will carry on when we die, oblivious to our passing; indeed, even when we are alive, the world will remain oblivious to our presence. For those of us who wish to change the world for the better, well, the course of action that must be taken is obvious.

However, even though seizing power is so enticing, would you really want to do so? A black hole is powerful, yet no one dares to approach it; for to be overwhelmingly powerful often means to be feared, and few are those in power who do not live in solitude.

20:43
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

I think I am in love...







...with Quantum Mechanics. Since the ‘A’ Level is not yet over, I might as give in to my academic inclinations and spill out the secrets I have recently discovered. Mind you, this is going to be a long post on Quantum Physics, but I will attempt to put it all into layman’s terms.

The origin of quantum mechanics lies within the mystery called the Young’s Double Slit experiment. This should sound familiar to all students of college physics. Basically, in this experiment, we find that light from a source (say, a monochromatic lamp) is diffracted by a narrow slit. The diffracted light is then further diffracted by two narrow slits at equidistance from the first slit, such that these slits act like point sources of light, resulting in superposition and interference on a screen. The result will be a pattern of bright and dark fringes formed on the screen, caused by constructive and destructive interference of the light waves at those points. The double slit experiment thus acts as a showcase of the wave property of light, as that is the only commonsensical interpretation of diffraction possible.

 

Most of us also know the other property of light, which is its particle nature, demonstrated by Einstein’s Photoelectric Effect. What happens here is that light quanta (energy packets) can hit a metal, and by chance, may be absorbed by the electrons of the metal. The light quanta passes its energy to these electrons, which become “excited” and may break free of its parent atoms, travelling at a speed determined by the energy of the light absorbed. Here, light acts as a particle, for its encounter and subsequent absorption by the electron is proof that the energy of a light is centred at a point.

Light has an enigmatic nature, for it can be both a particle and a wave at the same time, a property dubbed as the wave-particle duality. Strangely enough, this property extends to all quantum entities (e.g. electrons, photons, atoms). It is even theoretically possible to perform the Double Slit experiment using atoms, with a gold foil acting as the slits, and to get the same interference pattern as we do for light. Hence, the mystery of light’s conflicting properties extends to all entities of a sufficiently small size.

In the 1900s, scientists were able to come up with a standard interpretation of quantum laws, known as the Copenhagen Interpretation, largely developed by Niels Bohr. The first concept indicated by this interpretation is the collapse of the wave function. For example, an electron travels as a wave, but if we were to look for it with an electron detector, its wave function collapses to a particle. In other words, if we are able to determine where the electron is, it will exist as a particle, ceasing its wave property. Hence, there is no longer any uncertainty regarding its position, but the moment we stop looking, its probability of being in another position increases as its wave function moves on.

More importantly, the “wave” indicated by the wave property is not a material wave as we know it. Sound is a mechanical wave that uses vibrations of air particles; water waves use the vibration of water molecules. However, an electron wave is a probability wave. As I understand it, the wave outlined by the motion of the electron defines the chance whereby we can find the electron at a point. I find it easier to think of it as a normal distribution curve; a wave function is simply the materialisation of the distribution curve that indicates the probability of an electron’s exact position at a point.

Since we are only able to observe either its wave nature or particle nature at the same time, we can only determine its location or its movement (a wave must be in motion, hence observation of a wave helps determine an entity’s momentum). This gives rise to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which, obviously, is not as simple a concept as college textbooks make it out to be.

The second concept is the non-locality nature of quantum entities. In other to illustrate this idea, let us return to the double slit experiment again.

If we were to use electrons for the double slit experiment (for the sake of being able to determine its position), it will form an interference pattern on the detecting screen. Supposing we were to send only one electron at a time, why would it still form an interference pattern? The electron will travel to either slit with 50% probability, where it will deflect towards the bright fringes. However, when one slit is covered, the same electron will move to the other slit and the pattern disappears; it will no longer travel to the central bright fringe with the greatest probability, as it previously does. It is as though it knows when the slit is open or close, or when there is one slit or two, or when to form an interference pattern and when not to. Spookily enough, it is aware of more than just its local surroundings; it appears to have knowledge of the experiment setup itself, and how it is supposed to act, and where to move, etc.

One of the weird consequences of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that for this experiment, it is possible for the electrons to pass through the double slits and not interfere at all! Subsequently, it will just move as though it originated from an electron gun, which is a result of wave function collapsing. This is done by placing electron detectors at each slit and detecting its position as each electron passes through the slit. By this act of observation, the electron collapses into a particle, so diffraction does not occur; this causes the electrons to gather in blobs in the detecting screen, rather than creating an interference pattern.

Adding to the chaos, Bohr states that what truly matters in quantum mechanics is not just the behaviour of individual entities and the experimental setup, but also the human observer. Without the human observer, it will be impossible to determine the state of an electron; hence, if an electron is in an enclosed box that is partitioned into two, it will exist simultaneously in both partitions, until a human observer takes action to determine its exact location. It appears to say that an electron is like a ghostly entity, made real only by the act of observation, which sounds absurd. Nevertheless, an observer is a necessary requirement for the wave function of an entity to collapse, thus enabling its position to be determined. This presents a huge problem regarding the acceptability of the interpretation, for it brings in many implications, but such matters do not fall within the scope of this discussion; as such, I will end it with the mere introduction of basic quantum concepts.

Do not be surprised if you find the concepts here hard to comprehend; I was left thinking about the consequences of these rules for some time, like exactly what does “human observers” really mean. For additional detail, feel free to consult “Schrodinger’s Kittens and the Search for Reality” by John Gibbins. Brilliant author he truly is.
21:53
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

I think that the afterlife is a concept meant to deceive gullible individuals who were innocent enough to belief in it; I would rather believe in a state of oblivion after death, whereby I can finally lay to rest my weary mind from the toils of life. I shall explain my position, as well as my own theory regarding heaven and hell, which I think is an exaggerated idea.

Most religions provide several common possibilities that face us in the afterlife. Christians believe in an afterlife where men will be split into regions of polar opposites, based on their deeds in life, after being judged by God; this particular scenario is mirrored in the Egyptian, Norse and Greek cultures, revealing its popularity in the Western world. The other prospect is to be reincarnated continuously, which acts as the main theme in Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and most other Eastern religions. However, it is obvious that, even in the cycle of reincarnation, that there is an inherent system of reward and punishment: for the deeds dealt in a lifetime, you reincarnate in a situation of severity in proportion to the punishment you deserve for your sins. Ultimately, reincarnation is simply another permutation of a system of reward and punishment, and heaven and hell, and such systems are prevalent in perhaps all prominent religions in the world.

When people think about heaven and hell, with a basic understanding of the concept, most, if not everyone, will share nearly the same idea as to what the words signify. Heaven can be agreed upon as the place where you experience happiness, whereas hell, as its polar opposite, is the place where you experience unhappiness. The extremities dictated by individual religions regarding physical discomfort and anguish vary, and as such, will not be considered; it is enough to understand the basis upon which the idea was founded, for to reward involves the receiving of happiness, and to punish involves input of unhappiness. Thus, when reduced to its essentials, this is what the two concepts represent: the two extremities of a human’s mental states.

From such a perception of heaven and hell, we can observe that the physical actualisation of the two realms involve the ascribing of equivalent activities related to these mental states. Heaven is assigned all that appears pleasant: beauty, marble and silver palaces, pleasure, eternal life, etc; everything desirous can be thought of and related to it. Hell, on the other hand, involves pain, suffering, fire, torture, ugliness, etc; everything we shun, despise and fear. The step from its delineation to its actual recreation of these realms in religion is not hard to attempt. It follows that heaven and hell is perhaps not as distant as we may imagine. My hypothesis is that heaven refers to the state of mind whereby you experience absolute contentment, and hell is the experience of absolute unhappiness, and that the idea of the afterlife is simply a story that evolved into what we take to be actual divine realms.

Why do people believe in the notion of heaven? I think that there is an extremely selfish reason for it, which is that, deep down, they want some form of reward for having gone through life. The poor want to experience the riches that they see others possess, the rich want to retain their earthly gains and bask in its glory for eternity, and the sad want to have the assurance of a refuge of happiness after their death. There are always reasons for any one situation humans can conceive that will justify his belief in a heaven after death, one of which, in the modern context, is that “there is no harm believing in one”, which I think simply reveals the utter selfishness of human nature.

I still find it hard to understand why so many abhor the idea of oblivion. Science has defined death as the cessation of brain activity, which is the most obvious indication towards the fate that awaits us. It is enough for us to do what we can to attain our individual “heaven” while avoiding “hell”, living to our most for each day. In the end, I wish to cease my existence, for an eternal existence that most people conceive is horrifying for me. Death by torture is preferable to an eternal life; for the seemingly obvious choice here, in fact, between suffering physical or mental torture, and the wise would do well to avoid the latter. Oblivion, then, is the only possible alternative conceivable, and an alternative I would readily accept; the acceptance of this fate furthers my appreciation of the sanctity of life, bringing me to the realisation that we should not waste our lives in triviality.

In this post, I think I have outlined my reasons for stubbornly investing in agnosticism quite well (yes, I am agnostic, not atheist). Summing it up, each of us have our own conception of what heaven means, and while I deny its existence, I believe that we can attain its emotional equivalent, should we truly comprehend what we ourselves desire.
22:58
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

When I initially started philosophy, I did not understand why philosophy was so important. Now that I had my first look into the deeper recesses, and a better understanding of the wonders that are yet to be discovered, I cannot understand why people do not appreciate philosophy.

Perhaps one of the main reasons why it was avoided by people is due to its inaccessibility, and the high level of language involved, some of the many deterrents that people face in its uptake. Ironically, almost all of us humans inevitably partake in a little philosophy ourselves, like thinking about the existence of God, contemplating on the cruelties of life, and wondering about the nature of love; all these are philosophical topics, topics that have been tackled by the most brilliant minds available to mankind, and I find it astonishing that the public merely pay them lip service while taking no genuine notice of their ideas.

As I mentioned earlier, although the language barrier is a major disincentive, it remains a necessary one in view of placing ideas into words. Wittgenstein talked about how language command is a defining factor in what you know and what you don’t, and I find that it is very much relevant to our concept of what knowledge actually is, after all, you can’t say that you know something if you cannot put it into words, and hence, it is not possible for you to provide the justification. Language must always remain a key disposition for an intellectual, and philosophy, as a highly intellectual activity, is no exception to that rule. However, this is a problem that can be overcome – “When there’s a will, there’s a way”.

It disturbed me greatly yesterday to hear, since KI ‘A’ Level examinations were over, that some of my classmates were so eager to be rid of their notes. Although it really was an intellectual challenge to my grasp of concepts and command of language, I never had so much fun in my life (not to mention never having as low grades for any one subject), and it remains disappointing to see that KI was being treated as just a subject to be studied for two years in JC, thereafter to be thrown aside into the dust, rather than as a doorway that opens the eyes of brave souls to behold a whole new world of unexplored ideas. Unknowingly, we have tagged negative connotations that delineate the horrible experience we had with grades for the subject, and it will not surprise me to see that several years down the road, students may start avoiding taking KI for fear of poor grades. Such a phenomenon would simply highlight the rising materialism in our society and will be a tragedy indeed.

It is all the more shocking to me to find that the Americans have taken to dismissing the works of philosophers and intellectuals as relics of “dead white men”. It is extremely insulting to hear that they actually dare to maintain such a careless attitude, when almost all of them can’t even hold a candle to Thomas Aquinas. Perhaps they have their own beliefs and reasons for such regards, but I view the great works of the past with, I daresay, veneration. These past men have been crucial in shaping our thought processes today, without whom our world may have been very different (imagine how we would be living now if Newton or Plato were never born!). We act as to fulcrum bridging the past and the future; without proper appreciation of the past, our fullest potential will never be brought to bear, and the future will be left all the more wanting.

Like the Chinese proverb says, “Listen not to the old and wise, and you risk biting the dust.” Dismissing the usefulness of abstract subjects like philosophy without a shred of regret is perhaps the most regretful act I will ever observe; such people remain unenlightened, yet convinced they were otherwise, trapped in a world where their fallacious beliefs overrule all reason.

21:35
0 Comments | Post/Read comment