5 mins or 50?

Time destroys everything, for the randomness needs to increase,
arrangement of things has to increase, possibilities has to increase,
but what stops these options when I am with you?
As if everything else is static, stopped, not moving, dead,
and there is a life in between us - a thrill of change and possibilities.
A constant high, an array of adventures, a sense of careful carelessness,
a sense of thrill that is hard to point out explicity at.
Is this a result of some emotions that exists at some space?
or is this some evolutionary game that everyone else also plays?
I do not know. And I do not wish to know answers to these.
What I am more interested in is - what can we create?
Creation is important. Conjectures and criticisms live long.
A refined idea, built out of years of debates and hardwork, passes on.
New generation likes refinement. 
Noise is meaningless and rubbish.
All I know is noise reduces when I am with you.
A clarity comes, a purpose comes, life comes, enlightenment comes...

What's developing?

What's developing?

Something is exploding?
An affair is happening..

Amidst frenzied war,
fear of deaths, lives,
and of mortality, AGI,
explosions of neural nets,
chimeric beings all around,
debates on consciousness,
blurred gaps of science and heresy,
self-promoting burdened beings,
to snatch what's on the plate,
physical space reduced to 0s, 1s,
a new 'theory of everything' every month,
philosophy of biology more needed than before,
geo-political crimes, identities at risk..

why would someone write?
Is a printer, keyboard, screen more than enough?
Why would someone spend hours in desire
to advance a product of hundreds of years
of humanity's rational spirit?
Why would a problem, as niche as Clay problem,
seem exciting and not anything else?
Welcome to the 21st century.

The century that starts now with the end very far
and any singularity someone might predict
might occur, or maybe not at all
there are no rules here
no predictions
no laws
0s,1s.

Ouroboros

 A machine which talks about itself,
a statement that predicates itself,
a brain asking origin of itself,
a problem checking its consistency,
a snake evading to eat its own tail -
what commonality all these problems have?

It is the notion of 'itself',
that of its own self,
on whether its essence is 
meaningful or meaningless.

Questions with such binary answers,
can be encoded in a Turing machine.
All answers, always are right or not.
Or their hierarchies are right or not.

Does it ever stop?
Is there a limit after which
determinism prevails?
The answer, when, settles,
and no hierarchy exists?

These rare events seem difficult to find,
but maybe these exist, for example when,
the problem inverts itself as it 
proceeds to predicate itself -
why would self-referencing 
be a sudden, digital process?
A program changing itself,
inverting itself, to not eat its tail
is indeed an awareness that it has.
A consciousness of not falling 
into trap of indeterminacy, puzzles,
or that of "philosophical black hole".
Consciousness (anthropomorphically) emerges off
from such programs and paradoxes,
from the Navier-Stokes problem,
quantum-spectral-gap problem,
quantum gravity, and what not?

Something is exploding

What's developing?

Something is exploding?
An affair is happening..

Amidst frenzied war,
fear of deaths, lives,
and of mortality, AGI,
explosions of neural nets,
chimeric beings all around,
debates on consciousness,
blurred gaps of science and heresy,
self-promoting burdened beings,
to snatch what's on the plate,
physical space reduced to 0s, 1s,
a new 'theory of everything' every month,
philosophy of biology more needed than before,
geo-political crimes, identities at risk..

why would someone write?
Is a printer, keyboard, screen more than enough?
Why would someone spend hours in desire
to advance a product of hundreds of years
of humanity's rational spirit?
Why would a problem, as niche as Clay problem,
seem exciting and not anything else?
Welcome to the 21st century.

The century that starts now with the end very far
and any singularity someone might predict
might occur, or maybe not at all
there are no rules here
no predictions
no laws
0s,1s.

Meaningless-ness

Desires, needs, wants, dreams, ambitions -
these words are as vague as their meaning -
if their meaning is subjective to everyone, 
are these then subjective classes?
If so, where they do stem from (if at all!)
or if not, are these just free-floating terms 
like lyrical lines in a poem?

They can stem from somwhere, 
if there is a basis thread they binds them,
and grows them from a ground - 
a ground which is platonic and physical -
a firm falsifiable ground of some sort.

And if they are free-floating terms, 
then just let them be as such,
for folks theories start with a sip of coffee
and end with an unfinished movie.

What is beyond art and beyond science?
If desires seem like none of them.

By current standards, it all consists meaning-less-ness.

Determinism and indeterminism: debate

What is an ideal project, I do not know?
Perhaps, the question itself has an answer -
to work towards an ideal problem, 
which needs an ideal answer - rigid answer.

Philosophies differ, I agree, in the approaches.
Complex systems are too vaguely put up -
an attractor numerically evolves - its real within screen.
Outside screen, does it exist? Perhaps, no. 

What exists outside computer?
Some unresolved questions, I think.
Questions that need to be pondered again and again.
Navier-Stokes regularity problem is one of them
for it is unresolved mathematically. This is the depth of human pursuits.

Other problems - how about quantum gravity? 
Uniting two theories is to accept flaws with both of them.
Turns out relativity is flawless more than quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is a philosophical position -
on what exists before measurement - something or nothing?
But isn't this question itself part of constructing universe?
Within these hypotheses, people would always differ.
But accepting hypotheses as part of the program 
allows one to get over one's preferences and interests.

Not just that, but - simple theories or construction are attractive
than deterministic theories which are wide, tedious, and on everything.
Simple laws are beautiful, simple relations are easy to understand -
something like the hypercomputation relation - very simple, very beautiful.

The question is not about within screen or outside screen, 
but that of simplicity yet powerfulness, in a model.
And still connection to fundamentals in some sense.
Chaotic shift maps, though poetic, map what they intend to -
there is no need to question their trustworthiness -
just accept their beauty and move forward.

Forms and functions

Biological forms, 
are they angels or are they not?
their designs and geometries -
are these the nature's best creation
or are these not?

Countless questions like these exist,
but what's most profound to me is
how form and function exist together -
since
no form exists without a function, 
and no function exists without a cause.

It is often the case that
"why" questions in biology are hard,
much harder than black holes or quantum gravity,
or the most notorious unsolved conjecture in maths -
not because they are harder to address
but rather that
myriad of answers can exist
and yet remain incomplete.

For example,
why are two budding lovers attracted to one another?
how do these life forms flex and mold in each other's ways?
The function is obvious but what drives the attraction?
Does physiological synchrony drives the "gut feeling" or the other way round?
The answer can be convoluted and complex, or even inaccessible.

Consider the case of a white-spotted male pufferfish
which carves complex and perfect geometric circles on a seabed 
to attract female fish as part of courtship rituals.
How has this genius mathematical ability evolved to its current form -
never would the greatest artist of the sea tell us -
perhaps it's futile to ask an artist about root of their creations.

Many questions of growth (function) and forms
dazzled Darcy Thompson, the pioneer of mathematical biology,
who took diverse living forms - tissues, trees, animals, plants,
and expressed their beauty in geometry conforming to their forms,
and explained their function with physics - just Newtonian physics.

And yet we are nowhere near understanding nature's intelligent design -
perhaps we never will be, because of confines of our cognition -
similar to how we can't "orchestrate" a feeling for a person,
maybe we can't "orchestrate" (enhance) our intelligence.
All we can do is live within our cognitive confines,
and instead of duplicating or engineering artificial forms,
just revel in nature's magnificent and geometrical perfections -
as to why elegant equations exist atop an abstract arena - no one would ever know.