The next pillar

To create a pillar that shines light
and becomes the "monumental" truth -
is not a "volition-based" task,
nor it is a "reserved-for-genius" task either.
So, what is it then?
What distinguishes Perelman's proof
from countless other proofs?
What distinguishes a big story 
from countless other stories?~
What distinguishes a 2-page worth of wisdom
from numerous pages of BS and blabbering?

The question. The precise question that
captures the complexity that needs to be resolved.

Those universal questions, like Halting problem,
or that of determinacy versus randomness that confuses everyone.
The philosophical questions that trouble every mind.
There certainly are more questions to find, 
that the questions left unanswered.
To frame a "great" question and to attempt to answer it is difficult.
To find "conjectures" and to attempt to answer them is difficult.

There's more in science than to answer questions.
It is to imagine a new realm of ideas,
ask questions that fall in those realm,
and then attempt to answer them.

An abstract basis of emotions - 5 unanswered questions

I have been obsessed with finding a rigid ground for emotions, lately. Meaning that when one feels: digust, happy, angry etc. I am interested to know what is the origin of such emotions - meaning those simple rules/laws/axioms that can simulate/explain/trigger these emotions; let's focus only on emotions of humans in this article. Though these emotions might get triggered because of several reasons, for example, through someone's personal story/anecdote/experience, but I find it hard to consider such anecdotes as something which might provide a rigorous justification to the origin of emotions. I understand that evolutionary arguments are the most widely accepted reasons for it. However, I attempt to consider an emotion as an objective problem that when felt for the first time should be theorised there and then without rationalising something that happened million years ago and seeing the problem as afresh from a rigid, mathematical angle. Some questions that are popping up in my mind and I would like to answer them in next few months (through an epic poem and series of paintings) are:

1. How can the emotional bond between mother and baby be put forth in an abstract format?
2. How can the relationship between an theist and God be put forth in an abstract format?
3. How can the bond between an atheist and a system of belief that they believe in  be put forth in abstract format?
4. How can the obsession of a human with stories/poems/movies be put forth in an abstract format?
5. Desire - the desire to be immortal and stay alive in hearts of others - how can it be put forth in an abstract format?
6. The weird obsession to assimilate mind into reality - an emotional obsession with the idea of death - how can it be put forth in an abstract format?

I think these are healthy questions to ask. Possibly, to write down 5 sub-parts of the poem where each sub-part is an ensuing dialogue between couple of people who try to get the emotion by understanding the painting, which attempts to answer each of the above question.

Randomness jelly

The biological world is not black and white,
it's full of colors, it's very bright! 
Bright because of proteins that reflect light,
green, red, yellow - if not then it's just white.
These colors are complex products 
of underlying simple sequences of proteins -
gosh, if you know them, 
do you think you have explained everything?
The basic tenets are not everything 
to explain complexity at larger scale,
simple rules yield complex things,
and that's what we call the randomness.
Randomness needs to have a pattern,
else you can say nothing about it.
To find a pattern is to glorify it,
celebrate it, beautify it, respect it!
Less randomness might look bad,
for it makes things less thrill,
imagine a tennis player playing shots
by employing the same, old skill.
But, randomness is like a jelly,
you reduce it somewhere, you create elsewhere.
If not in places, it could be in paper.
If not in paper, it could be in interpretation.
If not in interpretation, it could be in meta-interpretation.
The point is randomness exists at all scales,
and a decrease in randomness doesn't mean permanent decrease,
it's a beginning of a new world - 
a world where thrill happens,
where wind is as chaotic as before,
where ideas come, conquer, and stay -
you stay, I stay, we all stay.

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.