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.

Emotions and social dynamics - part 1

It's about how emotions drive humans,
romantic feelings bring two bodies together -
a tug of war, push and pull, push and pull.
What's in control? What's not in control?
No one is sure.
But such a transcendental feeling drives humans -
marriages, kids, families do happen.
Networks form, of friends and of families -
all arising from this 2-body feeling problem,
if you want to call this a problem.

It surely is a problem, 
if it connects to the bigger picture
and presents one the whole picture.

Some propositions on movies as arts+philosophy medium

1. Movie is a medium for author to express an emotion intensely.

2. Minimilastically, one intense emotion throughout movie is enough to convey its wholeness.

3. The medium itself poses challenge in communicating author's emotion to the viewer, because of  inherent gap between the two. 

4. Such an inherent gap can be fulfilled through using movie to convey an emotion very rich artistically, and also deep down with philosophical troubles.

5. A modern movie narrative has a forced, non-linear combination of images with a logical connection in between the jumbled up parts.

6. Tarkovsky's technique is one step ahead, to reduce the logical context of image, add a metaphorical element, heighten that element with background sound and long-takes where the focus on poetic element becomes apparent and loosely coming out of the image. 

7. While this technique is close to a poetry, and this movie can become most closest to a philosophical poetry as the poetic artistic element is very strong, the philsophical element is confounded because of the characters or symbols raising questions in the mind of viewers.

8. While raising questions is required, using characters and symbols both have problems. 

9. The character is bounded to the limits of time/generation when the art is created rendering it less effective in another time scale, place, once the character doesn't resonate superficially with people. 

9.1 The symbols itself create a range of metaphorical meanings which are used to link different frames - a technique employed by Tarkovsky's movies. 

Transitions to adulthood

What stable and consistent life is?
I don't know.

I know there is something which it is
but I don't know.

Is it when things around you -
as in ideas, beliefs, wisdom -
around you don't change much?

Is it when experiences just enhance
what you already know and understand well?

Is it when a new idea is difficult
to cognitively assimilate with your old hypotheses?

Well, the truth is that your hypotheses are merely situational.
It's just that they happened to be like this and not something else.
They became part of you before adulthood -
when some random events created some belief structures.

Now, why it becomes difficult to create another structure again?
It's because a brain is limited to hop in between different structures.
Every structure has its own network of life.
And living multiple lives is an insanely mentally difficult task.

Hence, adulthood doesn't mean a point
where one is stable, rigid, and informed.
But just that one's capability
to life multiple lives,
to imagine new worlds,
to create new networks,
to see the unseen,
to yearn for something new,
to unlearn and relearn,
to forget and think afresh,
is gone forever.

My proposed solution to film as a medium of art/Phil debate

A while ago, I asked a question to myself as to whether films can be seen as consistent art forms which can also be self-consistent in portraying certain philosophy. In the sense that, while books are traditionally favorite medium to talk about different Philosophical systems, the current changing waves ask for videos/movies as a way of portraying philosophy. However, it is also important for me to choose and create something that will survive the test of times, and not get deluded as a movies of old generation, to not meant for future generation. It has to be philosophically solid, artistically relevant in future, and consciously relevant to all humans of past, current, and future generation. It seems like a big thing to ask for or a big dream to imagine - however, the solution that is propping in my mind is rather quite simple in visual, atleast. 

It seems to be inspired from: my fascination with movies of Richard Linklater, novels/writing of David Foster Wallace, post-structuralism, Godel's incompleteness theorem, my own Philosophy of decision-making, geometrical aspects of evolution (how certain nonphysical mutations aren't carried forward and branching proceeds), cinematic expereince of watching "In the mood for love", my own lifelong love for combing emotional elements with abstract mathematical elements, and my lifelong quest to ascribe various aspects of mental reality onto a canvas.

Solution:

A white background as a metaphor of absolute mental reality - a black circle that represents the frame in which you will watch the story of the movie - black circle is of variable shape - black circle itself resembles the state-of-mind (mindspace) occupied by the central character of the movie - when the character is about to make a decision (as in the black circle is about to pinch towards the right), the whole movie wishes to trace back the past neurons/decisions/mental-spaces invoked internally while the character makes the decision - which means that the black circle moves leftwards and again protrudes in another direction but travels in left direction to another space which represents the decision before it landed up to the current mind space - the cycle keeps on repeating leftwards - the protrusions become more and more bigger and clearer, as some past decisions which were not taken become more and more clearer to see - the tracing back process continues to happen. 

A basic structure might be inspired from this:

I know how to visually show the black frame. It will involve some graphic designing, but it shouldn't be a difficult process. What's most important is the story to consider inside the frame?

Task 1: I can try to write down a short-story of my own decision-yet-to-be-taken (in DFW style) by tracing back to the past decision, then to the past decision and so on..where the diversions become bigger and bigger in their description and possiblities of being undertaken.   

Task 2: To think of a similar decision-making story, but from a biology perspective. Maybe ideas from  lab experience (biophysics and connection to evolution) would help.

New ideas

What is the absolute mental reality? 
The question troubles me -
not because of emotional reasons,
but because it's a conundrum.
Something that doesn't seem to have fixed definition, and fixed answer.

Every question has its own answer.

"But it all starts with a statement, which means that statements are fundamental".

But how is it fundamental? Is there any proof of it? What's fundamental is how your mental reality is like? But it could be just your unique mental reality. Someone might have another mental reality - which means that Someone else might think that statements are not fundamental. And someone else might consider these two previous set of people to be contradictory, and someone not (if they do not believe in law of third middle). It means that behind some seemingly logically developed connections, there might be some possible generalisations of them, an another man's land built on the pillar of precise clarity, indepth detail. 

Seeing world through numbers/labels/precise meanings is different than finding connections between vaguely described but turned into abstract elements. Both methods seems important in different aspects - thought currently, the first one is considered more fundamental, less useful.

Knowing another brain is to make a story of how their brain is operating. Knowing more stories/dreams/ideas of a person reveals what's in his head for most time, that's how two brains/people get close to each other-- pattern, past and future projections.