Thoughts to You from Yours Truly - ( TYYT ) - ( 93 ) - A Network View of History

Thoughts to You from Yours Truly - ( TYYT ) - ( 93 ) - A Network View of History

 

Under the enlightenment of the Science of Networks, one may view the world, and especially, world history rather differently. First of all, it is traditionally assumed that the great successes in history must have been proportional to the efforts or merits of the makers. This may not be so. Instead, it is very often a question of being at the right place and at the right time. For example, the thirteen weeks of mass demonstrations in Leipzig, the then East Germany in 1989 that very quickly led to the dismantling of the infamous Berlin Wall on 10th November, 1989 is a case in point. The repressive communist regime in the former East Germany had been in power for over four decades since the end of World War II. There had been a number of far more violent rebellions that did not succeed in even rocking the regime. The fact that the Leipzig mass demonstrations ultimately succeeded merely pointed to the fact that the time was right for a change within the larger political climate in Europe resulting from Gorbachev's political reforms in the then USSR.

Secondly, the purpose of studying history is to learn from past mistakes to prevent future recurrence and, if possible, to improve on the ways things are to be done in future. Therefore, it is not enough just to examine the materialized portion of history but also to assess what could have happened to explore other better alternatives. From this analysis, we will appreciate that there is an existing bias in favour of the actual historical outcomes. The reader will be given a deeper analysis on this later in chapter (x), in the section- Of Destiny and Destination. It is always easy to be wise after the facts. Such lopsided view of history has to be modified in the light of the useful researches produced by the Science of Networks. This is because of the importance of the initial conditions or sum of history of the system up to a particular point in time. Slight changes in the initial conditions at any point can radically alter the subsequent course of history of that system. The reader should recall Edward Lorenz's weather systems which led him to the discovery of the Theory of Chaos.

Thirdly, the concept of Information Cascades leads us to the conclusion
that initial conditions that may not be very conspicuous can have a dramatic effect on the outcomes of an evolving system when viewed in hindsight . As a result, all factors under examinination should be assessed in the context of the structural conditions of the network as a whole. In other words, special attention should be paid to the existence or imminent appearance of Critical Thresholds or Synchronized States.

Before history has come to pass, it is rarely possible to predict the outcome of any given set of circumstances. It is the general consensus reached by the collective opinions of the majority that will win over the day. Owing to this only reliable rule, people usually base their own decision on the perceived majority view ( their perceived reality or PR as explained in chapter (viii) later on ). Hence, the results of collective decision making under a democratic process is notoriously difficult to predict because of the possibility of the cascade effect. It is a process involving both personal opinions of the individuals as well as observing the opinions of others in the system together with non- linear interactions between these two elements that determine the final outcome. And so is history. That is why sometimes history does not make any sense.

How was it possible that many German people maintained that they did not know, and worse still, some even claimed that they could not believe that the Holocust had actually taken place. Luckily, the German people as a whole together with their elected government ultimately had the courage and wisdom to admit their older generation's mistake and had taken remedial actions accordingly to enable the healing process to come about. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Japanese government which, even now, still cannot face up to its historic responsibility regarding the Second World War and continually attempts to cover up past mistakes of their older generation by changing the history text books for their young. This is really a very alarming as well as morally disturbing trend. Apart from preventing the healing process between Japan and its neighbours and, thus, disqualifying itself from playing a positive role in world affairs, such an ostrich attitude could ultimately lead to a possible repeat of the aggressive national policy that ended in Japan's total humiliation and unconditional surrender in the Second World War.

People tend to attribute this stubborn refusal to accept past mistakes to the so-called hero syndrome which is a long standing tradition of the samurai spirit- rather die than surrender implying that to accept that one is wrong also amounts to a surrender of one's initial position. A closer examination of this misguided spirit will easily reveal its logical fallacy. To accept one's mistake takes a lot of courage and courage is the defining hallmark as well as the bench mark for a true hero. To be a hero does not mean that you should not be afraid of anything but rather being very much afraid of it and still do it because it is the right thing to do. Therefore, to refuse to accept one's past mistakes is tantamount to the behaviour of a coward who dares not face the truth. Conversely, accepting your past mistakes ( in this case the mistakes of their older generation ) and facing up to the consequences will require tremendous courage. To undertake such a difficult act of contrition is undoubtedly a very heroic deed. My simple logic runs like this. If you have the guts to do it, you should also have the same guts to admit it. If my older generation had committed acts of atrocity, I would not hesitate to denounce such crimes vehemently and distance myself from such behaviour. It is both irrational and against the Natural Law to close rank with any wrong doers of heinous crimes. By so doing, it makes one an accomplice. A supporter or sympathizer of any heinous crime is in a even worse position than the perpetrator because the criminal had to face up to the consequences of his deeds somehow and runs the risk of punishment while the supporter only does the perpetrator lip service without even paying a price.

There is absolutely no fundamental differences between anybody or anything in this universe because all people and all things have ultimately originated from the same humble beginning that is stardust as explained in chapter ( ii ). No special favours should be done to your own race or even your own flesh and blood at the expense of natural justice. In the long run, justice and fairness to all will prove to be the only sensible way to maintain good order in society as well as the universe. So, please heed my warning. It is up to the younger and more open-minded generation of the Japanese citizens to do their part in keeping their own government in line with the prevailing moral standards and not to repeat the painful mistakes of the past generation. It would seem to me that in today's global village the more appropriate idea on the identity of inhabitants of this village is the concept of harmony with one another and more importantly with our environment. To this end, the idea of world citizenship is far superior to the narrow perspective of individual nationalities, races or religions. May John Lennon's ideas of world peace and harmony as expressed in his well known song “Imagine” carry the day. 

Thoughts to You from Yours Truly - ( TYYT ) - ( 92 ) - Network Tolerance

Thoughts to You from Yours Truly - ( TYYT ) - ( 92 ) - Network Tolerance

In the research conducted into many real world complex network systems, scientists have discovered one very crucial point about any network. This point is, in fact, a very pessimistic conclusion. Regardless of how meticulous designers have been in the installation of safety devices in the most sophistcated of all networks such as national defence computer networks or electricity grids that span entire continents, there are bound to be some weak spots in any system that cannot be revealed until disasters strike. Put it in another way, accidents of some unforeseeable nature may happen no matter how hard scienitists try to anticipate and prevent their occurrence. 

Nowadays, most networks have the highest possible tolerance against breakdowns. Despite this high standards in their design, it is a foregone conclusion that accidents could and will happen. In his book called “ Normal Accidents “, the social scientist Charles Perrow came to the same pessimistic conclusion based on the cascade effect which shows the inherent unpredictability in any system. The case studies supporting his conclusion ranged from the Three Mile Island nuclear accident to the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster. 

In fact, a simple example will illustrate how inconspicuous some risk factors for a potential disaster can be. A few years back, there was a strange phenomenon that had boggled the minds of the United Kingdom electrical grid engineers for over a year after they had updated and improved their supply network. The problem was this. During certain days in the week the then newly updated electricity supply grid encountered some overload problems during off-peak hours in the evening with apparently no good reasons at all. So much demand for electricity arose during just 20 odd minutes that the grid engineers had to switch on the reserve units. At first, the engineers suspected a design fault in the computer program that runs the grid. After millions of dollars had been spent on reassessing the computer software they found no bugs. Then one shrewd mind in the middle management noticed that all these electricity supply crises mostly occurred during the soccer season. 

Finally, a mundane reason was found to be the culprit. During the time out after the first half of every match the T.V.viewers started to scramble to put on their electrical kettles to make themselves a cup of coffee. This mad rush to make the best use of the time out led to a synchronised state being precipitated among the viewers that ultimately caused the cascade effect. A disastrous electrical blackout could have occurred resulting in great economic losses or even possible injuries to human life. Such seemingly inconspicuous reasons could hardly have come across the minds of the computer software program engineers during the designing stage of the electricity supply grid. 

This real life episode has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that life is complicated and that no amount of planning is capable of providing an absolute guarantee against all possible contingencies. This is also a wake up call for arrogant complacency. Remember the Titanic disaster and the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Theory. This latter mystical principle is sometimes applicable to the macro-world as well as the subatomic realm and has a lot of philosophical implications for our daily lives as well as in politics and
economics ( e.g. the impossible task of planned economies ). 

Thoughts to You from Yours Truly - ( TYYT ) - ( 91 ) - Erratic Investor Behaviour

Thoughts to You from Yours Truly - ( TYYT ) - ( 91 ) - Erratic Investor Behaviour

Most notorious stock market crashes such as th Wall Street Crash of 1929 and 1987 did not betray themselves with any extraordinary signs before the disasters struck. Once the price falls started, they snowballed at lightning speed and became a cascade in the blink of an eye. Analysts can always attribute specific and concrete reasons and factors to the disasters with the benefit of hindsight. Many of their elaborate reasons were eagerly accepted by the investment community because as Friedrich Nietzche said :- “ First principle : any explanation is better than none.” For the October, 1987 crash, most analysts attributed the disaster to computerized trading which was subsequently restricted. Could the drastic fall of 22% of the market value in a single day be so easily explained by just one lone factor ? Again, the 1929 crash was explained by excessive borrowing at the time. Are the real reasons that simple ? Everybody knew that financial institutions routinely lent money to borrowers. Otherwise, how else can they make a profit with all the money in their hands deposited by their account holders ? Financial analysts have no choice but to insist that the investors are rational beings because they are the very reason for the analysts' own existence. The market trends are subject to some basic dynamics capable of expression in some laws thus making any forecasts meaningful. Of course, both of these assertions must be true or there would not be any need for the analysts in the first place. So, they keep on upholding the assertions. But do these assertions stand up under vigorous scrutiny ? I am afraid the answer is no. The scientist Alfred Zauberman has his own sarcastic law about any economy in general. It goes like this :- “Zauberman's Law : The worse the economy, the better the economists.”

For the same reason as the example given above where the throwing of darts and applying high power computer analysis on share prices come out even handed, I totally support the views proposed by the Theory of Chaos and the Science of Networks concerning unpredictability and information cascades.There cannot be any hard and fast rules for predicting investor behaviour. Now let us look at some reliable scientific research on the subject of investor behaviour to see what the results can tell us.

Everyone agrees that our personal opinion can be influenced by other people and additonal information even though the latter may be purely promotional in nature. Take going to the movies for example, we seldom have a completely independent choice. Most of us usually know which one to see before we actually go to see it. Through advertisements in the media and comments from our friends who have already seen the same movie, we have most probably come to a definite opinion on the movie before going to watch it in the cinema. This is a decision based on our emotions and impulse rather than a rational and systematic decision making process. Of course, there is the Coercive External Effect at work. If everyone else has seen the movie and is talking about it, how can I afford not to see it for fear of being isolated socially. Therefore, it is easy to realize how human beings can influence one another irrationally in their decision making process.

In 1999, the economist Thomas Lux of The University of Bonn and the engineer Michele Marchest of the University of Cagliari conducted a reaserch into investor behaviour to investigate the validity of the orthodox investment theory of rational investor behaviour based on changes in the economic fundamentals. Their alternative theory was fluctuations in share prices were mainly the results of “mutual interactions of participants “. The researchers' model was a very simple stock market with just one kind of stock and a population of investors who buy and sell the stock. The population was divided into three different categories of investors. The first group were the Fundamentalists who were the rational ones basing their decisions on economic fundamentals as proposed by the Orthodox Investment Theory. The second group were the Optimists who believed the market was on an upward trend purely by blind faith and wanted to buy. The third and last group were the Pessimists who consistently felt that the market was at a down turn and wanted to sell.

The researchers also put some authentic value on the stock and tied it to some basic economic fundamentals. The price changed as the fundamentals changed. As in real life, it was the interactions between the different groups and the changes in the fundamentals that finally determined the price. So far, the scheme followed the orthodox view of the stock market. However, the researchers added one more assumption to enable them to test their own theory and that was the participants could influence one another. This new parameter proved definitively to be the volatile factor that rocked the whole boat. The minds of both the Optimists and the Pessimists are not fixed permanently so that changes in the moods of some members of one group can lead to a overall inclination of the market towards either camp. This will result in the optimistic and pessimistic outlooks being propagated throughout the market on a cycle of swings between the two moods. The researchers also found that these two groups very often organised themselves until they reached the critical state for the system as a whole when slight changes in the moods of just a few of its members could lead to a change of the overall optimism or pessimism in the market. Once such a point was attained, a cascade could easily occur in the market trend towards one mood or the other so that huge fluctuations of varying magnitudes would ensue. These upheavals would continue in a self-perpetuating chain of actions and reactions until it came to an end and then the trend could reverse itself and so on. 

What happened to the fundamentalists in this model ? Well, they did the best they could in using past data and changes in the economic fundamentals to make their investment decisions. They were understandably frustrated because their so-called rational behaviour was upset by the erratic mood changes caused by the other two groups. Decisions based on the orthodox method mostly turned out wrong as common sense was not allowed to operate freely because of the presence of irrational moody behaviour of the Optimists and Pessimists. Finally, even they, the rational ones had to succumb to market pressure and had to go along with whatever mood that was influencing the market at a particular time. Particularly, when the cascade effect took hold of the market even the Fundamentalists acted in accordance with the prevailing mood. So in effect, the Fundamentalists were eventually converted to either the Optimists or the Pessimists by the end of the game through Coercive Externalities of other members of the network. Only during very calm and gentle ups and downs in the market could the Fundamentalist sentiment be detected. There were bulls and bears or runs and rallies and moods just like the real world scenario where slight glimpses of hopes and doubts can be magnified totally out of proportion to the apparently insignificance initial disturbances in the market. Such minor disturbances can be real like some changes in the economic fundamentals or simply rumours like the impending resignation of the CEO of certain big corporations. The researchers had conclusively proven that the biggest volatility in the stock market arises not on account of the basic economic fundamentals or rational investor decisions as predicted by the Orthodox Investment Theory. Instead, it is the inherent unpredictability of the “ mutual interaction of the participants “ that is the main driving force behind this market volatility.

If all these sound familiar, it is because we have come across such phenomena in the Theory of Chaos and Complexity in connection with the occurrence of natural disasters like earthquakes and forest fires which follow the Power Rule. It will be recalled that for systems where the Power Rule applies there are no such things as typical behaviour in any aspect of the networks or systems in question. In other words, there is no such thing as a normal peak or normal trough in the investment graph. In short, there is no normal fluctuations, period. This may seem to be both a sarcastic and pessimistic view of the investment market but such conclusion is justifiable by research results as well as sound scientific theory. Does this imply that we should not invest in the stock market ? The answer is a resounding negative. So long as we are aware of the ultimate unpredictability and volitility of the system and not to put all our eggs in one basket in terms of the form of investment, we should be on home ground. The smart thing to do is to diversify into different forms of investment other than equity while holding only a fraction of your stakes in stocks as an aggressive component of your portfolio for growth and to beat inflation. However, you should be psychologically prepared and not to feel devastated should disaster really strike for no apparently good reason.

Sometimes, you cannot ask why ? This is equally true with life. It serves you better to rally your efforts and find the courage to start all over again in life than to lament over your misfortunes. Why waste time in re-living your painful moments by trying to ask why it happened over and over again whereas, in fact, there may not even be any sensible answers. Very often, one thing leads to another and all the causes and effects are madly jumbled up. There is this telling historical question. What killed Abraham Lincoln ? The short answer is, of course, the assassin's bullet. This is only the immediate reason. The broader analysis would have to include the political situation, the misguided racist view against negroes, the technology that led to the invention of the assassin's pistol and so on and so forth. The true and complete answer is all these and other unknown factors working in unison in a Network that is the human society up to that fateful moment in history that killed the great and honourable President Lincoln. It is the complicated mechanics ( mostly human in this particular case ) working under various principles of the Science of Networks that actually killed the great man. So, as the saying goes :-“ Don't cry over spilt milk.“ Whatever tragedy hits you, it is to your advantage to look at it as a challenge and learn something from it. Bring out the Mr. Q's attitude within you and face your tragedies with humour and, if possible, defiance. That is how you can manage to win in every instance in life. If tragedy actually strikes, there is no way you can prevent it. This is a fact of life. Rather take an indifferent view, if you can, because lamenting over it would only weaken your resolve to combat the tragedy. It is an uneconomic proposition because it represents a waste of resources and energy. Life has been and always will be an uphill battle against the odds. We have already learned this in chapter (ii) on the origin of life. However rich and powerful you are age will inevitably catch up with you. Tragedy of one kind or another will and must strike. Therefore, be positive and have faith in yourself. Look forward to your future, with a little help from luck and you will be alright. A positive attitude cannot ensure your success but a negative one can surely guarantee your failure. After all, what better can you do if you have already done your best !

The kind of lucrative returns we usually obtain from investing in equities precisely reflect the workings of one of the most sacred laws in the investment market. This golden law, so to speak, is that risks and return always go hand in hand. The greater is the expected return the higher are the related risks. What we have learned from the Science of Networks regarding investor behaviour is that when disaster does strike do not blame yourself on your bad judgment as everyone traditionally does because there is no sure way at all to read the ominous signs as there may not be any. If there really were observable signs and viable predictions based on past trends the computer would have been king of the investment jungle ! 

Thoughts to You from Yours Truly - ( TYYT ) - ( 90 ) - Small World

Thoughts to You from Yours Truly - ( TYYT ) - ( 90 ) - Small World

The Small World Concept is derived from the notion that in this vast and complicated world there are bound to be some common threads that link people and things together through some underlying connections which may not be obvious at first glance. These subtle links will reveal themselves if we observe the system from the right perspectives and the Science of Networks will provide us with the tools to carry out such observations and analysis.
In 1967, a US social psychologist called Stanley Milgram conducted a strange experiment. He sent a number of letters to various unrelated persons in the Mid- West . He explained in his letters that each letter was, in fact, intended for one of his sharebroker friends who lived in the Boston area whose address he had mislaid. The recipients of his letters were asked to try their best to assist him in forwarding the letter to this friend of his with just the details of his friend's name and profession. As if by divine intervention, most of his letters reached the hands of his sharebroker friend in Boston in something like six steps. This was the birth of the now famous phrase - “ Six Degrees of Separation “ after which a movie was made. As unlikely as it may sound, it is claimed that all people on earth are connected to every other person only by a personal link of no more than six people. This is the origin of the Small World Concept. We are actually more closely connected than we would at first realise.

To understand this idea better, we must first know some basic facts about networks in general. There are three main kinds of networks for expressing the relationships between different variables. The first kind is a random network, the second one is the fragmented network and the third is the small world network. The first kind, as lts name implies, does not have any connections or feed-back loops among its constituent parts while the second kind contains connections among each local module but not as a whole. The third kind is the most interesting and useful one. Such a configuration means that there are shortcuts in the access routes between different parts of the small world network that can be exploited to increase the effeciency in communications among these divided regions of the network. These are the subtle connections, so to speak.

It is easy to visualise how the small world effect can come about in just a few examples. Let us look at some of these in turn. Suppose you are an accountant and your circle of friends are mostly accountants. Then, suppose your wife is a doctor and most of her circle of friends are in the medical profession. Normally, accountants and doctors have no frequent and necessary contact with one another but because of the relationship between you and your wife these two seemingly separate groups of people are subtly linked and may very well develop social and professional contact through you and your wife. Due to the multiple capacities each person must necessarily assume, each person's social and professional networks of friends may cover vast and complicated groups of seemingly unconnected people. If you add the blood relationships and in-law relationships of each person to his or her lists of possible groups of people they will interact, you can easily build up an extensive and colourful social network for each person. You may not realize the potential connections but they are there and can be very useful for you when you need them. For social networks, the significance of understanding such connections will be advantageous in terms of potentials in friendships, business development, personal assistance, job opportunities and exchange of important information when you need it. However, if the small world effect is applied to other phenomena such as epidemics, its proper understanding can save precious lives.

The most vital and rewarding characteristic of the small world effect that scientists have discovered is that subtle or informal connections may be even more important and decisive in the functioning of any particular network in which the effect is present. The following example will illustrate this point. The formal communication network in a big corporation is, of course, the local area network of computers but before any policy is finalized and approved by the management it has to be discussed. Therefore, any hints of a forthcoming administrative policy will not come from the formal information system. In fact, management scientists have conclusively discovered that the most sensitive information system for capturing intelligence on upcoming company policy decisions exists in the informal circle of the secretaries of the various department heads during their coffee break gossips. This finding is the absolute truth and not a joke ! The chatting and gossiping of a group of secretaries is actually the medium for the propagation of the small world effect in any big corporation. The subtle link in the present example shows how the various parts of a big corporation can be connected by an informal sub-system and that remarkable shortcuts can be found in the corporate network's information system outside the mainframe computer. This, once again, is the same lesson taught us by the Science of Networks as in other theories to be meticulous in our observations and not simply following our instinct of paying attention only to the conspicuous facts. In many cases, it is the inconspicuous details that make the vital difference. 

Thoughts to You from Yours Truly - ( TYYT ) - ( 89 ) - Weak Ties

Thoughts to You from Yours Truly - ( TYYT ) - ( 89 ) - Weak Ties

Contrary to what the term implies, Weak Ties are in fact, the strongest cues that we can rely on to reach an understanding of the dynamics of any particular network. This is another useful concept pioneered by the Science of Networks. The special quality of weak ties as the scientists have discovered is that such characteristics do not only have an effect on the its owners but also have important external effects on the network as a whole. Take another example. Common sense may tell you that it is your closest friends that can really help you find a job because they care about you. Right ? Wrong. This is because your closest friends are more likely than not to have a similar background as you have. Whatever job they are holding are also the likely kind of job that you are looking for. They are, in fact, competing with you instead of being able to help you. On the contrary, it is your casual acquaintances that can provide the best prospects of finding you a job through their connections with people they know outside your own circle. They are the Weak Ties that can be your strongest allies. Similarly, family problems cannot be solved by members in the same family because they may also be the contributing factors to the problem. Thus, they are not objective enough to analyze the causes of the problem. It is very often the outsiders ( the Weak Ties ), say friends of the family who can play an effective part in solving family problems by providing objective and less emotional advice and mediation. This world is full of apparently paradoxical phenomena. However, in this particular instant, they can work to our advantage. I tend to feel that the existence of paradoxes merely points to the fact that there are always two sides to a coin and most paradoxes can be understood when viewed from the proper perspective. That is when you can see their hidden connections.

Applying the concept to human affairs, this idea teaches us the lesson that the nature of things are usually not what their appearances seem to indicate. Anything by itself may look insignificant and isolated but its strength can arise from its connection with other aspects of a given system. This is the very up-to-date concept of systems thinking as has been so powerfully applied to our indispensable life support system – the computer network. Apart from this practical lesson, there is also the more subtle philosophical implication that it is processes and not things that are crucial to life. Material objects have very little value unless they are utilised properly in the appropriate context of the processes of life. 

Introduction to Quantum Theory ( or Quantum Mechanics )

Introduction to Quantum Theory ( or Quantum Mechanics )

One of the most misused words in the English language is the word QUANTUM. Most people, especially politicians love to promise their supporters that quantum leaps would be made to improve a certain aspect of their lives if the politicians were voted into power. Quantum is taken to mean unmeasurably large. This understanding is wrong on both counts. It is the smallest measurable unit. In fact, a quantum is the smallest possible unit of energy that can be given off or absorbed by an elementary particle when it moves from one orbit to the next. Politicians and other people use the word quantum probably because it sounds both sophisticated and scientifically miraculous.

The quantum concept was pioneered by the German scientist, Max Planck in 1900. Up to that particular point in time, scientists had been puzzled by a phenomenon they called the ultra-violet catastrophe in a situation known as' black body' radiation. First of all, the term black body is misleading because it is an object that need not be black. A black body object in the context of radiation simply means that it is an object that absorbs all incoming radiation so that it does not reflect any light. In this sense, it is black meaning it reflects no light which is a form of radiation. However, a black body object can emit radiation on its own if given enough energy. Common examples of black body objects are our sun and heavy metal like a bar of iron. The scientific puzzle facing the scientists is that classical theories ( as opposed to Quantum Theory ) such as Maxwell's equations predict that upon heating a bar of iron to higher and higher temperatures more ultra-violet rays will be emitted because higher temperature means higher energy level and this should in turn means more ultra-violet rays which have higher frequency on the thermo-electromagnetic spectrum. But in reality, this never occurs and the light rays emitted by the iron bar remain within the visible spectrum no matter how high the temperature the iron bar has attained as a result of the continuous heating. This is known as the ultra-violet catastrophy which had puzzled scientists since Maxwell whose equations unified the forces of heat, light, electricity and magnetism. These are collectively called the thermo-electromagnetic force because they had been proven to have the same origin- they are all different forms of electromagnetic waves ( within both the visible and invisible spectrum from the shortest microwaves to the longest radio waves ). Could Maxwell be wrong ? If so, why did his equations work perfectly in all other situations except black body radiation ?

In 1900, Max Planck invented his own set of equations which were able to predict the behaviour of black body radiation. He had discovered that if the traditional assumption of continuous and unrestricted emission of energy was scrapped and replaced by the rule that energy could only be emitted ( and absorbed ) in small but discrete ( measurable individual units ) packets, units or quanta then the puzzle of ultra-violet catastrophy in black body radiation could be explained. This was because the higher the temperature the more energy would have to be carried by the individual packets ( or quanta ) of energy carrying centres ( these should not be construed as solid entities ).

The higher level and more intensive energy packets are fewer in number ( these are more difficult to sustain because of the higher energy level required ) than the normal packets ( within the visible spectrum ) which carried less amount of energy per quantum so that they are more numerous in number. That is why the heated iron bar remains red hot or even white hot upon continuous heating without turning colourless as a result of emitting all heat energy in ultra-violet rays invisible to the human eye as predicted by classical theories. The photon was proven by Albert Einstein to be the quanta, carrier or energy packet for light and all electromagnetic radiation in his research on the Photo-Electric effect for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921. His research had also placed him among the most prominent contributors to the Quantum Theory.

At first glance, Max Planck's discovery appears to be mundane rather than revolutionary. Who cares about the ultra-violet catastrophy and black body radiation except the nutty scientists ? In fact, it turns out that the Quantum view changed the whole philosophical outlook of the role played by human beings in the entire universe and the realm we call reality. You will appreciate this mystical nature of Quantum Mechanics when you come to learn about how atoms behave in some quantum experiments later on. To summarize at this preliminary look at Quantum Theory, it teaches us that the universe is not smooth or continuous all the way down to infinity. If it were, there would be a lot of impossibilities or paradox. To take the most famous paradox of all as an example, this is called the Zeno Paradox after a Greek philosopher. Zeno was able to prove logically that there could be no possibility of any movement in this world. His argument ran like this. He used the shooting of an arrow as a demonstration. In order for the arrow to fly through the air from point A to point B, it needed to pass the mid-point between A and B at each stage of the flight. Since there were supposed to be an infinite number of points along the straight line connecting A and B according to Euclid's postulates in geometry which described the space between A and B it would take an infinite amount of time to travel over an infinite number of mid-points along the straight line connecting A and B. Therefore, the arrow could never finish the flight from A to B. Therefore, there could be no movement of any sort. Of course, space cannot be divided into an infinite number of points or units according to Quantum Theory. Thus, the arrow had to complete its flight somehow. In fact, the smallest possible units of length and time are scientifically known as Planck length ( 1/10 to the 35 power of 1 metre ) and Planck time ( 1/10 to the 43 power of 1 second ). Nothing comes in any smaller size or shorter time span.
Most important of all, Quantum Theory explained why the electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom do not smash into it as predicted by Classical or Newtonian Mechanics. Due to the fact that energy is quantized or comes in discrete packets there is a minimum value that can be assumed or emitted by an elementary particle. The lowest possible energy level is represented by the orbit closest to the atomic nucleus. Thus, the electrons cannot take on or reduce any level of energy they like but have to follow quantum rules. This makes it impossible for electrons orbiting at the orbit closest to the atomic nucleus to smash into it and destroy the atom itself because the electrons cannot reduce any more energy beyond a quantized minimum. Therefore, the quantization of energy by Nature has saved the world from destruction and has also revealed the intricate order in the universe.

Strange experiments on time travel - Breaking the time barrier

Strange experiments on time travel - Breaking the time barrier

The recent report ( here :-  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14289114  ) on the very important scientific experiment performed by the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology which proves that a single photon is also limited to the speed of light ( i.e 300,000 km per second in a vacuum ) is definitive proof that time travel by going faster than light is impossible. However, it does not rule out other means of time travel such as through a wormhole.

In my book - " The Universe - A Personal View " which was listed by the US PDF online books website GENI.COM as one of the top 100 e-books in 2008, I have come cross reports in my research I conducted for writing my book that there are other ways of achieving time travel theoretically by slowing down the speed of light when it is passed through a near absolute zero ( -273 degrees Celsius ) gas known as the Bose-Einstein condensate. The following is an extract from my book which can be accessed in my notes here on FACEBOOK - " My Notes " to the left on this page ( http://sites.google.com/site/jkhclifestyle/Home/the-universe---a-personal-view ) about this experiment done in the late 1990s.

Page 279 to 281

QUOTE :-

Before I leave the possible future of science, I would like to introduce one last eccentric and incredible scientific idea of BREAKING the TIME BARRIER. This is not science fiction but a partial scientific reality. It will be recalled ( from chapter (iv) – Special and General Relativity ) that nothing can travel faster than light and to do so would tantamount to going backwards in time. As recently as in February 1999 , scientists had been able to cool down atoms to near absolute zero temperature under laboratory and experimental conditions. At such lowest of possible temperature all movements of atoms and elementary particles stop. Light is also one type of elementary particles called photons which are massless and are the most numerous type in our universe. While the speed of light through a vacuum is 186,000 mph, its speed had been successfully reduced to a mere 38mph in a cloud of atoms ( technically known as a Bose-Einstein condensate ) cooled to near absolute zero at the Rowland Institute at Harvard by a Danish scientist called Lene Vestergaad in February, 1999. The significance of reducing the speed of light to an attainable pace also implies the slowing down of time. This is because all information must be transmitted by light. Nothing can happen until signals have been exchanged between two conscious parties. If the propagation of signals is slowed down all events due to take place according to the signals or instructions would also slow down correspondingly. As time is measured by the occurrence of events, time would also slow down to an attainable speed. We could then break the time barrier at the reduced speed if we could exist in that kind of cold temperature near absolute zero. But, alternatively, we could send robotic probes in our place to break the time barrier in the extreme cold to propagate or retrieve information for us. This would still constitute time travel through the trick of reducing the speed of light rather than catching up to the normal speed of light at 186,000 mph ( or 300,000 kmph ) which would take an infinite amount of energy to achieve. This has been predicted to be impossible by Einstein's Special Relativity ( e= mc2 ). In the near absolute zero temperature conditions in the dark and vast cosmos, there are a lot of very ancient photons produced by interactions between elementary particles arising from past events that are waiting to be captured or read. If that could be done as current research has indicated, we might just be able to do time travel backwards in time by means of robotic probes to retrieve some of these ancient signals of past events. Isn't this interesting and exciting stuff ? I will surely let the reader know if and when this manner of time travel is materialized. From this example, the reader will probably appreciate that however abstract and complicated revolutionary scientific concepts may seem to us, to ignore them completely does not prevent such advanced concepts from drastically affecting our philosophical outlooks on life and reality. When such concepts are proven and materialized into everyday technologies such as IT ( the net, etc. ) (which incidentally is based on the application of Quantum Theory ) they would be directly affecting our daily lives and well being, not just in the philosophical sense. This is the reason that has led me back into the scientific realm after all these years of my accounting and tax consultancy career. It pays to be basically ( but need not be technically ) informed for two very important reasons. Firstly, it is in accordance with my own TOEL to be knowledgeable for better capability to make decisions on human behaviour. Secondly, being well informed about the basic principles and ethical implications of such new concepts entitles you to engage in discussions over the right direction to be taken in such research. I do want a say because new scientific concepts and technologies will ultimately affect our lives ( just like human cloning ). This is my basic individual-humanistic right. Everyone should and must insist to stand up and be counted on crucial issues that will affect us and, most importantly, our future generations whom it is our sacred duty to protect ( just as in the case of environmental issues ). Secondly, for the more practical modern citizens, funding of research deemed vital for the public interest will one way or another come out of our pockets in the form of higher taxation ( my area ) and other levies. We must know what we are in for. This is also the reason why scientists nowadays place so much emphasis on informing the public about their research, sometimes, in the form of popular science books which have lured me into the present intellectual journey in the first place. So, you see. I have once again shown the readers that everything in this world is interconnected. It is just common sense. I would be most surprised if it were not the case. Therefore, the motto - ONLY CONNECT – plays an indispensable role in our lives.

The only question left for me to answer is whether I have succeeded in establishing my case for the importance of finding one's meaning in life and that all problems in this world can be solved if we act in accordance with the laws of nature. I said in the prologue that it is for the reader to pass judgment. Here, I would just like to comment on the criteria for judging my case. I truly feel that I could rejoice even if my book is just able to motivate the reader to think about these issues stop short of finding a solution to them. My mentality has reached a point where I could be very happy if my life comes with all the beautiful trimmings, some of which I have already possessed, but I would not be too disappointed if the outstanding ones are not forthcoming. If my book has the desired effects I would be elated but if it doesn't I would not be devastated. This is the privilege of being a connected human being.

Before I sign off, I would like to repeat my call to refrain from comparing one's values and achievements with another. So long as we have set out and fulfilled our own goals and responsibilities during our lives, there should be no regrets. You just have to measure your own success in life by your own yardsticks. This is the only valid way to assess your own achievements in life as Einstein's profound discovery has undoubtedly proven. Do not let anyone make you feel small by quoting statistics to intimidate you because figures and even facts are subject to different interpretations from varying perspectives. Have complete confidence in yourselves and your own principles. Have the guts to say:- “ to hell with double standards “ if you are ever confronted with such evils. As the only observer in your own frame of reference and as a unique and precious human being, you are the only qualified judge of your life. Of course, you must first qualify yourself to be judged by your own standards by having a goal in life which must not conflict with the laws of nature, all just human laws and the prevailing generally accepted social and moral code. Once you have done that you will be your own hero for life. As I have previously exclaimed, we do not need great heroes in this world only numerous small little ones who are moral, conscientious and connected human beings. You are doing great ! Keep up the good work with all your heart and soul and motivate others to do the same.The best way to think positive about yourself is to remember what the former American first lady ( the wife of FDR, one of the most popular US presidents of all times who was in office during the Second World War ), Eleanor Roosevelt said :- “ No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. “

Nature is an open book. We can learn a lot from her only if we care to do so. For some people, they take things for granted and carry on with their existence by fufilling their daily duties without asking questions about things and other natural phenomena going on around them. They are happy in their own ways. May be they are too much taken up with their daily toils to notice anything in particular about nature. But for those who wish to connect various aspects of nature to their own lives, it is a completely different picture. They will see life from a higher and wider perspective and as the saying goes, they will see the light – the light of endless beauty, profound truths and eternal harmony with nature, their fellow global citizens, and most of all, with themselves. Tranquility and peace of mind will be their ultimate reward. They will have built that illusive but precious rainbow bridge that can immortalize their fleeting and chanced existence in this vast and mysterious universe where reality with a capital R only exists ( by virtue of Quantum Physics ) for the observant traveller in life. It is both my sincere and humble wish for all fellow human beings that every person could successfully construct one's own rainbow bridge and, in due course, become a prudent traveller along the river of time as well as a skilful architect in life !

As for myself, I would like to be described in the following way or, more exactly, I would like to live up to the following epithet upon my passing into the higher dimensions ( or the lower ones if I am condemned to hell ) : -

“ Here lies a stubborn but compassionate liberal humanist

           who had produced some eccentric personal philosophy of his.

   He professed during his life to make the world a better place.

           And succeeded by connecting everything in the simple way ! "

( By a connected humanist )

JKHC

9/ 9/ 2006

UNQUOTE

Science and Religion - Are They Compatible ?

Science and Religion - Are They Compatible ?

( 1 ) Science versus Religion – Proof versus Faith

Traditionally, people view these two disciplines as totally incompatible. Even Nobel laureates like physicists Steven Weinberg and Jacques Monod hold such a view. This is understandable because while the former depends completely on proof and evidence the latter relies mostly on faith. More unfortunately, there had been a many feuds between the two such as the persecution of pioneering scientists like Galileo and Copernicus by the Roman Catholic church due to their heliocentric theory putting the sun as the centre of the then known universe which appeared to contravene the importance of the earth as the centre piece of God's creation as described in the Bible. In fact, the Catholic church was misinformed on that particular issue thus leading to the unnecessary conflicts between science and religion at the time.

( 2 ) Scepticism vs. Dogma

Apart from the basically different approach required by proof and faith, there is a secondary effect flowing from the difference in the basic tenets of science and religion. The basic tenets have given rise to religious dogma and scientific intellectual scepticism respectively the former being needed for maintaining discipline among followers in religious organisations and the latter being mandatory to keep up a healthy dose of doubt to avoid blind faith in accepting any scientific theories without sufficient evidence.

( 3 ) Science vs. Philosophy ( one and the same at the beginning )

Going one step further the boundary between proof and faith can shift as human knowledge progresses. While religion has always been included under the branch of knowledge generally called philosophy which deals mainly with value judgment science has evolved beyond

philosophy to become a logically vigorous and empirical evidence dependent discipline. You will recall that Sir Isaac Newton's defining book on mechanics is called “ Philosophae Naturalis Principia Mathematica “ ( in Latin ) meaning “ Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy “. I cannot emphasize more strongly that philosophy as a branch of knowledge also depends entirely on logic but not as vigorously as science insofar as empirical or observational evidence is concerned because philosophy deals mainly with value judgment and abstract ideas.

( 4 ) The Big Question – “ Why is there something rather than nothing ? “

At an even more refined level there is science in philosophy and vice versa. For example, when philosophy deals with basic and fundamental nature of the human existence or the so called big questions of life the most fundamental of all philosophical issue is :- “ Why is there something rather than nothing ? “ as many great philosophers including Leibniz once asked. This big question actually implies another scientific question ( scientific means capable of being put to the test or falsifiable ) , namely, how did the universe come into being ? Philosophers will rebuke me by saying that the interrogative adverb should be why and not how. However, my humble opinion is that in the very beginning ( if there is really a beginning ) why most probably equals how because knowing the mechanism ( the how ) could possibly lead you to the reason ( why ) for the universe's existence. Of course, it is only a possibility. To give you an example from my own reasoning on this issue an analogy could possibly be drawn between time and space which is actually one at the Big Bang singularity because time is measured by the changes in things which must occupy space. One day is the time taken by earth to make one complete self revolution using the position of the sun as a marker.

Most philosophers will maintain that the above question is unanswerable because our common sense requires us to adopt a causality approach meaning that everything must have a cause. Otherwise, we will all go mad. Leibniz had adopted a limbo approach to this question which basically means unanswerable. However, my humble opinion tends toward a relative approach ( or the mirror approach ). Without nothing there cannot be anything and vice versa because something is the opposite of nothing and mutatis mutandis. A similar analogy can again be found in space and things ( or objects ). Without one you cannot have the other. I quote my argument from the prologue to my book The Universe ( page 22 ) :- “ More importantly, things and, hence events occupy space and are part and parcel of the whole illusion of reality. Things cannot exist independently of space and without things there is no space to be defined. Likewise, there can be nothing without space because things cannot exist in any dimension that is already full ( no more space ). all these lead me to my conclusion that everything is inter-connected. “

I will explain the “ illusion of reality “ in the section on Quantum Mechanics.

As regards philosophy in science, there is a particular branch of philosophy in science most notably that of the vigorous approach adopted by Karl Popper. He demands that all scientific theories be tested not only by finding evidence in support thereof but to vigorously try to refute them with opposing evidence. His method would require that a single piece of unfavourable evidence will annul any given scientific theory. This is scientific scepticism carried to the extreme. Nevertheless, this shows that science does have its own special brand of philosophy.

( 5 ) Proof vs. Faith

While proof is the bread and butter in science it does not mean that there is no faith needed in this pragmatic discipline. I again quote from my book ( page 37 ) on the argument that faith is also implicit in any scientific endeavour :- “ Whereas the scientists have tried to rationalize the physical world in terms of invariant laws and symmetries through the scientific method of logic and experiments without resorting to pure religious faith they have, nevertheless, relied heavily on their own particular form of faith. They believe in the ultimate faith that the universe is comprehensible to the human mind and that Nature always tends to be simple and symmetrical at the highest level. But why must this be so ? If scientists do not hold onto such faith or axioms or assumptions as they call them, there would be no scientific exploration into the unknown areas of Nature........Every unproven theory such as Alan Guth's Inflation survives on faith. The scientific world accepts Inflation because it is necessary for them to explain problems in the Big Bang Theory on the origin of the universe. Of course, Inflation will most probably be proven one day and may be pretty soon but till then it rides on faith for all its worth. Without faith there is no hope ( because no progress can be made if everything has to be proven first before any step forward is taken ) and without hope there will be no future and there may not be any need for charity either because if there is no future for the human race through progress ( both technologically and spiritually ) we will have all perished. Faith leads to hope and hope inevitably leads to dreams and dreams to progress. Hopes and dreams are the essence of LIFE. To deny faith is to deny LIFE itself. Every scientific law starts as an act of faith, the faith that Nature is comprehensible to us and that it is good to learn about the truth in Nature for the purpose of guiding our actions in life. With every achievement whether big or small in our quest for knowledge our faith in the above beliefs are reinforced. That is why many people believe that science is, in fact, a religion in its own right. “

As far as proof in religion is concerned theology is the concrete evidence that some kind of proof is still required in religion although the proving process is not done in the scientific way involving empirical and observational evidence.

( 6 ) Laws of Nature have God like qualities

My argument is as follows ( from page 198 of my book ) :- “ Despite this atheist attitude held by the majority of scientists, almost all of them rely on or believe in the laws of nature ( based on observable and testable evidence ) which possess the self-existing, self-organizing, all powerful ( every human being is subject to the laws of nature ), all permeating ( the various quantum energy fields existing throughout the universe ) and eternal characteristics that bear many God- like qualities. The only major difference between the characteristics of the laws of nature and God is that the laws of nature do not engage in spiritual correspondence with human beings. These laws are cold and impersonal unlike God to whom we can turn for help. Nevertheless, most of the God-like qualities are present in the laws of nature. Scientists may argue that in time we may be able to understand how the laws of nature have come about but it must again rely on the working of a higher set of laws with similar God-like qualities. Or worse still, it could be like the example of peeling an onion. One layer of mystery is removed by us only to find another layer underneath and finally when all layers have been removed by us nothing except the void is left. Or can we even say void with certainty because when there is no more substance to reveal the void in a comparative sense what is left is entity X or element X ! Or simply ????....... The saving grace seems to be in Quantum Theory which has put us or our consciousness in the centre of creation as the observer to at least validate the concept of the void by our physical presence and the act of making the observation. Notwithstanding this embarrassing situation, I think my point about the laws of nature having God- like qualities has been borne out in the above sequence of reasoning.”

( 7 ) Summary of my notes as set out above

The purpose of these notes is to set out some similarities between science and religion ( and by extension to philosophy of which religion is a branch ) in support of my view that the two are not totally incompatible. As a matter of fact, there is the infamous or controversial example of Scientology being recognized as a religion in some countries although most scientists would dismiss Scientology as voodoo science. Let me broaden the view to include philosophy generally. Far from being incompatible, philosophy and science are complementary to some extent. Some philosophers will even say ( and I agree ) that science is blind without philosophy ( because science does not have any value judgment on its end products which culminate in technology ) while philosophy is lame without science ( because pure reasoning cannot solve our daily problems ).

Now, let us turn to science to try to answer the Big Question – How or Why did our universe come into existence ? To this aim there are some indicators provided by cosmology which also hinges on two of the greatest scientific theories of the twentieth century – General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

JKHC ( October 14, 2013 )

The possible origin of life as science sees it

The possible origin of life as science sees it

(  The following is based on my e-book - " The Universe - A Personal View " - It is free for browsing at this link :- https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxqa2hjbGlmZXN0eWxlfGd4OjM5NmM2NTViMjAzY2M5MTk   )

So far, this is all we know about life :- Life is self-sustaining autonomy involving metabolism, nutrition, reproduction, complexity, self-organisation, self repairs, growth and intriguing information content ( embodied in the DNA molecule ). There are enormous complexities in living organisms. For example, the human brain with 10 to the 11power ( 100 billion ) of neurons and 10 to the 12 power ( 1 trillion ) of non-nerve cells is the most complicated structure in the known universe. There is also individual character ( or characteristics ) in each living organism. It is a common consensus that each individual person has his or her own personality and this applies to identical twins as well. Going down the line, no two individual animals such as puppies are exactly alike. Similarly, no two leaves are totally identical. The strangest of all, no scientist has so far succeeded in creating the simplest form of life such as a single-celled amoeba despite everything that is bio-chemically known about it. There are such beauty, mysteries and varieties in life that Francis Crick the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule said :- “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”

Let us recapitulate what we know about the origin of life up to the present moment in our human history. Life on earth is carbon base and carbon can only be manufactured in the nuclear fusion process in the stars. At the end of each cycle of their lives stars explode as supernovae and these catastrophic events help to disperse carbon ,nitrogen and oxygen atoms into space. When these astro-debris coalesce under gravity to form stars and galaxies again the star creation process is repeated once the matters are compressed dense enough for nuclear fusion to start. In solar systems like ours, bio- friendly planets may arise. Through the grouping of suitable chemicals elements like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen under favourable conditions ( which are not yet known to us ) the basic building blocks of life, namely, amino-acids are formed. These eventually link up to become longer chains of peptides and through even further more complicated processes the first self-replicator or the proto-cell is formed. Inspirations regarding how the complicated processes took place have come from another branch of scientific theory called the Theory of Complexity which states that when any systems evolve to a certain threshold of complexity a whole different set of rules will apply. Such rules may involve interactive feed-back loops among its components making the total greater than the sum of its parts. Furthermore, the system may become an automata meaning it can take on a life of its own resembling the characteristics of a living organism. Greater details will be described in the Chapter on Chaos and Complexity. Suffice it to say at this stage that the Theory of Complexity has shed some light on the evolution of life. To give an example of Complexity at work, the boiling of water can serve as an illustration. When we start to boil some water the heated part of the water is lower in density so that individual bubbles or cells are formed at random distribution. As the boiling process progresses, these random cells become more organized and develop into convection currents which finally become two main streams. One goes clockwise and the other counter-clockwise. As more energy is fed into the system some kind of order seems to appear. At boiling point, the picture changes again. With enough energy to cause the water to vapourize into steam the water surface becomes more turbulent as each water molecule escapes from the boiling water surface at different points into the atmosphere to form steam vapour. For the eyes of the ignorant, the movements of the water molecules appear to be highly organized and under the command of an intellegent program. This is ,in fact, the characteristic of the Laws of Nature. All lifeless atoms seem to be acting in unison as if they had a life of their own and obediently following the Laws of Nature. The role played by Complexity in the development of life on earth also shows that everything and, in particular, each component part of individual life is interconnected in some delicate and multilateral manner.

Regardless of the true origin of life, at least one thing can be certain about life. It is precious. If you believe in God, then life must have a purpose to you. To such an extent, it is precious because you are God's masterpiece of creation. If you believe the scientists' version of creation you are even more precious because the odds of having life by random chance is estimated to be 1/10 to the power of 40,000 ( the total number of atoms in the visible universe is only 10 to the power of 78 ) or comparable to finding a fully assembled Boeing 747 Jumbo jet after a hurricane has swept through a junk yard as Sir Fred Hoyle so imaginatively put it. The message from Nature is loud and clear. Cherish your own existence. Life also teaches the lesson of peaceful co-existence. During the 1970s, two scientists called Lynn Margulis and James Lovelock advanced a theory of the earth as a holistic, living and breathing eco-system tantamount to a living organism in its own right. Their environmental theory is known as the Gaia Theory originating from the Hindu concept of the goddess of mother earth, Gaia. Their theory raises the status of mother earth to the level of a living being that demands the highest respect from her human inhabitants. This theory has found wide support from environmentalists such as Geen Peace members and the scientific community at large. Lynn Margulis has also advanced another theory on the origin of the nucleated cell or eukaryotic cell. It was suggested that the nucleus of such more complex cells was originally another invader cell which had since learned to live in symbiosis and harmony with its host because the destruction of the host cell would ultimately lead to the invader's own demise. It is strategically wiser to co-operate with one another and strive for survival as a team. A lot of subsequent evidence has emerged to make this theory a generally accepted one among bio-scientists. Therefore, peaceful co-existence is also inherent in Nature and so should human beings behave.

The seemingly impossible odds of life happening by chance have led to an intensive search for other possible explanations of the miraculous occurrence. The latest theory on the origin of life comes from inspirations of the Quantum Theory and, hence, the term Quantum Evolution. Under this new and innovative theory put forward by Johnjoe Mcfadden, the behaviour of atoms in bio-chemical molecules such as the DNA and amino-acid molecules are hypothesized to act under the laws of Quantum Mechanics applicable to atomic activities which is not unreasonable. Owing to the fact that atoms can assume superpositions ( being different places at the same time or having different probabilities of being present at different positions ) until they decohere into definite positions upon the collapse of their related probability function ( as described by Erwin Schrodinger's equations by virtue of an observation or measurement being made on them ), the chances of the formation of the suitable kind of bio-molecules are greatly increased.

The strange and yet abundantly proven rules of Quantum Theory may sound like science fiction at this point but I can assure you that Quantum Theory is one of the most reliable and consistent scientific theories ever formulated as borne out by the invariant predictions supported by numerous experimental results. Despite its reliability, the philosophical implications of Quantum Theory are still as controversial as ever notwithstanding its early inception in 1900. The reader will learn of its detailed descriptions in the next Chapter. Meanwhile, I regret to say that the theory must be taken at its face value. It is not as academic as its name may imply. Quantum Theory has found applications in our everyday technologies such as the computer, the television and laser technology as pioneered by Albert Einstein. The word LASER is the short form for light amplification by the simulated emission of radiation. MASER is, therefore, the magnetism counter part of the same technology. The latest application of Quantum Theory is in a revolutionary concept in computer engineering called the quantum computer which will increase the processing speed of conventional computers by thousands of times and ultimately million of times. The preliminary testing of the underlying principles had been successful in recent months and hopefully the commercial quantum computer will be on the market in a matter of a decade. When the time comes look out for stocks and shares of quantum computer companies. You will surely make a few bucks if you invest in them. There is an old Chinese saying :- “ There are houses made of gold inside the books ( of knowledge ).” Knowledge is power ! Going back to Quantum Evolution, it is argued that Quantum Theory can theoretically reduce the astronomical probabilities of getting the atoms to form the correct sequence of bio-molecules by matching the infinite number of possible and similar arrangements of atoms ( the so-called superpositions ) through trial and error in a reasonable amount of time frame. When the correct sequence of atomic arrangement is achieved then decoherence ( or materialization in less technical terms ) would occur leading to the formation of the correct kind of bio-chemical molecules to allow the evolution of life to proceed. This is supposed to be a logical and reasonable explanation for the relatively quick pace at which life evolved as soon as the conditions on earth were bio-friendly about 3.6 billion years ago ( the earth itself being estimated to be some 4.6 billion years old ). As farfetched as it may sound, this is, indeed, an ingenious way forward although it still lacks experimental evidence at this stage.

At the present time, there is no definitive explanation given by scientists regarding the origin of life. On the one hand, various scientific theories on the origins of life have not been convincingly supported by objective evidence and on the other, the delicate requirements for life and its ultra complexities in terms of structure and working have baffled most people including many scientists. To this extent, it is not surprising to find numerous supporters of the religious version of creation. Even many scientists agree that life is not only made up of physical atoms but something deeper. But while some call it the life force ( a very unscientific term I have to admit ) or soul created by God others prefer to call it a piece of missing information ( a scientific term for the unknown ) or software. In my opinion, had life been merely a physical arrangement of atoms scientists should have been able to manufacture it by now with the ever progressing computer technology.

Before leaving the mystical subject of the origin of life, I think the reader should at least be acquainted with a little bit of the philosophical theory advanced by philosophers of science. Back in 1973, Brendon Carter suggested that our own existence was sufficient to account for the creation of the universe and life on earth. His ideas had since been collectively called the Anthropic Principle. In essence, he was saying that if the universe and its laws were not the way they are we, human beings, would not be here to ask the 'why' question. There is another stronger version of this principle which states that the purpose of the creation of the universe is custom-made for us humans. Scientists who hold this stronger view is represented by famous physicists like Freeman Dyson who once said :- “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must know we were coming.” Although the Anthropic principle is logical it does not meet the criterion of a good scientific theory in that it makes no useful predictions. It is simply a statement of the facts without answering the questions of how and why. In other words, it is like saying that your parents are the people that gave birth to you. No further useful information can flow from such a statement.

On the other hand, there are those who hold the extreme opposite view that there are no intrinsic purposes to life and this universe at all. Both the universe and human affairs are meaningless and pointless. Representatives of this school of scientific thoughts include Nobel Prize laureate Steven Weinberg and the French biologist, Jacques Monod. Weinberg once said this ;- “ The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” I totally disagree with such a perspective. This view implies that only the objective and physical facts are important and our subjective feelings and perceived reality are worthless. This is a completely materialistic view point devoid of human sentiments. With the power of creation and ingenuity of the human mind which matures and grows with every social interaction on a nonlinear and multilateral basis, we are fully capable of creating a meaningful and rewarding realty if we so choose. The vital importance of the intelligent human consciousness is abundantly borne out by Quantum Theory and not purely a philosophical conjecture.

As regards Jacques Monod, he was of the strong opinion that science and philosophy like oil and water cannot mix with each other. He wrote thus ;- “ Any mingling of knowledge with values is unlawful, forbidden,” To this view, my response is that “never say never again “ ( with complements of Ian Fleming of James Bond fame ). If science is to serve humanity, there is a great urgency for a Connection to be set up between science and philosophy because science tells us what we can do while philosophy what we should do. Science represents power and we are inviting tragedy if power falls into the wrong hands. What can be more tragic than nuclear power falling under the control of a mad man like Hitler ( which almost did ) who did not know the proper thing to do for want of a set of humane philosophical value? One of my humble objectives in this book is precisely an attempt to forge a Connection between these two very vital disciplines - vital to human survival that is !

To me, it requires a lot of faith both in oneself and in Nature to face an issue such as the origin of life which is, in effect, looking for one's own ultimate root. If one is pre-determined to include only one given methodology to the exclusion of all others without an open mind one would only arrive at partial truths and may even fly in the face of other possibilities which are precluded by a set perspective. This is the notorious Selection Effect which leads us astray from the ultimate truth because we only select evidence that is compatible with our set perspective or the existing paradigm. That is why all great scientific discoveries or, for that matter, everything of greatness are made by overthrowing some existing generally accepted framework. We must have the courage and foresight to resist applying our common sense if we need to do that to get to the ultimate truth. Let us hope that the search for knowledge and the truth be unimpeded by any standards or disciplines.