Manufactured Reality

A model is a set of rules that defines the relationship between two or more states of existence. In the most common and simplest of cases, there is quite often a causal relationship between these states. There is always a cause and there is always an effect. There is always a stimulus and there is always a response. To be a little more accurate, the simplest case would be when there is only one cause which can lead to only one effect. The model gets a little complicated when we have more than one cause which can have an impact on the one effect.

But we are never content knowing that there is an impact. There is almost a pathological need to dissect the model and try to understand the nature of impact that each cause has on the effect. It is in the nature of man to question everything. Of course there will be exceptions to this rule. There will be people who are content not knowing things. I'm generalising, where will we be without generalisations. I'll get back to the topic before I diverge any further.

When we have multiple causes which can impact the effect, how do we study the impact of each individual cause on the effect ? Simple, we make assumptions. Lets say we have two causes which form the input factors to the model and the model outputs only one effect. The effect is a function of the two causes. In order to understand the impact that each cause has on the effect, we make an assumption that one of the causes remains fixed and the other is changing. The value of one of the inputs, to the model, is fixed and the other is varied to see how the effect, or output of the model, reacts to the change.

Once a relationship has been established between this varying input and the output, the same process is carried out with the second input keeping the first one constant. Ceteris Paribus, as the guys who invented the Latin language called it.

Please note, I'm using the word "input" and "cause" interchangeably just as I'm using "output" and "effect" interchangeably.

People mostly only remember the relationship that has been established between the input and the output and there is probably a brief mention of the assumptions made while arriving at the relationship. Of course, most of them are carried away by the newly found and pay less attention to the newly flawed.

Enough has been said about the inputs, the outputs and the models. Lets talk about the not-so-commonly-talked-about assumptions.

One fundamental fact which most researchers tend to ignore is, the relationship(s) derived are only as good as the model and the model is only as good as the assumptions on which it is built. If the assumptions are completely baseless and unrealistic, there is a good chance that the assumptions will never hold good and can never be practically achieved. Which means the test environment which is a fundamental requirement for establishing the relationship can never be created. Although the world seems perfect and everything falls into place on paper, when it comes to practice, its a whole new ball game.

Economics, simply called the Study of Human Behaviour, is the biggest contribution that has resulted from the evolution of social sciences. The economy or the people are affected by multiple factors at any point in time. The learned people before my time have managed to study the various factors and their effect on economy or people. All such studies are done using the same scientific approach outlined earlier in the post. Only problem being, the assumptions are all faulty. Pretty much every basic theory in economics which is currently being preached religiously by the academic fraternity is fundamentally flawed. The flaw being, the assumptions on which these theories have been devised are never practically achievable.

Law of Demand and Supply is a perfect example. Law of demand states if the price of a product is high, there will be lower demand, ceteris paribus. Law of supple states if the price of a product is high, there will be high supply as more suppliers would like to take advantage of the high price, ceteris paribus. One law is the inverse of the other. It's the law of supply and demand together that determines the equilibrium state where quantity produced, price demanded and consumer requirement tend to complement each other.

Ceteris Paribus is used in the above mentioned laws in order to isolate the price effect on the quantity produced. Other factors which can affect quantity such as consumer preference for the product and the availability of substitute products etc have been comfortably assumed as non existent or more realistically have been assumed as being constant.

That is never the case in reality. Consumer preference changes all the time. There are new products being introduced in the market all the time. The assumptions never hold and hence the laws are never completely fool proof. I can confidently extrapolate this to most of the theories that have been derived over the years.

In the famous words of Albert Einstein, "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one".

Reality does not exist. We only live in our perception of reality.

We live in Manufactured Reality.

Truth will set you free

Having said that, how many of us are truly free ? If it was that easy, how come we see so many people not telling the truth. I'm guessing there is more to it. What qualifies as a lie here ? Telling the truth but not the whole truth or not telling anything at all or a blatant plain vanilla lie ? Is a white lie better than a not-so-white lie ?

Obviously there is some kind of benefit that is derived from lying. A lie protects something or someone. People lie probably because in one or more ways it acts in their best interest. I strongly believe that all individuals are intrinsically capable of acting in their best interest. Hence leading to the conclusion, everyone has the potential to lie.

Sure, telling the truth makes you guilt free but at what cost. The truth will probably help you sleep better at night but only because you have spoilt someone elses.

For as long as one can live with the dead weight of not telling the truth, I suppose one can allow for benefits from lying to further one's self interest. But one thing is for sure, you can never tell the truth without hurting the one's you love.

What a rush !!!!!!

Pulse starts racing as the pace quickens. The curves are beautiful. I can feel the tightness all around me. There is a single minded purpose that is driving all my motor functions. There is a sense of excitment, thrill, and exhilerating pleasure. I can feel it peaking.

5 seconds ...
10 seconds ...
15 seconds ...
....... Here is comes, 150 kmph.

The mind tells me to back off but the heart wants to keep going. I force myself to pull back. Enjoying the moment, soaking in sublime bliss.

What a rush !!!!

Time is the healer, or is it really ??

Murphy's law states, "Left to themselves, things will go from bad to worse" or something close to that. Isn't this a nice little contradiction.

The human body is very resilient and the human mind is very smart. Both of which can come back from almost anything. But the mind controls the body and hence the mind is what matters. You control the mind, odds are you will have control over your body.

Lets say, you break a leg one day and the next day you crack your skull. On the second day, which of the two are you more likely to feel ? I say you will feel your head hurting a lot more than your leg. It is not that your leg is better and the pain has reduced. The brain registers pain in the same order of it's occurrence. This is the case not only with physical injuries, but also emotional. The major difference being, physical injuries heal completely with no lasting effects.

The mind is possessed by acts in chronological order. Given enough time and given the nature of man, there will be multiple occasions which lead to emotional pain. Something bad happens ten years ago and something bad happens today, which of the two is more likely to affect you today ?

You break up with your love partner for whatever reason. You have a fight one fine day, you part ways, don't speak with each other for over a year. Another fine day, you run into each other at a party hosted by a common friend. Does the passage of a year make things better ? Do you not feel the pain ? Do you feel any less stupid or guilty, as the case may be ? Lets say no. If the two of you had met inadvertently after two years, will it make a difference ? Three years ? .... Ten years ?

Time only masks the pain. Time only helps you temporarily forget the pain. Time does nothing to heal the hurt. Time only gives you the illusion of normalcy.

Doing things changes things. Not doing things leaves things exactly as they were.

Motives, Actions and Judgment

Some guy killed another guy because he looked at him sideways.
Some guy killed another guy because he looked at the idol of his god sideways.

What do you think society will call the guy who killed the other guy ?

The first guy will probably be called a psychopath and the second guy will probably be called a religious fanatic. Of course if you are a filthy rich psychopath, you could spend time in a Class A jail with all modern day luxuries, attend court once a month and let you hair turn gray in peace. Do I need to say anything at all for the other guy ? He'll probably make bail, compete in the next election and become a member of parliament. Anyway, that's not what I want to rant about. That's for another time.

The act is common but the perspectives are so different. A murder is a murder, no matter how people tend to brand it. What is different is the motive behind the act of murder. For the guy who committed the murder, his motives had everything to do with his actions. For the people on the outside, the motives had everything to do with their judgement.

It's almost never what you are, it's pretty much always what people think you are.

You kill one, you are a murderer. You kill a million, you are a conqueror. Go figure.

Yes or No, Right or Wrong ......

Imagine what would happen if every crimal trial could end in only one of two ways ? Every judgement would be so simple. Be warned, just because a judgement is simple it does not mean it is any less difficult.

Life without the gray areas. You break the law, you die. No mercy, no quarter, only death. Simplicity of true genius, I say.

I'm picking on the criminal justice system only because it's a convenient analogy. I do have a few lawyer friends, but this has nothing to do with them.

Shit hits the fan when we introduce varying degrees of right and wrong. In other words, we begin to compromise.

Is robbing a house less wrong than raping a girl which is less wrong than committing a murder ? One gets a few months in prison with a fine, the other probably a few years in prison and the last one probably more than just a few years in prison, say life imprisonment.

Let me make this a little simpler. Lets work on the assumption that the criminals are caught, properly prosecuted and sentenced. I'm removing the probability of capture from the equation. Any unwarranted assumption is bad science, but since this is a blog i'm not being as stringent.

I'm not sure what people can infer from this, but I see economics. Rather simple micro economics actually. If the benefits from committing the crime outweigh the risk in committing the crime, that crime will continually be committed. The equation tilts overwhelmingly in favour of committing crimes especially if I remove the assumption that all criminals are caught etc etc. This is a lot closer to reality.

I distinctly remember this from my college days, NOTHING IS EVER FREE. If you don't pay, then somebody else does. How is that being fair ?

What if we always pay the ultimate price? Nothing comes cheap, no compromise. You break the law, you die. I'm not talking about a neat execution where the criminals are granted a last wish, a last meal and then hung by the neck until death. I'm talking a gory death. I'm talking cutting the head off and returning only the headless corpse to the families. Sounds barbaric doesn't it ?

Do you think anything less dramatic is capable of coercing change ? Change has to happen not only at an individual level, it should also happen at the mass level. A person is smart, but people are generally stupid. To convince the people, you need something equally compelling. One high profile case with this law in effect is all it would take. With the current technology, high definition satellite transmission, people would be able to practically taste the brain matter.

It is very tempting to underestimate the power of stupidity and the power of fear. Fear will overcome stupidity any day, hands down. An attack on the most primal of man's instincts, survival, is bound to get a lot of attention.

I hate repeating myself but i'll make an exception here, Simplicity of true genius.

There will always be an argument that fear is not a permanent solution, it'll never bring a sense of peace. But it will bring order and considering the current state of affairs it will more than suffice.

Imagine all the accused in the mumbai hit and run cases are sentenced to death. How many people will still have the guts to drink and drive on the streets ?

I can already hear the human activists screaming their guts out. I only say, save it for those who are wrong fully punished. None of the others deserve a break.

This one is for myself

"I'm no Angel" by Dido

If you gave me just a coin for every time we say goodbye
Well I'd be rich beyond my dreams, I'm sorry for my weary life
I know I'm not perfect but I can smile
And I hope that you see this heart behind my tired eyes
If you tell me that I can't, I will, I will, I'll try all night
And If I say I'm coming home, I'll probably be out all night
I know I can be afraid but I'm alive
And I hope that you trust this heart behind my tired eyes
I'm no angel, but please don't think that I won't try and try
I'm no angel, but does that mean that I can't live my life
I'm no angel, but please don't think that I can't cry
I'm no angel, but does that mean that I won't fly
I know I'm not around each night
And I know I always think I'm right
I can believe that you might look around
I'm no angel, but please don't think that I won't try and try
I'm no angel, but does that mean that I can't live my life
I'm no angel, but please don't think that I can't cry
I'm no angel, but does that mean that I won't fly.

What if ......

your alter ego is of the opposite sex ? Does that person become your soul mate ? Me being a he, my alter ego will henceforth be referred to as she.

She should complete me. Isn't that what conventional wisdom is all about - the completely overrated concept of equillibrium ? If she is everything I am not, the two of us would be made for each other. What is she ? The absence of every trait that makes me, me ?

Lets see now, we'll never like the same things. We'll never agree on anything. All life would be a compromise. This is like Game theory. One person's loss becomes another person's gain. A perfect zero sum game. My misery becomes her happiness and vice versa.

Do opposites really attract ?

Beneath the glossy veneer of this irrationally romantic illusion lies the harsh reality that most people tend to comfortably ignore.

She wont complete me. She will end up pissing me off and i'll end up returning the favour. Not neccessarily in that order.

If she is perfect, just to reinforce my initial assumption - she is my alter ego and not a person, (it's really easy for people to get carried away with this line, so i'm being just a little cautious) as in she is everything I am not - I can never love her, but given the right circumstance(s) I can come to hate her.

Life with her will always be like Game theory, but it should never be a perfect zero sum game. All her misery should not become my happiness or vice versa.

If a little of her misery becomes a lot of my happiness AND a little of my misery becomes a lot of her happiness, now that is a she, I will definitely be interested in. For this to happen, she should never be perfect.

She should never be everything I am.
She should never be everything I am not.
She should always be something I am and something I am not.

Who is she ??

If I ever write a book ......

Not a bad idea. My one chance to make an impression on this pathetic, miserably misled world. Me likey. I decide to take it further.

What will be the name of my book ? I wouldn't like to make it sound very profound. It might scare people away from reading it. Atleast the title needs to be appealing. I cant think of a name.Ahaa. Something clicks in my head. I think, what if I dont name my book ? The title of my book would be - Untitled. Excellent. I like it.

What should I write about ? I consider the broad genre of topcis. Fiction - no. Religion - no. Philosophy - no. Biography - no. Autobiography - Hmm (I think) ... no. I cant think of an appropriate topic. Thats when I decide to create my own topic. Something peculiar, which a majority of whom we call rational people would find irrational. Thats where i decide to leverage my ability to write ad hoc statements. I have the audacity to think i can get away with it.

The next phase. I need to add form, structure and substance. I have no idea what that means. Typed it 'cos it sounds cool. Another thought springs in my head. I think, what if I dont write anything in my book ? I try to imagine.

I put myself in the place of a reader entering a book store looking for the latest publication. The reader sees a book named - Untitled. The reader is curious. The reader picks up the book and opens it to see what the book is about. The first page is blank. The reader doesnt think too much of it as most books have a blank first page. The reader flips to the second page. Finds that also to be a blank page. The reader turns to the third, fourth, fifth page - all blank. The reader quickly brushes through the entire book. Finds the entire book to be blank. The reader stops to think. Maybe its a printing error and that copy was placed on the stands by mistake. Puts that copy aside and picks up the next copy. The reader, after the first experience, is quick to realise that even the second copy is all blank. Thats the point where the reader thinks - its a prank. The reader puts the book down, calls the writer (ironically), namely me, an insane little #$%^@# and leaves.

I come back to reality.

I realise thats exactly what i'm looking for. A book which most rational people would think is irrational.

Ahaa, I'm a genius.

The poet in me ... or so I like to think

the subtle submergence of silken veneer brings forth the facade, a visage that deceives ...
a venial offense forgiven by the sacrament of confession ...
the cardinal vice that can veer a man's sights ...
the opulent charm of fully blossomed purple ...
i offer my enamored self to your comely virtue ...

wrote that for a friend of mine ... not sure if i used the right words or even if the metaphors mean what i intended them to ... kinda liked it ... putting it here.

Why don't we write letters anymore ?

Let me guess - Email is way too cool. Mobile phones are cheap. Lets all embrace technology and allow ourselves to be consumed by it.

Sure. I've heard the talk about how technology has brought the world closer. Who would have thought of outsourcing if not for technology and not to mention generations being brought into this world not knowing what they have missed. India vs. Pakistan playing not in a cricket match, not a hockey match, not on any open air field, but in a virtual world of 3d games.

What happened to the good old blood, sweat and guts theme ? What happened to the personal touch ?

It is in the nature of man to seek out the path that yields the maximum return with least possible effort. Simple cost benefit ratio. Lets see now. Writing a letter vs. sending an email. Cost benefit reveals the following:

Cost(s) associated with Writing a letter:

=> You need paper. Jeez, who uses those things anymore.

=> You need a pen. The 16 year old's of right now don't know what that is, something to do with exams being conducted on a computer. The concept evades me.

=> Once the above mentioned items are in possession, there is of course the archaic, time consuming, physical act of writing.

=> You do need some semblance of grammer when you write to make sense, which means more of an effort in performing the physical act which is labour intensive as is.

=> Of course you need the envelope, the stamp and the complete postal address. Yes, "postal address" exists. Address does not always mean, who@idontcare.whatever. (this thing actually hyperlinks automatically, you see what i'm talking about)

=> To top it all of, the act of walking, jogging, running, riding or driving to a post box and posting the letter.

Benefit(s) associated with Writing a letter:

=> The person reading the letter gets to see your handwriting. Considering that the physical act of writing has not been performed in a long time, it is bound to be horrendous. Why do I feel this should also go in the cost section. In the interest of fairness, i'll leave it here. Handwriting, as sad as it may be, is a little more personal than electronic characters on a screen.

Now, lets try the same thing with email.

Cost(s) associated with Typing an Email:

=> You need a computer, laptop, or whatever cool gadget that allows you to send an email. (Possible arguement: C'mon who doesn't have one of these things at home, work, in the mobile.)

=> You need an internet connection or whatever cool technology that has replaced it. (Possible argument: Oh please, who has a computer or whatever without one of these things to go with it.)

Really cant think of anything else to put in here. But trust me, the benefits thingi is going to be a lot better.

Benefits(s) associated with Typing an Email:

=> It's probably easier to own a computer now than to set up a mailbox outside your home.

=> You dont have to be educated to type an email. Nobody uses the English language to type an email. Some sort of pseudo written english thing has taken over. Really not sure what this lingo is called even. (u get dis!!!)

=> You can send the same email to more than one person at the same time. Cool huh.

=> You can set rules, put your email in different places, chooe to ignore some. All automatically. Sounds like a secratary's job back in the 60's.

=> No more envelopes, stamp, postal address, nor the act of finding a post box. The "SEND" button conquers all. (It actually only takes care of the post box part but you get my drift right ??)

I could go on, but then i'd be stating the obvious.

So, do I still write letters ? The answer is no. Why ?? Not because of the cost benefit stuff I typed out just now. My equations are different.

Benefit:
I get to communicate with people. There are few amongst people, at large, whom I dont communicate with, but then i'm not typing this post for them. So, I couldnt care less.

Cost:
What cost ?? Approx Rs. 1/- per MB of data transfer is cheap.

I get to overcome my guilt for not having time to keep in touch with people I like using the sheer economic gains that can only be attained with the use of technology.

Thats why I dont write letters anymore.