Perfect Design?

I was trying to make sense of the claim that human are 'perfect' or 'perfectly designed'. I can't help it but to think that that claim is a mere conjecture. However, there could be 'perfectness' in the design somehow.

One problem with the claim is that there is no explanation on why human mind have so much things that it does not know. And often the basis of a knowledge which is needed to further understand other knowledge remain unknown until one mind get in contact with the knowledge. All knowledge will definitely not known to human mind unless somewhere or somehow human min get in contact with that knowledge. I can't understand why that basis of knowledge was not there from the beginning. For example, the knowledge about metal. If the knowledge about metal or metallurgy exist in human mind as per the design of human, surely human will use metal in everything. But finds in archeology tell us that prehistoric human uses stone tools. Why stone tools? why not metal? Metal was only used probably only in the last 6000 years. It can't be of any sense if perfect human is lacking the knowledge to exploit nature to their benefit right from the start. It is truly a sign of an imperfect design of human.

Anyhow, when I think of it in another angle, maybe the 'perfectness' that is referred to is of different nature. Probably something intangible. The ability to think. Regardless of whatever primitive human was at the beginning, one thing that human never missed and have in common is the ability to do art. Art has been there probably since the dawn of humanity. The ability to do art and other displays of creativity shows that human mind evolve. The brain was perfectly designed to acquire, perceive, visualize, observe and create knowledge. Is human hands perfectly designed? No way. That is why we have two of them. If one is perfect, we should have just one hand. That is the perfectness of the design. Human just have enough to do everything they want.

Well, still I don't think that human is designed by some designer. There is nothing special about human. Human are part of a family or kingdom, in which animals are human's cousin but not brother. Human and any other living being, complex or single cell are all the same in some sense. In reproduction, in need, in security, etc. we are similar.

Human are Hitler in that kingdom. Killing their cousins. Cannibalizing their cousin. Taking advantage of their cousin. What is the meaning of 'perfect' if human are like that? Mother Earth, who was protected solely by human's cousin is constantly being destroyed by human. Not only that, even the protector are destined to be gone one day. Is that the 'perfectness' that some people boast about?

Truly one view is so easy to be blinded. Just tell 'em that he is or she is perfect and have dominion over everything on earth. Surely he or she will be so proud to have destroyed his or her own house. So much of being perfect.

Expectations in Relationships

Posted by Victoria Osteen on May 27th, 2010 - http://www.joelosteen.com

A couple of years ago, I was chatting with a young man who was sharing how the ministry had really helped him recover from a terrible divorce. He was saying that he just didn't understand what had gone wrong in his five-year marriage. "After all," he said, "we met through a very reputable matchmaking website. I guess I am living proof that those sites don't really work." He went on to tell how he had filled out the profile and that his computer-matched wife had every quality he desired in a woman. As I listened, I could just imagine him filling out the profile much like one might custom order a car. He wanted a blond woman who loved the outdoors and quiet walks on the beach. Perhaps he also ordered a woman who liked to keep a clean house, cook, and wanted exactly 3.5 children—two boys and one and a half girls! He even told me that he was able to request that she be of a certain Christian denomination. Apparently, their problems began during the second year of their marriage when he realized that she didn't really meet all of his standards. He still wasn't sure if she had lied on the profile, or changed after they had gotten married, or if the system itself was flawed. He actually said to me, "They never asked 'are you willing to be there when your husband needs you?'"

This young man is a prime example of how people enter relationships with set standards and expectations. When people do not meet the standards we set, we become disenchanted with the relationship, allowing disappointment and frustration to set in. It's easy to get along with people when everything is going great and others are acting exactly the way we want them to. But what happens when something goes wrong and our feelings get hurt? If you're not careful, you'll begin to focus on the unmet expectations which will affect your attitude, and ultimately, your relationship.

But it doesn't have to be that way if we will just learn to have realistic expectations and let people off the hook. We can avoid a lot of heartache by simply giving people room to be human. We have to accept the fact that nobody is perfect, and even the best people will fail us at times. We have to choose forgiveness because it is not up to anyone in our lives to keep us happy; that is our own responsibility. Too often, we want our mate to cheer us up when we are down; we expect our partner to always be loving and kind. We expect our boss to recognize our hard work and our friends to always be there for us. But those are unrealistic expectations. The perfect spouse does not exist, nor does the perfect boss, nor the perfect friend. We would avoid a lot of disappointments by simply understanding that no matter how much we love people, no matter how much they love us, at some point, they won't live up to our expectations, or they will hurt our feelings in some way. But when we get our eyes off their shortcomings and on to Jesus, we open the door for His grace and healing in our relationships. We open the door for love which is all that matters in eternity.

Source:
http://www.joelosteen.com/HopeForToday/JoelAndVictoriasBlog/Pages/BlogEntry.aspx?item=4ca9e060-7bfb-4aaa-a566-937f3aabf24f

Infinity Downline 101 - ID Crash Course for Idiot

Hi Guys, I am so glad that you are here to read this short course on Infinity Downline, course ID101 - ID Crash Course for Idiot.

Let me begin this course with greeting - Good morning, good afternoon, good night, good day, whichever time you are here, just pick the appropriate greeting.

For those of you who are new to Infinity Downline, I feel sad for you because Infinity Downline or nicknamed ID has been around for quite sometime now, but nobody has been reported to have became super wealthy out of it though. It is a very simple Multi Level Marketing or MLM (...but 'they' does not admit it), and 'they' claim to be the cheapest 'MLM' around. The 'ID kind of 'MLM' is seems to be different from any other MLM (...well, no matter how you turn the pyramid around, it is still a pyramid isn't it...). The initial investment is truly small. Only USD25. But Malaysian prefer RM100. It was not known for what reason. About the change in currency, the only explanation that I can think of is 'Malaysia Boleh'.

So much for the introduction. Let me begin with the ID101 course now.

This business is very good. It is said to be the simplest one around. YOU, will happen to be 'recruited' by somebody above YOU. Otherwise the whole thing does not happen, so somebody somewhere got to persuade YOU to be in the ID 'system' (such 'they' call it). That 'somebody' will have to recruit THREE other, in which YOU and the third recruit have to pay RM100 or USD25 -hard earn money that suppose to buy you food for one week- to the somebody that drag you into the 'system'. Well, I feel sad for that somebody too though, because he or she need to half-crying persuade the other two into his or her line or downline (remember, need to get four person right) just to pay for the whoever that referred him or her (I mean that somebody). So, if YOU get four person, two will pay you, and another two will pay for the person that recruited you.

Well, if this explainantion is too difficult for you, let me give you an example.

Suppose an idiot recruited YOU to be his downline. YOU won't get paid. Instead, YOU NEED to pay the idiot RM100 or USD25. What will YOU get? YOU will get NOTHING, which qualify YOU to be an idiot and a whole pile of task to look for minimum of FOUR idiots which YOU will demand payment of RM100 or USD25 from. With hard labor, YOU manage to find four idiots which are willing to spare their hard-earn cash (..which suppose to be for groceries). Well, two of the idiots hand you money, RM100 or USD25 each. Well, the other two idiots will hand in their RM100 or USD25 to the idiot that recruited you. Well, isn't that nice... two idiots is handing in money to you for free, and not only that, the other two is giving money to the idiot above you as well.. I really can't find any explainable why the four idiots that YOU have so much trouble to find can't give all the money to you though. Weird, but just bear with me for now.

And the cycle continues... the four idiots under YOU will by-all-means persuade another four idiots each(... hmmm I wonder how is it feel to become an idiot...) to join the party. I calculated that by the time YOU's downline reaches the 10th, YOU will have an infinitely many idiots handing in money for free to YOU -without-any obvious-reason-

'They' claim to have a product though. 'They' also claimed that the products are 'educational' stuffs, acceptable worldwide. I am still confused, why so many idiots tries to get, sell, affiliate these products that the idiots can get from Bit Torrent for free. Then I realized, the idiots won't be an idiot if they know where to get it for free in the first place. So I give up thinking. Right now, I feel sorry for the idiots who lingers at the very bottom of YOU's downline... well, I calculated that, as long as there are infinitely many idiots around, there will always be idiots continuing the line. But I reckon, the very bottom will always be the idiot because they will give their hard-earn-money to their 'boss', and what do they get? AN E-BOOK! Good work idiots.

That is all for this class. I hope you can pass the test, which will be end of this millennium.

Science and Religion

I thought that I was alone. Everyone that I know insisted that it is possible. But I stand on my point of view that it is impossible.

I questioned the religious institution's attempt to use science to proof their religious claims. So much so that they claimed that Science and Religion need each other, and Science fits perfectly in the world of religion. I doubt it.

I share the same viewpoint as Richard Dawkins, a prominent biologist and naturalist like Darwin.

I argue that one who embraced science can't possibly be embracing religion as much as he embrace science. Likewise, one who is religious can't possibly be embracing science as much as he embrace religion. Science, if anybody might missed the point, is a constant questioning and seeking of answers about the existence of everything under the sun and beyond. It is a constant search of knowledge, which is believed by them who understands the philosophy of science, are still a lot to find. And along the way, new technology was developed, and old technology and knowledge are enhanced, improved and some are totally dismissed. In other word, science makes something not there to be there, just like god. Now, how can one embrace religion if he is playing god all the time? Well, he can - just be a liar.

If one embrace religion, and science, he tends to see everything in science as an explanation to whats in religion. It seems that everything fits into the religion. Even though some do not fit, there is always a way to make them fit within. Simplest example - Visa and Mastercard is one of the sign of the so called 'End Time'. This is a pretty idiotic conjecture. Little do they know that when quest for answer is not preceded by question, the knowledge obtained are merely fantasy that makes the brain happy. It is a false positive that the brain perceived. Just like when people in love, love makes people blind - why? because the part of brain that is responsible for 'mood' is under drug influence. In the first place, how can science be in religion when science is about eliminating the concept of god?

Well, of course majority of people only read one book in their lifetime, and therefore closed other knowledge that might threatened their knowledge. I am embracing science, but I am not closing my door to the knowledge that religion can offer. I am not into spirituality, salvation, heaven and hell, sin and punishment crap. I am an agnostic. My religion is the world around me. If I manage to gather 1% of the knowledge that my world could offer, I will be happy enough to be anywhere, here, heaven or hell.

Now is more important than later. Tomorrow is more important than the day after. I want to live in now, and let tomorrow come as it wishes. Nothing is better than the knowledge of science now and today.

The Principle of Wrong

Always, 'wrong' is defined as something 'not true' or 'false' and not in between. Wrongly said statement is considered a lie. Rightly said statement is also a lie if the outcome flipped. This is wierd. Right statement should be right no matter how the outcome turns out.

Consider a teacher, holding a sweet. The teacher then asks the students to write what it it that she is holding. So some may write jibberish like 'zxsht', some may write 'shweit', some may write 'sweet', some may write 'sugar', some may write 'sucrose'. Obviously the 'zxsht' is wrong, so is 'shweit', so is 'sugar' and so is 'sucrose'. But is it really wrong? It seems unfair. We know that 'zxsht' is definitely wrong. But 'shweit' is at some degree, is correct compared to 'zxsht'. And 'sugar' more correct compared to the previous two. And the 'sucrose', definitely is a highly thought answer.

The argument suggests that the level of untrue is highly relative. Its relativity is measured by how much it differs from the 'correct' outcome or answer. For example, if a statement is true but the outcome turns out to be the opposite of the true answer of the true statement, then the statement is still true because relative to the correct answer, the statement is still true. Similar to the case of 'sweet' and 'sucrose'. For 'sucrose' is not a correct answer that the teacher is looking for, but the weight of the meaning of the answer 'sucrose' relative to the question is higher compared to the other answers except the true answer 'sugar'.

In summary, wrong shall not be taken as total wrong or total untrue. One have to know of how correct the wrong is relative to something. Correct wrong is a definite wrong if the relative point of measure is totally opposite in all characteristics and principle.

Am I asking the Worng Question?

Often the right solution come from the right question. Often but not always, the right question was asked followed by the right solution. But just like the old Gauss, I paused and began to ask, did I asked the right question?

Redefining the question, often but not always, simplifies the whole problem set particularly if the subject is totally beyond ordinary topics. I realized that my questions with regards to prime numbers is pointing towards Riemann's Zeta function, which had already put many mathematicians to madness. Nevertheless, I shall not forget about it. It is a question that stimulates my mind.

I had somebody asking me what the triangle be of use for (to human being or daily life). So I answered 'nothing'. Indeed it is useless. The knowledge I gain from this pursuit is probably useless beyond comprehension. But hey, what should I care. What is important is 'I like it'.

Significant Progress in The Analysis of Predictibility of Prime Patterns

My obsession on pattern of prime distribution continues. I conjectured to myself that pattern exists in the prime number distribution. If this conjecture is true then there will always be a method to confirm or dis-confirm it.I don't know if there is such theorem that describe the conjecture, if there is one then it is sure difficult to find it. This knowledge is dangerous indeed because if the conjecture is found true then the security of the algorithms which relies on the difficulties of computation of prime numbers is indeed compromised.

I continued my work on the magic triangle I have invented long ago, 7 years ago probably. Earlier on, I had found the basic properties of the triangle, and deducing several theorem that describes the properties and characteristics. Even so, I felt that the theorem was incomplete.

I continued working on triangle since several nights ago. Sudden urge. I end up writing down several more theorem and proving it as well. More ideas coming but some theorem needs more thoughts right now. Previously, I was working with integers. Integer numbers are easier to work with and the basic properties of the triangle was defined around integers. I proved that it works well with any integer series because any integer series is a well defined set of integer numbers, or in other word, it has structure or pattern (with regard to its distribution).

I started working on structure of integers which has no pattern, the prime number. It is difficult to predict what is the next prime number, unlike the normal integer series. Non-trivial solution shows that I can get the next prime number using the magic triangle. How it works is beyond the scope of this blog. I hypothesized that prime number is predictable exactly to the range small enough for computation to be performed to find the number. To prove this hypothesis, I need to prove that the prime number distribution has particular pattern and structure which enables it to be predictable. The triangle gives me a small insights on how to go about this proving. However, I encounter another problem. To prove that something has pattern, one has to know what is the pattern look like. In my case, I don't know. It was proven that prime numbers are infinite. But nobody has never shown how an infinite look like. Infinite is equally similar to void. I void has structure then infinite should have a structure too. If void has pattern and structure, then it has to be quantifiable or described mathematically and it is predictable. My idea is that if the n-th prime number is predictable then there is no prime numbers that is not predictable within certain set of distribution. If there is an infinite distribution then infinite can be described, therefore void is proven.

I probably end up in an asylum, just like the others. But I am not mad. I just think too much. I hope my lifetime is enough for me to make at least some small fraction of this ideas to be formally written down.