India : A Linguistic Civilization

The author starts this book with a beautiful paragraph:

"For millennia, Indians have cultivated a multilingual mindset, integrating it into their daily lives and environment. The national anthem they sing with such great pride describes India primarily in terms of some of its language communities, speakers of the Punjabi, Sindhi, Gujarati, Marathi, Dravidian languages, Odia, and Bangla. Clearly, Indians understand that their unity as a nation doesn't hinge on speaking a single language, nor does it falter despite their rich linguistic diversity; rather, it thrives precisely because of the multitude of languages they embrace."

India's spectacular linguistic diversity is one of its most defining characteristics as a civilization. The story of Indian languages is extremely complex and has an epic span. The number of languages that have existed in the subcontinent in the past eras and the languages that are currently in existence all put together is far too large to admit any single and cohesive description.The complex trajectory of our languages is intertwined with the evolution of the Indian identity, imagination, and intellectual history. Our languages are a repository of human ideas and experiences across millennia and remain at the core of intense deliberations on what constitutes the idea of India.

Many Indians mistakenly believe that Sanskrit is the source of the majority of languages spoken today. Where as many languages are actually derived from Tamil that is mentioned in the below pointers, and some others in the Northeast from Sino-Tibetan or Tibet-Burmese origin. And Prakrits and Pali have contributed as significantly to our languages as have Sanskrit, Tamil, Arabic, Persian, and English.

Never in its long history did India have any single 'pan-Indian national language'. India has always been multilingual and it is in the multilingual character of India that 'Indian-ness' can be located. As of now, India has 850 living languages and every language matters since each one provides a unique world-view and people will be ready to fight for the preservation and dignity of their mother tongues. Out of 7,000 existing languages in the world, the first thirty include Bengali, along with Hindi, as well as Urdu, Marathi, Kannada, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, and Gujarati. There is no way that Hindi can be imposed on them or the speakers of these languages can be made to accept such an imposition. Hindi is now claimed as the mother tongue by almost one in every three Indians.However, it is necessary to bear in mind that what is counted as Hindi is, in reality, a group of a large number of dialects, regional varieties and sub-languages.

Each language presents a world-view. It combines a community's imagination as well as memory. Each language is a unique world. The imagination and memory combine in a language. The consciousness-supported by the sensory capabilities of the human body in time and space-makes sense of the world only through constant encounter with time and space. It is imagination which helps us through a series of images to organize space. Images of external objects keep bombarding our mind through the eye and the mind, and organize them as a created replica of the space. That's why imagination is important. 

Scripts, though conventionally wedded to their respective languages, have no logical relation whatever with the languages they represent. A given language is never dependent for its growth or decline on the script in which it is written. Having a well-developed script does not ensure superiority of a given language over other languages. A language can never be considered lacking in valuable aspects if it has not developed a script for itself. For example, the English language does not have a script of its own till today. English uses the Roman script. Yet, it is a mighty language. We cannot dismiss it as a dialect of Latin.

Here are some below pointers that I learnt and felt were important to be highlighted and explain India's spectacular linguistic diversity and rich tapestry of Indian languages. 

• Language is not only a social system of verbal icons, arbitrarily assembled through ages, it is also a 'means' of carrying forward the cumulative human experience of millennia to the future generations. When language trajectories are snapped, the accumulated wisdom in those languages too gets submerged and continues to survive in severely truncated, irreparable, and insensible forms.
  
  
• In human history, language was created as a surplus of man's cognitive and emotive transactions, a product of the labour of the mind. For a significant duration spanning human history, language continued to retain its character as a predominantly free system that is sturdily resistant to government controls, market regulations, and cultural oppressions.
  
  
• Only the human animal speaks in a complex language. Other animals can refer only to the present—a dog or a dolphin may have limited memory. Humans, on the other hand, have conceptualized time, and complex time at that. 
  
  
• The present tense was easy. The present tense refers to 'fact or truth', and the past tense tells a memory impression or fiction'. Telling an imagined memory' demands a much more complicated working of the brain. In the evolutionary history of language it has taken nearly 200,000 years or so for the humans to formulate something in the past tense.
  
  
• India literally past, most of the linguistics creativity has been in the oral tradition Though people knew how to write, writing was not used as a means of educating the next generations.When British arrived in this country, we decided that the written is more important than oral and thus when British arrived in this country, the written became sacred.
  
  
• The most striking example of reference to writing embedded in oral traditions is found in the Mahabharata, the mother of all that is literature in India. The Mahabharata has been, in its textual tradition', an 'oral epic', something so beautifully captured by A. K. Ramanujan, when he stated that, 'Everybody in India knows the Mahabharata because nobody reads it.'
  
  
• In the 2011 census, Hindi was reported to be spoken by 52 crore people in India. But, out of those 52 crore, there were many who did not speak Hindi as their mother tongue but only as a second language. For instance, Bhojpuri speakers had numbered about 5.03 crore in the same census. But they were clubbed together with Hindi. Similarly, Rajasthan has nearly 40 odd languages small and big all of them were grouped under Hindi. 
  
  
• There have been at least five major language families in India: (1) Indo-European; (a) Indo-Aryan, (b) Germanic, (2) Dravidian, (3) Austro-Asiatic, (4) Tibet-Burmese, (5) Semito-Hamitic.
  
  
• Middle Indo-Aryan dialects in the East split into Bangla and Odia (tenth century). Subsequently, Bangla gave birth to Assamiya (thirteenth century). The Northwestern dialect developed into Kashmiri (thirteenth century), Sindhi (fifteenth century), and Punjabi (fourteenth century).
  
  
• Middle Indo-Aryan distributed itself into Hindi (which till the beginning of the nineteenth century existed as several distinct dialects), Gujarati (eleventh century), and Marathi (eleventh century).
  


• Tamil after a continuous history of two thousand years, branched into Telgu (eleventh century). Earlier, Kannada had already become an independent dialect of Tamil (fifth century). Nine hundred years later, Tamil and Kannada jointly gave birth to Malayalam (fourteenth century).
  
  
• The Hindi family of dialects developed autonomy in the fourteenth century. It also interacted with Persian, which was spoken in India from the thirteenth to the nineteenth centuries, and Arabic, in use from the eleventh to the nineteenth centuries, and produced the cantonment language Urdu (thirteenth century), which later became a great literary language.
  
  
• There was human habitation in India for thousands of years prior to the emergence of Sanskrit, and it is known that various languages existed, but we have no record of those languages which can help to reconstruct the entire linguistic past. When Sanskrit arrived in India thirty-five centuries ago, there already were languages which were later identified as Prakrits and ancient Dravidian.

The Shortest History of China

This book is flawless and a great introductory tour to a vast history to this giant ancient land. The Chinese history simmers with larger-than-life characters, philosophical arguments and political intrigues, military conflicts and social upheavals, artistic invention and technological innovation. It progresses in twists, turns, leaps and returns. Chinese historical records are long and deep, stretching back at least 3500 years. Their themes and lessons, as well as the memories of wounds and triumphs, pulsate under the surface of contemporary Chinese life, language, culture and politics. The increasingly key role the People's Republic of China (PRC) plays in global affairs makes an awareness of this history essential, for it is the key to understanding China today.

The first appearance of the name 'China' in a European language is in a sixteenth-century Spanish text. The word seemingly derives from references to the ancient Qín dynasty (221-206 BCE), via Sanskrit चीन (cina) and Japanese (shina). In Chinese, the most common expression for China in the sense of a nation is Zhongguó in simplified characters - more on those shortly). This expression dates back 3000 years to the ancient compilation of poetry and song, the Book of Odes . Zhong means middle, or centre. Although Zhongguo is often translated as Middle Kingdom', zhong originally referred to the centre of the kingdom or city, rather than implying that the kingdom itself was at the centre of the world.

Nothing about China is small in scale. With some 1.4 billion people, the PRC boasts the world's largest population - nearly one in every five people on Earth (not counting another forty-five million people worldwide who identify as Chinese). At 9.3 million square kilometres, it occupies the third-largest landmass of any country after Russia and Canada, and shares borders with fourteen nations. The PRC is the world's largest trading nation and second-largest economy, a manufacturing powerhouse and an assertive military power, its army bigger than any other national armed force. It plays a steadily increasing role in global institutions and international affairs.

China is diverse in numerous ways. If more than 90 per cent of the population claim Han ethnicity, the rest belong to fifty-five other ethnic groups including Uyghurs, Mongolians and Tibetans. Many speak distinct languages and retain their own religious and cultural practices, despite pressure to assimilate. The Han, too, may identify with different regional cultures and subcultures, and speak discrete and even mutually unintelligible dialects including Shanghainese and Cantonese - the last claiming more native speakers (over sixty-two million) than Italian. The national language, Putonghuà, sometimes called Mandarin in English, is a constructed tongue. The PRC's own Ministry of Education admitted in 2013 that it was spoken with native fluency by less than 10 per cent of the population, and barely at all by 30 per cent, though it aimed to change that.!

China's human, cultural and economic potential is limitless. The CCP under Xi Jinping's leadership believes that the PRC can fulfil this potential without relaxing - and while even tightening - its control over Chinese society, culture and intellectual life, and suppressing minority cultures and populations. But historically, China has flourished most in times distinguished by their diversity and openness, such as the Tang dynasty. And what we think of as Chinese civilisation is the product of myriad interactions and exchanges between the Han and the peoples and cultures of Central Asia, the far southwest, the northeast and beyond. 

The PRC's economy and technology industries may well overtake those of the United States, and militarily, the PRC is certain to keep flexing its muscles in the East and South China Seas and the Taiwan Strait in ways that will challenge, if not reshape, the world order. Yet the PRC may struggle to see its soft power - the power of attraction - match its hard power. The only way to learn from history is to learn history. Disparate voices and competing narratives inevitably inhabit a history as long as China's. The CCP prefers to keep it simple, using history to bolster its claim to be the legitimate rulers of this ancient nation. The author says that the new era of Xi Jinping is, so far, a blink of the historical eye. Conjectures on how long it will last or what will come next, but if the future is unknowable, history can at least make it less surprising.

the insistence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that Hong Kong and Táiwān, along with Tibet, Xīnjiāng and islands in the South China Sea, are part of China. The intensity with which the CCP pursues ‘reunification’ has roots The century of humiliation was a period in Chinese history beginning with the First Opium War (1839–1842), and ending in 1945 with China (then the Republic of China) emerging out of the Second World War  and semi-colonisation of China by imperialist powers in the nineteenth century and the civil war of the twentieth century. It also speaks to violent periods of division that occurred as long as two thousand years ago but have left their stamp on the national psyche. That the first great unification, in 221 BCE – which also involved the epic standardisation of weights, measures and the written language – came with a high dose of tyranny is also part of this history’s complex legacy.

The argument is that a similar cycle would apply to the modern era of Mao to Xi Jinping (and beyond). Author implies that telltale signs are appearing again, with any eventual fall only delayed by brutal suppression. Xi Jinping’s China is but a blink in history, says the author, which if you follow along the general theory of empires, is an inescapable conclusion. 

WHY I RUN?

WHY I RUN?

In the trails of Palani hills.

I am a runner. I have pushed myself across thousands of miles looking for answers that only make sense to me. From one race to another, from the roads in the Berlin Marathon to the heights of the Khardungla Challenge approx 5000m above sea level, I discovered the secrets of self-respect and personal ability On the Khardungla Challenge high altitude route, all the while uncovering secrets of my own abyss. Long-distance running is a great way to retrospect. On my last run in the Tata Mumbai Marathon 2024, I needed to discover some more answers. Whatever answers I found, one question remained uncertain - WHY? Why do I RUN? Nature is perfect in every single way and it is amazing to be able to be out here and be a part of this ecosystem that's just absolutely uninterrupted at all. Earth, our home.The place of our history. A tiny point in time, which ticks towards one’s own demise yet is slow enough to allow for the birth of the most beautiful thing in the universe, life! That life is nature. We have grown estranged from it, both collectively and individually. That chasm we created through convenience is now the missing link. The cog that disappeared from the mechanism of fulfilment and serenity. “I’m the kind of person who likes to be by himself. To put a finer point on it, I’m the type of person who doesn’t find it painful to be alone. I find spending an hour or two every day running alone, not speaking to anyone, as well as four or five hours alone at my desk, to be neither difficult nor boring. For me, running is both exercise and a metaphor. Running day after day, piling up the races, bit by bit I raise the bar, and by clearing each level I elevate myself. At least that’s why I’ve put in the effort day after day: to raise my own level. I’m no great runner, by any means. I’m at an ordinary level. But that’s not the point. The point is whether or not I improved over yesterday. In long-distance running the only opponent you have to beat is yourself, the way you used to be

The last few years, especially after the Khardungla Challenge and running many marathons, shook my life they changed my values. I am really happy. This is one of the most beautiful parts of my life. It's the closest you'll get to heaven, as you will, or God or Spirit that you can on Earth With every new time I venture to run I feel as if I am returning to the place I belong. It is fundamental not just for my own good, but for the good of my environment that I discover myself, that I see myself as “Nature”. I am nature and I can only find myself as part of it. I find here a place to think without stressing out because you have so much time here. Time is a blessing or curse. It marches on relentlessly and continuously reminds us that we are not forever, that we are not eternal. Like a pendulum, it swings above our heads. Life nowadays seems to take away the blessings of time leaving only its dark side. On voyages like this, time slows down A day does not just last 24 hours. It lasts longer, so much longer. Life should be slow. It should be giving us. 

Time is something precious. Running for me provides exactly that, slowness, focus on what matters, transcendence! Here, time is a partner whispering not to be afraid of impermanence. You have time to think about life. Time that you really don't have at home because you have so many things on your mind but out here you have a whole day - just fuse and silence, nature, animals, everything but nothing else that clutters the mind. Seize the day… because a day can last a second,  blow by like a whirlwind, or it can become a whole eternity! My time, my choice. I choose eternity! Man is not a man without other people. Warmth, togetherness, wonderful lives and stories. When I run with folks, we respect each other more,  we listen more, and we love each other more. We achieve purity, we are the most sincere self. With people like that, I feel purpose and kinship again. I belong to a community and finally do not feel the need to escape it. As Murakami aptly mentioned in his book "What I Talk About When I Talk About Running", "People sometimes sneer at those who run every day, claiming they’ll go to any length to live longer. But I don’t think that’s the reason most people run. Most runners run not because they want to live longer, but because they want to live life to the fullest. If you’re going to while away the years, it’s far better to live them with clear goals and fully alive than in a fog, and I believe running helps you do that. Exerting yourself to the fullest within your individual limits: that’s the essence of running, and a metaphor for life" I believe many runners would agree with it. 

That is big! Everyone out here is kinda making the same sacrifices to be out here and around the same wavelength and yeah, I guess the people out here really restore my faith in humanity. Nice people, great people. It's been an incredible experience as far as the kindness that people have shown to me. That's a big surprise I mean people have been unbelievable. You meet some of the best people out here in your runs. I love meeting people in my runs and I feel like they are more my people than most of the other people I know. It's the best community I've ever been involved in. I bump into like-minded people. Individuals who share the same passions, same goals as myself. One small thing that is truly irreplaceable. 

We are saturated with consumer goods, and we live in excess, yet we choke on dissatisfaction at the same time. We have everything and subsequently do not see the essence. The running gave me satisfaction over a sip of water… the smell and taste of food the joy of a warm shower or a place to rest my weary legs and to know when my limits and embrace them efficiently like in the book 'Once A Runner' John L Parker mentions that “A runner is a miser, spending the pennies of his energy with great stinginess, constantly wanting to know how much he has spent and how much longer he will be expected to pay. He wants to be broke at precisely the moment he no longer needs his coin.”  

We have forgotten about the little BIG things! For me, running is always been super therapeutic.  You have hours upon hours of just uninterrupted thinking processes as you are running. And just in the silence... Like others, I also deal with anxiety and depression and trying to figure out how to handle some depression I feel a lot more myself out here than I do pretty much everywhere else. And I come back out to get re-centered. To cope with my struggle with anxiety a little bit and every day that I am out here to run I really feel alive. Even a bad day running is probably one of the best days of your life. That type of well-being we can also call gratitude. From this, we have been inoculated by the overindulgences of modern living. Gratitude changes me, heals me, and makes my mind healthier. The gloom/melancholy, weight, depression and oversaturation of everything implanted into my mind, the wilderness heals with its austerity. That is why I need it and why I bring with me the bare minimum. I crave an experience that will connect me to a piece of inhabitable matter in the lifeless vacuum of eternal blackness. Cosmically negligible and practically unbelievable, life is a gift in which I need to inject enhancers: the flavours, colours, and smells of my origins Because I am the universe in the atom of humanity, an assemblage of molecules uniting the chaos of the Big Bang and the order of life. Conscious, weak and powerful at the same time, completely split but perfectly unique – I am the author of a piece of eternity. That eternity is my life and I will make every effort to carve out of it the best possible monument.

The way I look at running as a sport has been changing over the years as I pursue it. In each phase of my life, I have observed this from a different vantage point and learned something new. Runners are rhythm people, and I imagine train drivers are as well. both relying on distance, speed and time and how the moving parts travel over terrain. When your rhythm stops all of a sudden to navigate an unrunnable track, it accentuates just how attached we are to a certain kind of pace. I suppose my heartbeat is like the chug of an engine and the repeat of the wheels.... but you know what? I don't care much for distance over time now like a train driver pushing to make stations on time. I want to be engaged with what's around me, not my watch or distance markers. I want to be distracted by the trail, or the lack of one, and I want to work hard to get where I'm going. This is my new kind of running, which in some ways isn't running at all, it is exploring. And I bloody love it. 

I tried to cover the below points with regards to my running, which are:

NATURE

TIME

COMMUNITY

MENTAL HEALTH

GRATITUDE

The Tata Mumbai Marathon finisher Medal.

Life Is A Marathon.

 

This book is and isn't about running.

I really loved the exploration of the entanglement running has with the human condition and how the sport is a microcosm of life itself.  The author is a runner for sure and the book is about him running marathons but it parallels his marriage to a woman named Nataki whom he has been married for some 20 years or so. She isn't a runner and also suffers from bipolar disorder and the author does get honest about marriage and about mental health and about what he and his wife have gone through. It doesn't paint a picture such that running solves anything. It is a raw and honest look at what we do and why we do them and I would recommend this book to people even if they aren't runners. It's about commitment and endurance.

Love is sacrifice. To love is to put another person's needs ahead of one's own, to donate a kidney to a dying sibling, to skip a few meals for God, to (as the song goes) "climb the highest mountain ... only to be with you." The more we love, the more we are willing to sacrifice or suffer for the beloved. There's not much difference, if you think about it, between climbing a mountain to be with someone and running a marathon to cure cancer or bringing joy to a friend who used to run marathons before the accident. A person may choose to run a marathon for personal or even selfish reasons initially, but once he's neck-deep in suffering at mile twenty-four, he starts to think of others, because that's just how the human heart works. A runner who's neck deep in suffering needs the most powerful motivator he can find to endure the suffering he must endure to finish the race, and nothing motivates like love. Even the most competitive runners, the professionals, the Olympians- who may seem to race only for money, fame, and the thrill of victory, if you talk to them about their motivators (as the author has), will tell you they never run harder than when they are running for their family, their team, their tribe, their school, their god, or their country. 

There are so many things about running and life the author delves into this book that it is difficult to jot them down in a blog, his interpretation of "Real Runner" is something very striking to me. He says, 

All runners learn to be "real" runners. The definition of this term, however, is relative, not absolute. The runner who cannot yet complete a 5K without walking may define a real runner as one who can, and strives to do so. The runner who can already run a full 5K but has never run farther may define a real runner as one who has completed a marathon, and strives to do so. And so on. At every level, runners define "real runner" in such a way that it is just within their reach to become one, but only if they take the whole trip, giving everything they've got to realize whatever amount of potential they have. All runners who try as hard as they can to become the best runners they can be discover something in themselves the author described "real satisfaction that I've got the fire in the belly to dig deep and not fade away when the going gets tough" which heightens their self-image. All runners who try as hard as they possibly can to measure up, do.

The one thing everyone wants is to be happy. We seek happiness in all we do, however misguidedly at times. The most obvious way to go after happiness is to satisfy our worldly wants: to get the house we want, the spouse we want, the food we want, and the social media recognition we want. But this way never succeeds. None of us can create a world in which we have everything we want and nothing bad happens. Disappointment, pain, and hardship are inescapable.

 The other way to chase happiness is to change not the world we occupy but ourselves.  Fitzgerald says, "The happiest men and women are those who have become or are becoming, the persons they want to be. The folks among us who have consciously chosen themselves possess more strength and harbour less fear than do those who have everything they want (for now), and it is strength and fearlessness, not luck, that we need to face life's unpleasant parts. To become the person you want to be, you must first define that Person and then you must work hard to close the gap between your current and best selves. This work may take a variety of forms, but in my experience, none is more effective than running marathons."

 In the pain of a marathon, we learn who we are, discovering within ourselves both the weaknesses and flaws that hold us back and the strengths and virtues that drive us forward, which are different in each of us. To the extent that we keep going, finishing today's race and trying again tomorrow, we actively choose our strengths and virtues and reject our flaws and weaknesses. Over time, the good things in us grow as the bad things shrink, a process not unlike building muscle and burning fat. It is simply impossible to become a better person in one's own estimation through such a process and not at the same time become a happier person. 

My perspective after reading this book:

So can people really be addicted to something as challenging and uncomfortable as running marathons? I wondered. The answer to this question was all around me and within me too. Too much is made of human laziness. Yes, we are lazy. That's why 75 per cent of us don't exercise at all. But we're also not lazy. That's how we peopled every habitable inch of the planet within 85,000 years of first venturing out of Africa and how we landed on the moon a mere 15,000 years after that. George Mallory famously said that he climbed Mt. Everest "because it's there.' It would have been more accurate of him to say he climbed the mountain because he's human. There is an instinct within us as irresistible as our instinct to take the path of least resistance to set and achieve goals, to complete tasks, to test our limits and to discover what we are capable of. A person can become addicted to anything that brings pleasure, and achievement is one of life's most transcendent pleasures because it is attainable only by passing through pain and struggle, pleasure's antipodes. 

The marathon is a Mt. Everest for everyone a healthy challenge, universally respected, that rewards its conqueror with a sense of earned pride that, on the spectrum of life's satisfactions, falls somewhere between splitting the last log in a pile of cordwood and being the first human to set foot on the moon.

 

The God Equation

 

“A man said to the universe: “Sir, I exist!” “However,” replied the universe, “The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation.”

More than 2,000 years ago, the ancient Greeks asked a simple question: What is the world made of? In setting out to provide an answer using only the tools of logic and reason—and guided by careful observation—the Greeks set humanity on an epic journey spanning thousands of years to uncover the secrets and fundamental composition of the universe.

And as per usual, reading it has brought about that strange and terrifying sensation of awe*. Kaku recalls, at one point, about how an old teacher of his once told the class that ‘God so loved the Earth that he put the Earth “just right” from the sun. Not too close, or the oceans would boil. Not too far, or the oceans would freeze.’ He goes on to quote physicist Freeman Dyson who said, “it seems as if the universe knew that we were coming”;

for example, if the nuclear force were a bit weaker, the sun would never have ignited, and the solar system would be dark. If the strong nuclear force were a bit stronger, then the sun would have burned out billions of years ago […] Similarly, if gravity were a bit weaker, perhaps the Big Bang would have ended in a Big Freeze, with a dead, cold expanding universe. If gravity were a bit stronger, we might have ended in a Big Crunch, and all life would have been burned to death […] So the universe is one gigantic crapshoot, and we won the roll. But according to the multiverse theory, it means we coexist with a vast number of dead universes. 

 

If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the mind of God. 

The Greeks suspected that—behind all the complexity and apparent diversity of nature—the universe is composed of a smaller set of simpler elements that obey natural, rather than supernatural, laws. Since then, philosophers and scientists throughout the ages have sought the holy grail of all science—the long-coveted theory of everything that can explain the universe in its entirety, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest galaxies and beyond.

This incredible story of scientific discovery and human ingenuity is the topic of physicist Michio Kaku’s latest book, The God Equation: The Quest for a Theory of Everything.

While not the first book to recount the history of physics, The God Equation does uniquely capture the central role of unification in physics. Kaku demonstrates how the major advances in physics have always followed the unification of forces and concepts, captured in beautiful, symmetrical equations.

The story of unification—like so many others—begins in ancient Greece, where philosophers made the attempt to unify nature’s diversity into a single, fundamental substance. Thales of Miletus, often described as the first philosopher, proposed that all matter was made of water, while his student Anaximander thought the substance was an indefinite material called Apeiron. Anaximenes, Anaximander’s student, identified the fundamental substance as air, while Heraclitus thought it was fire.

While ultimately off-the-mark, these philosophers introduced a critical idea: that hidden beneath the apparent diversity of nature is a single substance, and, further, that all physical phenomena operate according to natural, rather than supernatural, laws. This eventually led to ancient Greece’s crowning scientific hypothesis: the atomic theory of matter. The ancient Greek conception of an atom was, of course, very different from the modern view, but the idea that there is an invisible, indestructible substrate to reality that operates according to rational mathematical laws is the foundation for all future advances in physics.

As kaku wrote:

“So at least two great theories of our world emerged from ancient Greece: the idea that everything consists of invisible, indestructible atoms and that the diversity of nature can be described by the mathematics of vibrations [as established by Pythagoras when he discovered the relationship between musical notes and scales and the physical vibrations of strings].”

Unfortunately, the rise of Christianity put a stranglehold on the rational and mathematical investigation of the world for about 1,000 years. In fact, it was not until the 15th century Renaissance—or the rediscovery of classical learning and culture—that humanity would once again break free of the shackles of superstition to pursue the project of unification.

The reintroduction of classical learning—and the idea that humans could transcend the teachings of the past and make progress in knowledge—led straight to Isaac Newton, who took the principle of unification to the next level. Building on the work of his predecessors, Newton demonstrated, through his universal laws of motion and gravity, that nature operates according to precise mathematical laws and that these laws hold anywhere in the universe. In other words—contrary to the religious teachings at the time—there were not separate laws for the earthly and heavenly realms, but rather one set of laws applicable across all of space and time. It’s hard to imagine how revolutionary this idea must have been to those living in the 17th century.

Newtonian physics—the driving force behind the industrial revolution and the operation of all mechanical devices—unified all natural phenomena anywhere in the universe as conforming to the same mathematical laws and principles. At the time, it may have seemed that Newton had, in fact, discovered the final theory of everything. But as scientific knowledge progressed, problems with Newton’s theory would emerge, as Albert Einstein would later demonstrate.

The next major milestone in unification came with James Clerk Maxwell’s unification of electricity and magnetism. In formulating the classic theory of electromagnetic radiation, Maxwell was able to show that electricity, magnetism, and light are all manifestations of the same phenomenon. Once again, apparently disparate elements of nature turned out to be, in reality, unified under a single mathematical framework.

There was a problem, however. The twin pillars of physics at the time—Newton’s laws and electromagnetism—turned out to be fundamentally incompatible, as Albert Einstein was to discover. In brief, since the speed of light must remain constant (according to Maxwell’s equations), space and time cannot be absolute (as described by Newton’s laws). And so Newton—long considered the greatest scientist of all time—turned out to be wrong, or at least his laws were incomplete.

In resolving the paradox, Einstein introduced yet another process of unification: this time, the unification of space and time and matter and energy, as captured in the theories of special and general relativity.

It turns out that space and time, contrary to what Newton believed, are not absolute; rather, spacetime is a single four-dimensional property of the universe that bends and curves and expands and contracts, and it is this curvature that creates the illusion of gravitational force. The sun, for example, does not “pull” the earth towards it with the force of gravity; instead, the mass of the sun warps spacetime—like a bowling ball set in the middle of a trampoline—and the planets, including earth, orbit this curved path.

Einstein also set out the equivalence of matter and energy in the famous equation E=MC2 that demonstrates that matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. This explains, among other things, why the sun shines (some of the mass of the hydrogen gets converted to energy at very high temperatures), and how atomic bombs work.

But this isn’t the end of the story. Einstein would spend the rest of his life trying (and failing) to pursue the final project of unification: the unification of general relativity (gravity) with the most mysterious scientific branch of all—quantum mechanics.

This is where we stand today. General relativity accurately describes large-scale phenomena, such as orbiting planets and the expansion of the universe, and is responsible for technologies such as GPS navigation, while quantum mechanics is equally successful at predicting small-scale phenomena such as atomic motion and decay and is responsible for various electronic technologies including the transistor, the laser, the electron microscope, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

The problem is, while these two theories have been experimentally verified and are practically useful, they are also fundamentally incompatible, and present competing views of nature. Relativity, representing the force of gravity, presents a smooth, deterministic universe, while quantum mechanics, representing the three other physical forces (electromagnetism and the nuclear forces), presents a non-deterministic universe guided by the laws of probability and other counterintuitive laws that do not hold when scaled up.

We therefore find ourselves, as Kaku points out, in an analogous situation as the one faced by Einstein. As Kaku wrote:

“We saw earlier that around 1900, there were two great pillars of physics: Newton’s law of gravity and Maxwell’s equations for light. Einstein realized that these two great pillars were in conflict with each other. One of them would have to collapse. The fall of Newtonian mechanics set into motion the great scientific revolutions of the twentieth century.”

It seems as if history may be repeating itself. We currently have two great pillars of physics (relativity and quantum mechanics), and, since they are incompatible, it seems that one must fall if we are to ever achieve the next and final step in the unification project: the unification of all known forces into one mathematical equation—the God equation.

Kaku believes that we will eventually achieve this final grand unification and that it will be represented by some form of string theory, which replaces the point-like particles of particle physics with one-dimensional objects called strings. The vibrations of these strings are thought to account for all other emergent properties, including particle mass and charge and even gravity, thus providing a unified framework for all four physical forces. The problem is, string theory introduces an additional ten dimensions and, most critically, is impossible to directly test at the scales in which it deals. String theory therefore suffers from the following paradox: if it’s true, it’s too inaccessible to verify.

As Kaku admits, a particle accelerator the size of our galaxy would have to be built to directly test the theory. Still, he is confident that the theory can eventually be tested and confirmed via more indirect methods, or perhaps even mathematically.

The other possibility is that we’ve simply reached the limits of our understanding. Just as you can’t teach a dog calculus, perhaps we don’t have the cognitive or perceptual capacity to achieve a God-like perspective on the complete workings of the universe. After all, physicists know that dark energy—the mysterious force that drives the expansion of the universe but that we know very little about—makes up 68 per cent of the universe. Additionally, dark matter, which is equally mysterious, makes up another 27 per cent. So that means, everything on Earth plus everything else we’ve ever observed with all our instruments adds up to less than 5 per cent of the universe. It’s little surprise, then, that the theory of everything eludes us.

Kaku would point out, however, that decades and centuries can pass before the next great scientific revolution or between the proposal and confirmation of theories. Black holes, for example, were first predicted in 1783 by John Michell, but the first conclusive pictures of their event horizons were not produced until 2019, 236 years later.

String theory was first proposed only 60 years ago, in the 1960s. Perhaps we are still waiting for its confirmation. Some believe that, given the difficulty of directly testing string theory, we will be waiting indefinitely, but we should keep in mind that major scientific revolutions are rarely predictable.

We must also consider the following question: If we can’t test string theory directly, can we prove it mathematically, and, if so, does a mathematically consistent view of the universe necessarily correlate with its actual workings?

Alternatively, will some yet undeveloped theory unite the physical forces, or even demonstrate that either relativity or quantum mechanics is, in fact, wrong or incomplete, just as Newtonian physics was proven incomplete by Einstein in the early twentieth century? These are fascinating, open questions that are a long way from being resolved.

He Proved the Existence of God with 3 Scientific Proofs.

1- Cosmological Proof: Things move because they are pushed, that is something that sets them into motion. But what is the first MOVER or first CAUSE that sets the UNIVERSE into motion? This must be GOD.

2- Teleological Proof: Everywhere around us, we see objects of great complexity and sophistication. But every design eventually requires a designer. Who is the DESIGNER? This must be GOD.

3- Ontological Proof: God, by definition, is the most perfect being imaginable. But one can imagine a God that does not exist. But if God did not exist, he would not be perfect. Therefore HE must exist.

Kaku ends this book with these beautiful lines from Prof Stephens Hawkings. 

If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the mind of God.

 

 

BEHAVE

 

The biology of the behaviours that interest us is, in all cases multifactorial - that is the thesis of this book. Our behaviours are constantly shaped by an array of subterranean forces, most of these forces involve biology that, not that long ago, we didn't know existed.

Just by knowing someone, who's living in an individualistic or collectivist culture, there is some predictability. In an individualistic culture, when depressed people talk to a friend for relief, they're likely to talk about their problem, whereas in collective cultures they're likely to ask about a friend's problem. in an individualistic society, they live by guilt, in a collectivist, they live by Shame.

Let's review some facts. The amygdala typically activates when seeing the face of another race. If you're poor, by the time you're five, your frontal cortical development probably lags behind average. Oxytocin makes us crappy to strangers. Empathy doesn't particularly translate into compassionate acts, nor does refined moral development translate into doing the harder, right thing. In particular settings, gene variants make you prone to antisocial acts.

All this makes one mighty pessimistic. Yet the rationale for this book is that there's a ground for optimism.

Sapolsky's subtle humour and little bits of light-hearted sarcasm fill the book and make it fun to read. Let's do an in-depth tour of this book below. 

Robert Sapolsky invokes interest and curiosity right from the start - talking about how we are very conflicted in our beliefs – especially we condemn many acts of violence, but do support others. I have to admit I have many conflicts I am unable to resolve myself – such as the fact that I find very impressive the progress that science has made as detailed in this book, and yet I am very pained that much of this has come with cruel experiments on animals.

The organisation of the book is very logical – it traces an action from when it happens, to moments before, months/years before and potentially several years earlier in cases. Experiments show that there are several markers in our brain which light up, before we take any action. So the big question (which the book Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari explores as well) – do we really have free will? Do we have the ability to stop when the natural instinct kicks in? As it turns out, much of how we act is a result of a multitude of factors – events which have happened at any time previously - sometimes well in the past, our genes, environment, and many others, some of it still to be determined. This has extremely important implications for law enforcement as well.

There are excellent examples: eg: when you compliment a child on good work, telling them they are clever vs telling them they are hardworking invokes very different responses. While we appreciate empathy – the ability to step into and feel the others experience, empathy stalls action. Compassion is more effective. The discussion around how the brain responds to meditation are alluded to – though I think it deserved far more coverage. There are also other interesting lessons around how judges and juries decide punishment based on a number of factors which logic says should have no bearing.

The issues of “Us” vs “Them” is discussed in detail, and deservedly so. Our brain instantly associates some faces as “Us” and some others as “Them”. We develop this categorisation over time and this association is very strong in adulthood and near impossible to get over. While this is true even in animals, our behaviours are more complex. The “Us” categorisation could be based on country, language, religion, colour, and others. The natural tendency is to think in terms of aggregate labels rather than as individuals, accounting for much of our biases.

This is a big book, and one for which I should have taken notes. But I did not. Since there is a wealth of important information, I expect I will have to revisit the book again – when I feel I am forgetting its contents.

Categories are arbitrary. Humans like to divide things up: neurology or endocrinology? Us or them? Biology relates to everything physiological and cultural--there are no true distinctions. We live on spectrum of genetic variability and environmental pressure. Hormones do not control us, they enhance existing behaviors. Yeah, oxytocin makes you sympathetic... towards the in-group and can actually enhance xenophobia and tribalism. Absolutely nothing is determined about how you are going to behave.

The greatest crime-fighting tool is the 30th birthday. Frontal cerebral development does not mature until well into the mid twenties. Testosterones does not cause violence--it enhances violent proclivities. Environment is everything. Culture is everything. Did you grow up in an individualistic or collective society? The difference will literally shape the way your brain operates.

Clearly a reductionist at heart, Sapolsky overall has a sort of benevolence for humankind and with that, optimism despite our proclivities for cruelty and injustice. We can be good just as easily as we can be bad. Many moral and philosophical conundrums and stirred up in these pages but, wow, did I learn a lot from this brilliant man. If you don't have a fairly good science background, there will be some things about neuroscience, genetics and biology that might take a little conditioning first. Highly recommend.

How to avoid a climate disaster - Bill Gates.

 

It is highly readable and extremely practical, Gates sorts out the mess of data in concise terms without making the information feel like too much. Initially disconcerting, the first part of the book lays out the problem by merging hard facts with snapshots of possible futures. But then the book turns around and lays out exactly what we can and need to do, and the challenges we face in the process

Do you think that climate change is a hoax created by billionaires to control developing countries? How can a person with a high carbon footprint like Bill Gates, who took his own private jet ironically for the Paris Summit, talk about climate change? Bill Gates tries to answer many controversial questions like these and tries to give us solutions for avoiding a climate disaster through this book.

Here are some common complaints about Gates that try to convince people not to read a book they themselves haven't read - and the reasons they're full of crap.

1. Claim: He uses private jets and travels internationally.

Fact: Bill Gates has begun using sustainable jet fuel that is made from renewable and alternative raw materials in replacement of petroleum-based fuels. It is a clean substitute for fossil fuels. Extremely expensive, but the guy's a billionaire and can afford it.

2. Claim: He eats meat.

Fact: Yes, he still does. Occasionally. Mostly he eats plant-based meats. Is it bad for the environment? Yes, which is why he's mostly cut out meat, which is more than a lot of people have done. Give him a break.

3. Claim: He invests in the fossil fuel industry.

Fact: He had a small fraction of investments in fossil-fuel companies (the majority in renewables). He realized the reasons he shouldn't own stock in fossil fuel companies and in 2019 divested all of his direct holdings in oil and gas companies (he hadn't invested in coal in several years).

To avoid a climate disaster, we have to get to zero. 

The case for zero was, and is, rock solid. Unless we stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the temperature will keep going up. Here's an analogy that's especially helpful: The climate is like a bathtub that's slowly filling up with water. Even if we slow the flow of water to a trickle, the tub will eventually fill up and water will come spilling out onto the floor. That's the disaster we have to pre-vent. Setting a goal to only reduce our emissions but not eliminate them--won't do it. The only sensible goal is zero.

 I like that he simplified things down to the CO2 budget of Earth (his 51 billion tons per year number), and breaks it out into its constituent parts by segment: manufacturing things: think steel, concrete, plastic; producing electricity; agriculture; transportation; and heating/cooling. And then he talks about how to address each sector. He takes a logical engineer's approach to the issue, mostly. He introduced me to an interesting concept while explaining energy production; the idea of the density of power production. He points out that it takes a lot more space to produce energy from solar or wind than it does from a natural gas-powered or nuclear-powered electric plant. It's a good point, but he doesn't consider the counterargument, which is that all that space on the roofs of all those big box stores, or for that matter, residential rooftops, is not exactly in high demand for other uses. And he doesn't spend nearly enough time on jobs, which could be a huge win-win for green energy.

Then he talks about "making things", mainly concrete, steel, and plastic, and I was surprised to learn how much CO2 this produces. He spends a lot of time on "green premiums", i.e., the cost to make carbon-neutral materials, which are interesting, because you learn how relatively cheap it is to do this with steel and plastic, less so with concrete. And much of the improvement in this area will stem from using carbon-neutral electricity, of course.

He talks next about agriculture and the need to reduce red meat intake, which in turn reduces cattle populations, which in turn reduces methane production. And methane is 28 times more potent as a warming gas compared to CO2. He makes a strong case for reducing red meat intake, which would be good for us anyway, and cutting meat intake in half could reduce global greenhouse emissions by about 2.5%, maybe more. He also shows how fertilizer causes problems, but he does not highlight the amazing progress made, and jobs created by large organic farms like White Oak Pastures in Georgia. A huge amount of food could be produced organically which would both reduce emissions from fertilizers and create jobs. He makes a pitch to stop deforestation and plant trees wherever possible, and I agree 100%. What needs more emphasis, in my opinion, is creating incentives for people to consume less, and to consume more wisely, because the traditional US consumption model for food cannot be sustained on a global level. Also, let's stop cutting the trees we have, especially in the Amazon and Congo.

He gave a classic example of Fossil fuel correlating it with water using David Foster Wallace's famous commencement speech. 

When Wallace gave a now-famous commencement speech at Kenyon College in 2005, he started with this story: There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, "Morning, boys, how's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over the other and goes, "What the hell is water?"

Wallace explained, "The immediate point of the fish story is that the most obvious, ubiquitous, important realities are often the ones that are the hardest to see and talk about." Fossil fuels are like that. They're so pervasive that it can be hard to grasp all the ways in which they and other sources of greenhouse gases touch our lives. I find it helpful to start with everyday objects and go from there. 

Did you brush your teeth this morning? The toothbrush probably contains plastic, which is made from petroleum, a fossil fuel. If you ate breakfast, the grains in your toast and cereal were grown with fertilizer, which releases greenhouse gases when it's made. They were harvested by a tractor that was made of steel which is made with fossil fuels in a process that releases carbon and ran on gasoline. If you had a burger for lunch, as I do occasionally, raising the beef caused greenhouse gas emissions cows burp and fart methane and so did growing and harvesting the wheat that went into the bun. If you got dressed, your clothes might contain cotton also fertilized and harvested or polyester, made from ethylene, which is derived from petroleum. If you've used toilet paper, that's more trees cut down and carbon emitted.

Then transportation is addressed, which turns out to be one of the easier areas to fix, though it depends on solving the energy production problem mentioned above. Fundamentally, all transportation except long-haul air transport and sea shipment needs to be electrified, and fossil fuel consumption for sea shipments can be greatly reduced.Of course, we need to convert to electric vehicles immediately, and that covers a huge chunk of what needs to be done. I wish he had talked about shifting more freight from trucks to trains, but I'm nit-picking.

So, to sum up, I'm glad Bill Gates wrote this book. If nothing else, it brings renewed attention to the subject. It is a readable, only occasionally boring, book; all in all, not bad. I do wish he had made bold, precisely calculated proposals to solve the issues ahead of us, and I wish he had avoided self-promotion entirely because that's a bad look for billionaires. He makes an excellent point about investment to get to carbon neutral by 2050, i.e., 2050 is tomorrow in infrastructure terms. The big things we build today will still be in use in 2050, so we need to choose wisely now, not in ten years.

When we have a fact-based worldview, we can see that the world is not as bad as it seems and we can see what we have to do to keep making it better. When we have a fact-based view of climate change, we can see that we have some of the things we need to avoid a climate disaster, but not all of them. We can see what stands in the way of deploying the solutions we have and developing the breakthroughs we need. And we can see all the work we must do to overcome those hurdles.

My favourite three lines from this book

“There are two numbers you need to know about climate change. The first is 51 billion. The other is zero. Fifty-one billion is how many tons of greenhouse gases the world typically adds to the atmosphere every year.”

"Remember that we need to find solutions for all five activities that emissions come from: making things, plugging in, growing things, getting around, and keeping cool and warm."

“The countries that build great zero-carbon companies and industries will be the ones that lead the global economy in the coming decades.”