Sun Tzu Never Said This

Sun Tzu said this. Sun Tzu said that. Sometimes I get tired of The Art Of War when people apply it everywhere.

I think there is a very fundamental pattern, Sun Tzu failed to state.

Every Sun Tzu strategy for victory can only be applied if every player wants the outcomes from the same domain.

What if they want different things? USA wants democracy but Al Qaeda wants to go to heaven. FOSS geeks want freedom/recognition but Microsoft wants money.

Consider a payoff matrix as shown below, and assume that both players play repeatedly accumulating upon previously gained outcomes, and that both players are trying to maximize their profit:All of his strategies assume both players share the same type of payoffs for the choices they make. In the figure above both players want more points. What if one of them is after binary states which do not have a well defined degree to maximize upon?What if one of them is after outcomes that oscillate between phases as he/she tries to maximize? ( Ans. Will need payoffs in the complex number domain and each outcome for that player will need to be multiplied with the current phase in which the game is in which is represented as another complex number).

What if they are after different types of payoffs which can independently be maximized? (Ans. might need to use a payoffs in the higher dimensional spaces, which are to be maximized on their basis vectors)

Massive New Study

A massive new study in Science journal says girls are equal to boys at math. I agree with that. In fact, I think girls are equal to boys at many things.

But here is the paradox: There are more male nobel laureates, male fields medalists, male artists, male composers, male sculptors, male engineers etc.

I am not making any judgement here. But this seems to show something contrary to what the study is thought to say. I guess the study is specific, i.e. intended just for making conclusions about schoolchildren.

Perhaps there is a diversion later on in their development. Or perhaps there is an involuntary bias to recognize male achievement in the society.

Turmoil @ Home

I found out from my cousin that my brother whined about his aunt on my Orkut scrapbook. My cousin read it and told it to her. They are upset. I deleted the scrap and I replied to my brother on his scrapbook:

Kevin, my scrapbook can be read by everyone on this planet. So if you want to say something really evil, you might want to keep it to yourself. I am referring to the post you made on June 30th about your godmother. So if someone grieves you in future, settle it with that person, face to face.

Bottomline: Don’t be a girl and whine about people. “Be a man.. and do the right thing”. — Russell Peters

The door of hell is NOT locked on the inside.

[Update: Every commenter seems to quote the same excerpt from Lewis and claim the same things, so I ask new commenters to take time to read through other comments and replies]

When people question about the degree of punishment, and the eternity(!) in hell, God “allows” for sinners he loves so much, for their little (often unintentional) sins, Christian apologists often respond along the lines of what C. S Lewis said: “The door of hell is locked from the inside”.

Here is why Lewisian response given by apologists is wrong. See what Abraham tells the rich man in hell in “The Parable of Lazarus & the Rich Man” about hell’s security mechanisms:

“…between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.” Luke 16:26

I guess, Jesus himself makes it clear in the above parable that hell is not locked from the inside. That makes Christian apologetics wrong yet again.

Moreover, it is no secret that the apologetic view of “eternal torture for (unintentional) sins” is NOT what is taught to majority of Christians. The apologists think it is O K to lie for Jesus just a little bit or bent it a little bit for people who ask too many questions.

I wish the rules of gravity were bent “slightly” just for people who doubt it.

Is “meaning” in an atheistic world-view inevitably solipsistic?

The problem of meaning: Once you become an atheist, and if you still keep pondering about the life and everything, soon you will get hit with a list with a list of existentialist dilemmas, one of which will be a lack of meaning. You will be asking yourself: What is going on? What is the meaning of this feeling of existence?

Atheists under such existentialist dilemmas are often advised to make a meaning for themselves by indulging in details of life rather than by assuming the status of an observer.

Christian apologists, often accuse atheists by saying that this mentality will inexorably lead to solipsism.

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that says “I am the only person who exists”, and that the rest of us are unreal/simulations/imposters/not important etc. This is very similar to the movie Truman Show in which Jim Carrey’s character doesn’t realize that the entire world he sees are made up of co-actors acting in a reality TV series in which he is the hero, and focus of attention, the purpose of everything that happens around him.

Solipsism is considered dangerous by many as it can lead to crimes and immorality. For example, if someone hurts me really badly, I, being an atheist and devoid of any purpose in life other than what I make for my own, could make it my life’s purpose to inflict unspeakable harm upon my transgressors. I would be able to do so in a perfectly rational manner and without any remorse. Because this life is all I have. It is devoid of any meaning. So might as well smite my transgressors even if I get convicted as a result. At least, that is some kind of purpose to live/die for. My need for purpose is more important than them. There is no rationally compelling case to rely on the lust to be good to be good to them under such circumstances.

Christian apologists say, therefore morality should not be derived from reason alone. Because, since we are devoid of any purpose, we are vulnerable to becoming a solipsist and harming others. Therefore, they say, we must accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior and Bible as the word of God.

If Christian apologists make any case if any, it wouldn’t be that last sentence, because that is a huge leap argument. I do think they have a case. I do think that meaning can only be found in little delusions. It doesn’t have to be The God Delusion. There are many other delusions which are far more elegant like The Omega Point Delusion or The Cosmic AC Delusion which can sit well with almost any faith or lack thereof.

A Beautiful Existence

1975

All over the world, observations I made about culture after culture shows the same thing. Sometime from ~1975 humanity gradually became more and more religious. Fundamentalist religion became prevalent. I do not know what has caused it. But this is a pattern for sure. And patterns mean things.

Another remarkable feature is the similarities I see between the 2 big religions: Christianity & Islam. Interesting parallels seem to emerge. Wahabbism goes with Protestantism. Shia & Sufi goes with the Catholics & the Orthodox faiths.

What governs all of this? (Im)Possibilities:

• It is cylical. A complicated memetic mechanics makes this happen over and over again.
• It is intelligent. Some kind of higher intelligence is in control. It has an agenda.
• It is caused. World War II/Baby Boomers/Sex Revolution/Excessive Liberalism/Political Istability/ led to excessive religiosity.

Advice To My Fellow Unbelievers

Cognitive dissonance works better than ridicule. Nobody is going to win converts by desecrating the Eucharist, or by ridiculing believers as incompetent. Back when I was a believer, that is what kept me from converting.

Where were the arguments, contradictions then? Did my fellow unbelievers even know such arguments existed? All they focused on was to ridicule and belittle my self-esteem which was already at rock bottom levels, thanks to guilt from sin.

Now I am saved into the holy unbelief, and I find my fellow men doing the same lame strategy. No wonder why it took Dawkins et al, to bring unbelieving population back to normal levels.

Bill Donohue Asked For It

All PZ Myers did was ridicule the Eucharist in a blog with little pixels that appear on a screen. Bill Donohue made a big news out of it. And now the whole world is out on a Eucharist desecration mission on the youtube. PZ’s university ain’t firing him either.

Sometimes I feel the religious people ask for trouble. Had Bill dealt with it more politically he wouldn’t have brought upon this nonsense on Catholics.

A Debate With A Theist

Recently I had a small debate on a comments section of The Bible Blogger Bible Blog. I kept my arguments short (because I hear theists don’t read a lot of opposing views) and used the Bible for a change (because they still believe stuff in the Bible are facts). So here is the entire unedited uncensored debate:

• edwinhere:
  1. We are called to imitate Jesus. (John 8:12)
  2. You would stop me if I were going to inject malaria into your children.
  3. Jesus does nothing about the mosquitoes that inject malaria into thousands of children every year.

  Do you still think, Jesus is doing a “good” thing?

• thebibleblogger:
  1. Christians are, yes.
  2. Of course.
  3. How do you know that?
• edwinhere:
  3. A child dies of malaria every 30 seconds.
  Source: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/index.html
• thebibleblogger:
  How do you know He hasn’t stopped children from getting infected?
  You’re making the assumption that just because a child gets sick and dies that He’s not doing      anything.
• edwinhere:
  4. We know a tree by its fruit. (Matthew 7:16-20)
  Hope this answers your above question.
• thebibleblogger:
  You didn’t answer anything at all.
  You have no way of knowing that He hasn’t protected children from getting malaria. You’re just anti-God so you’re throwing up anything you can think of to try and smear Him without realizing that you’re making no sense.