Lately i've been thinking about proofs.. I was curious about induction. Firstly, i noticed the method of induction used in 'mathematical induction' is actually quite different from the induction used in sciences. In mathematical induction, it gives an exhaustive proof, as it is generalized by the terms n, n+1, etc. In science however, induction goes like.. if A behaves this way, so will B. Or, if A behaves one way today, it will behave the same way tomorrow. The method of induction used in science often goes unproven, but we knew it works! The sun will rise in the east again tomorrow as it does today! But what's the real basis of that claim?

One day i was thinking about Newton's Law, F=ma. The question goes like this : if the experiment applies to one object, why would it apply for every other objects? How many objects should we test in order to prove that the equation F=ma is valid? And if we assume that it applies for everything, is it by induction? But we know that induction in science is not soundly grounded. One solution to solve this, is by thought experiment. Let's say there's a cube. It is tested and it obeys the law F=ma. Now we cut the cube in half. On what basis you would say that the right cut would obey and the left cut wouldn't obey? What if we mould the cube into other object's shapes? Yes... perhaps by asking a question like these, we would then come to a conclusion that it is indeed logical to apply induction so that the equation applies to all matters. The proof to justify the induction used is by thought experiment! Thought experiments can help in explaining induction in sciences, but not all! For example, we can't prove that the sun will rise in the east again tomorrow. It is because it talks about the future, which is always uncertain, and there's no way asking questions can convince us about something that happens tomorrow. Perhaps at best, we can question 'why would tomorrow be different?', which is un-answerable. We must apply induction blindly in this case.

I just realised that thought experiments can prove a lot of things indeed! It can proof that science is limited! How so? Imagine we run a machine that types random letters in papers, suppose we limit the letters such that it fits a number of A4 papers. All permutations, it will then produce enormous amount! It will include all parts of novels, scientific journals from all times! The number of works printed would be enormous! But it is limited. Therefore, since every scienctific work can be written on words which are limited, it is thus limited. There is an end to science! But of course we wouldn't know when would that be. Popper mentioned that scientific theories couldn't be verified, it can just be falsified. Therefore, the symptom when we've reached the end of science, is that, people will still seek for verifications, people will still be experimenting, hoping to come up with new theories. They will search for infinity, but they couldn't falsify the final theory till eternity. Now, perhaps some of you might question.. can the 'final science' then, explain everything? To answer this, let's go a bit further. Perhaps we're all familiar with the notion that reality/truth exists somewhere out there, and it is quite different from our false interpretations / deductions. But we're all convinced that reality exist! It is there! And if someone have caught a glimpse of that reality, trying to formulate it in words, fit in the size of the number of A4 papers, his account would surely be found within the chunk! Therefore this further proves that the final understanding of truth can be obtained! The matter is, we don't really know whether the truth is coherent, i believe it is. Or maybe, is it really attainable? Arguing so far, it is attainable, but what if let's say, it is too complicated till it require infinite amount of A4 paper to explain in full detail? And would that be possible? Or would there be a case where the limitation is in our language to express that reality? Who knows?.. but the main point is this.. thought experiments are useful.. perhaps we can prove something crucial, hehe.. 

It's horrifying to see generations living as if they don't recognize the concept that there's truth. The term 'religion' has been degraded, to a mere 'family tradition', an act of going to religious temples/meetings, or attending spiritual ceremonies, but has no impact whatsoever with the religious person's life. Not just people, even social institutions, countries, many of them claimed to be religious yet they treat religion merely as nothing more than a culture. It's good that someone be religious, but most of them would always treat religion as a choice, no9t as something to be regarded as truth!

Let me make this statement : Religion is to offer truth! The truth about this universe, the truth about afterlife, the truth about our existence, and the truth about everything observed and experienced! And this is why we must put religion first! This is why we must seek the truth! Aren't we concerned about afterlife? Aren't we concerned about the actual thing that's happening? Why are many people just concerned about what happens 'now'? Why are they so pragmatic and so short-sighted? They spent their time, years after years, seeking their own selfish happiness and comfort. Perhaps they think they would find it in wealth, in wisdom, in power, etc. Many have run their paths, be the conqueror of nations, acquired great wealth, and yet when they sit on those thrones, they felt meaningless.. what exactly is life all about? Is it nothing than a mere pursuit of happiness?

What is religion? Why should I be religious? Perhaps most people just live their easy lives without taking much into consideration these crucial questions.

How we should treat religion

Now, if we really regard religion as truth (indeed we should!), we would see every religious doctrines as candidates that offer explanations to questions I raised above. Perhaps some of you might object and say 'Nah, religions are made by human beings and so it's a waste of time studying them'. That, in my definition, is also another religion, or in other words, belief. My point is this, if you are a believer of a particular stand, be a strong believer! If you are an atheist, be a strong atheist! If you are Buddhist, be a strong Buddhist! If you're a free thinker, be a strong free thinker! And so on. You must understand what you believe! By using the term 'understand', I don't mean understanding them concept wise, just on the cognitive level. Rather, you must be convinced, by yourself, why you believe what you believe, and fully be responsible for it! You must have good reasons why you chose that particular belief and not the other. Those reasons must exclude claims like 'I am a Christian because I was born in a Christian family', or 'I believe in Islam as many people held that belief'! These are invalid claims and have no intention to regard religion as truth! As we grow older, and we became aware of this, we should began scrutinizing, exploring, maybe it requires us to go away from our comfort zones till finally we could made up our minds which religion is indeed true.

Now some of you might also throw some objections 'Isn't belief in religion done by faith alone'? Well, but faith shouldn't be blind! By mentioning that we should be responsible for our beliefs, by saying that faith should not be blind, I don't mean that everything should be proven exhaustively before someone becomes religious, for it is an impossible task, you might end up in agnosticism. Nevertheless, we can weigh religion by indications, not by exhaustive proofs. For example, we are aware that places and events described in our religious texts are really historical. And that's how we're responsible for our faiths! But of course, we should not stop there and say 'Well I know that places described in my religious texts are historical and hence it's true!' We should not stop exploring further.

One obstacle that would impede a person that already regards religion as something that offers truth, is his/her own biasness. Here, we should always introspect ourselves whether we are a biased person. If we are, we should correct ourselves. Biasness comes in many forms. First, some might tend to simply defend their own religion out of ignorance. They might accuse other people's religion as false and have contradicting texts, but they could not explain about contradictions in their own scriptures. Other form of biasness might include saying that they have reasons to reject other religions, they knew their doctrines well, but they learnt it from their own religion's leader. Therefore, we should, if we are really honest truth-seekers, learn Buddhism from Buddhist, learn Catholicism from Catholic pastors, or learn Islam from Islamic leaders! Of course this would mean a heavy task! There are many more examples of biasness, but my point is this, be responsible and aware!

Religion and Open Society

This message is well directed to institutions, or societies, or countries that held religion as something of importance. If they would see religion as truth, they should at least make effort to adopt what is called an 'Open Society'. This concept I grasped from George Soros, and I'd agree with him on this view, though I'm applying it to a quite different context. Soros expounded, that we are all vulnerable to fallibility. An open society, more like 'democracy', just that it is an epistemological concept rather than political, would create a conducive environment for the pursuit of truth! To make it more concrete, let's take examples. Why would a religious country, that regard religions as candidates that offer truth, would suppress/restrict people from telling their beliefs to others? This is not right! Is it just to avoid any conflicts that truth should be suppressed? Why would some societies restrict conversion to other beliefs? This does not regard religion as truth! It reduces religion to a mere political tool! Or maybe, it just sounds like 'preservation of its members'.

Finally, let us be more serious about religion! It is such an irony that discussing about such an important issue have been regarded as taboo in many societal contexts. Nah, I don't adopt that view somehow. So readers, let's be more serious about this! Let us not be so narrow sighted and pragmatic in life. There are higher truths out there, and let us not wait till the time comes before we started to regret. And don't let ourselves perish out of ignorance.

Last time I was thinking about conversion.. No, not that I'm considering to convert, but I was thinking about the possibility of conversion. I thought conversion was philosophically impossible.. well at least for me.. It is not possible as I've heard accounts about people converting and their reasons can't be perfectly justified. Some convert after they had mystical visions, dreams, but it could be questioned whether such visions indeed come from the devil. Some people convert because they find what they believe to be 'contradictions' in their 'Holy Books', and yet one can still cater to ignorance and say 'perhaps I just misunderstood', and therefore the possibility is still open for what he/she believe to be the candidate for truth.

Yes.. maybe we can't proof everything 100%, but what I want to say is this, it's almost impossible for us to convert if we hold to the principles that our interpretations is still subject to some fallibilities.. When we find contradictions, unexplainable things, or perhaps encounter mystical visions, we can still escape by saying things like the above.. Now there left another option, there has to be 'enlightenment', not one that comes from the inside, but from outside of it. If one converts to other religion, he/she must've already known pretty much the 'theology' of that other religion. I think its pretty safe as a claim. Nah, perhaps one doesn't know the other religion's theology, would he/she convert? I'm not saying that it is impossible. For someone logical and honest, it is impossible. For others that would compromise, it is possible, eg. if he/she have other motives, such as gaining political powers, or any other reasons that doesn't have anything to do with the pursuit of truth itself. 

The threat of compromising is real.. Once I thought that the question is just a simple 'compromise or not compromise'. But the whole arena is more analog rather than digital. It's an interplay between the respective situations and the similarities between religions which tests the resistance you'll put before you end up compromising. The heavier the consequences, the less likely will you not care about truth and be pragmatic. The more similarities you find between the two religions, the more you be enticed into compromising. Hence, the question to ask ourselves 'If two different religions are similar in many things and differ in very little things, but it gives you more advantage if you would compromise, would you compromise?' This question might be uttered again, varying the degree of 'littleness' in which they differ, as well as the degree of advantage we gain when we compromise. If we see things this way, it would be difficult not to compromise.. In ideal, honest and courageous truth seekers are the ones that would say 'no' in any cases.

Should truth be concealed for the temporary goodness of humanity? If telling the truth would hurt others, should the truth be told? (What i mean by 'truth' here doesn't mean the truth itself as an essence, but rather, it means the correct way to live, that that we should live in pursuit of it). If the answer is yes.. then perhaps I should remove my previous posts.. if the answer is no, then I'll go on with it in a straighforward manner.

I was just thinking.. you know.. supposing you know the truth, should you tell it straightforwardly? Or should you do like Morpheus in 'The Matrix', asking the person for permission first, whether he/she would choose to know the truth. Because knowing the truth will certainly disrupt the person's life, goals, so much so that perhaps many dreams would be forced to fade away.. Yes.. perhaps I had many dreams last time too, but when I learnt about reality, I must let go of some unrealistic dreams. Just imagine Neo after knowing the reality in which the world of matrix. He would certainly lose some pleasures he took in living in the matrix world, because he now knows that it was a fake! Meaningless! Now, if you're one of those who knows the real situation (just imagine so), would you rather tell the truth to anyone living in the matrix world, or let them enjoy everything in a realm of distorted reality? What if, (to suit the case better), there's also the issue for eternal damnation for those not knowing the truth, and therefore not living by it, and there's also the issue of salvation for those recognizing it? (I know this sounds rather anthropocentric, but maybe no analogy is 100% perfect to describe a situation)

Just went to UPH Festival, met some of my high sch friends, having a chit chat around, explore around the campus, buy some takoyaki, hang around at the food court. Finally we decided to cross the road to the mall, play time crisis, ride the roller coaster and finally went on to watch the film.

Was not quite a good film actually, but has some points that made me think. In short, the film was about a guy, just decided to marry a girl, gave her the ring, when suddenly he met his ex (during his high-school days) at the police station, and she was caught as she was a drug abuser. She became a drug abuser as she was frustrated after both of them broke up. The film went on till the guy left his girl and pursue back his ex, freed her from drug abuse, till finally his ex died (though she was already freed) because the damage was already too severe.

One point that i'm thinking, perhaps we should make a commitment first before engaging in someone. To a certain degree, we should learn 'not to care' about others, or 'care less' if we're already pursuing a serious relationship. Anyway, we couldn't save everyone out there that needs help! There are even more pathetic cases in which our hands are out of reach! Should we commit to just a few and decide our priorities first? That may be one option.

Perhaps another option (might be better) is to speak honestly and as openly as possible to your spouse-to-be. I think the root of the problem arises because the guy didn't really open up everything in this critical situation. Later in the movie, it is the girl herself that caught the guy being with her ex.

Yeah.. maybe just a lesson to learn...