An open letter to God

Dear God,

Thanks for letting me out of your authority finally after 22 years. Now I’m free and I can write against you! However, I know your faithful troops are always ready for Jihad. And I know that my home country is still under your dominant. But I want to write how I feel about you…

Some people say I don’t believe in you! That’s obviously wrong! If I didn’t believe in you how could I write to you? The only question to ask is whether you were the creator or us?!

Yes you got it. Initially we made you up to fill the gap of our knowledge about our origins. At that time you were such an innocent kid, like a lightening; you remember?! But then we gradually evolved you and made you more complex to fit the improving human society. You helped people control each other… You’ve become opiates for the masses, such that they couldn’t imagine their existence without you…  People started killing each other because of your delusion! More you’ve become complex more your believers become dangerous! Now there are a group of them who has a book, which they think, is sent from you and every single verse is literally true and unchanged! This is the dodgiest thing a society can believe in! Because as soon as they believe they are totally right and the others are totally wrong they’ll become to enemies and they’d fight! No, you are not doing well mate! You are definitely not! So I want to fire you from our world!

Having said this introduction, I shall explain why I think you are such a delusion. Then I’ll survey different religions and I’ll explain why I am not a believer in any of them. Nevertheless, to make the entries readable,as you are not that almighty to be able to read it all at once, I’ll publish each part separately. In this post, I’ll mention some of the contradictions of the existence of God of religions. I’ll explain them in the next post. Then I shall describe the reasons I don’t believe in any other Gods. Finally I’ll end with an argument about the reason that none of the religions could be brought by a supernatural creature!

To explain why the God of religion do not exists, I have to bring some contradictions in the properties of such a God. Here is the first one:

1. Paradox of the state of being infinite and almighty
2. Paradox of being omniscience and allowing free will
3. Paradox of justice vs. creation
4. The problem of theodicy
5. Relatively minor questions such as “Does it give any useful explanation?” and “Does it make any good contribution?”

Later for the discussion about all other Gods, I’ll ask the theists for their evidences. Then I shall repeat part 5 above for this case.

Finally, I’ll choose two of the religions which have the largest number of adherents, namely Christianity and Islam. And I will explain why their arguments are not valid. Why the scientific facts in Qur’an are either coincidence or misconception. And interpretations of Bible are just complications in human’s mind…

در باب روسپی گری

روسپی اورژانسِ میلِ جنسیست. این شغل باید رسمی شود و پایگاهِ اجتماعی پیدا کند. روسپیان باید آموزش ببینند. این حرفه نیاز به یک دگرگونی دارد.

پورنوگرافی یک هنرِ ارزشمند است که کم اهمیت جلوه داده شده است. این هنر نیاز به کمک دارد و باید در دانشگاه‌ها تدریس شود.



Barclays’ Rubbish – continued

The first day I wanted to open an account in Barclays I simply walked into a branch and asked one of the staff about the different accounts they have and their offers. She told me that the only free of charge one is our Cash Card. But you can only use it in the cash points. For your online banking you need the other one which will cost you just 5 pounds per month. I accepted because I knew that HSBC will charge me 8 pound so I asked her to book an appointment for me. Keep this in your mind, I shall come back to it at the end…

This afternoon, I walked into the branch in which I had my account. I went to the branch manager’s office, showed the letter to him and started complaining about the contents of it… “What’s this? You are irresponsible! This is irrational! This is ridiculous! I don’t have any correlation with the government! It’s not about the sanctions! You can’t do this … Blah blah blah…” He just replied: “I know, but according to the rules…” but I was so angry, so I interrupted: “Rules? Which rules? That’s all about the government! I am an ordinary Iranian national!”. Again he replied: “No, it’s about the Iranian nationals!” I shouted: “If you you don’t know the rules, I suggest you go and read them! Anyway, I myself now want to take my money out of here…”

Then I just did the process and went to another bank called Royal Bank of Scotland. I explained the situations for them and they told me they’ll open a bank account for me for free and I can do anything, including the online banking with it. At least they treated well. I emphasized: “I am an Iranian national. Are you sure I won’t have any problem with this account?” and she replied: “Sure! We have many Iranian clients”. So I asked her to book an appointment for me!

Just to check some other banks I went to the Lloys TSB. They gave me the same answer. They told me they don’t know why Barclays has done this and this is not a law coming from the higher authorities.

Finally I went to another branch of Barclays and told them I want to open an account and I am Iranian and I’ve heard that we can’t have an account here because of the sanctions! They told me: “No, you definitely CAN open an account here. But you can only have a Cash Card in our bank.” I told him: “But I want to do online banking!”. “Yes, you can!”, he replied!

I came back home and checked the Barclays website on the internet. Apparently I can do online banking and all with a Cash Card. I deduced that the banker deceived me for 5 pounds per month in the first day! So I shall transfer all my money to the RBS. Moreover, this is an irresponsible action of the Barclays or any other banks to close certain clients’ accounts only because of their nationality!!!

Barclays’ Rubbish!

I’ve just received a letter from Barclays, the bank in which I made this mistake and opened an account, which says we’re gonna close your account in 30 days!!! It says “we have decided that we are no longer in a position to be able to offer services to clients who are resident in a number of countries, including Iran”!!!

What the hell is that? I have never had any correlation with the government of Iran. I have always  been under pressure of the Iranian government when I was in Iran. I have never committed any illegal activity. The sanctions are supposed to do  nothing to the Iranian people, but the government. Why should they close my bank account? Why should I suffer more?

OK, tomorrow I’ll walk into the bank and happily take my money off this crap! But I am so worried that I have the same problem with the other banks!!!

Special Theory of Relativity

Let’s have a physico-philosophical quiz for today! The first part will be so simple, especially if you are a physicist, but the second part needs a little more care!

The two postulates of the special theory of relativity are as follows:

Postulate 1: The laws of physics are the same in any inertial reference frame.

Postulate 2: The speed of light (or any other massless particle) in vacuum is the same an all inertial frames of reference and is independent of the motion of the source.

As you see both of them are talking about inertial reference frames. And if you don’t believe that the Earth rests on the back of an elephant, which stands on the back of a tortoise, then another choice is to believe that it orbits around the sun!!! If so, you must accept that it does have a centripetal acceleration, and hence is not an inertial reference frame…

Question number one: Do we have to conclude that the theory of relativity doesn’t work for us who live on the Earth?!!!

Question number two:  In the theory of relativity we don’t have the absolute space! We also know that fixed stars are not really fixed! Define inertial frame of reference, before you come up with a definition of the special theory of relativity!

از اوّل

من دوباره می خوام بنویسم، ولی به دلیلِ این که در حالِ حاضر در گیجیِ بعد از تغییرِ جا به سر می برم، پستِ بعدی خیلی نزدیک نخواهد بود! فقط خواستم چند نکته رو گفته باشم. دلیلِ این‌که اینا رو فارسی می‌نویسم اینه که تصور می‌کنم مسائلی کاملاً منطقه‌ای هستند و هیچ ربطی به ملّیتِ دیگه‌ای نداره که بخواد بخوندشون:

1. این‌‌جا سرعتِ زندگی به اندازه‌ی معنی داری از ایران بیشتره. به این معنی که باید همه‌ی کارها رو خیلی سریع‌تر از اونی که در ایران انجام می‌دادی بکنی. در غیر این صورت عقب می‌مونی و برات گرون تموم می‌شه! از طرفِ دیگه، این مفهومِ دولتِ الکترونیک (که این‌جا معنیِ خودش وپیدا می‌کنه) این سرعت رو به مراتب بیشتر می‌کنه. خودِ من زمانی که ایران بودم طبیعتاً در موردِ اینا شنیده بودم، ولی حالا واقعاً می‌تونم حس کنم این صرفه‌جویی تو وقت چقدر در استفاده‌ی مفید از زمان و در نتیجه رضایتِ شخصی اهمیت داره!

2. این‌جا دانشگاه خیلی بهتر از اونیه که انتظارشو داشتم. دقیقاً همون چیزیایی که از بهترین دانشگاهای دنیا در این مقطع می‌شنویم این‌جا هم هست. هر چند نه از دانشجوهایِ در اون حد نابغه خبریه و نه از استادایی که همه‌ی دنیا تو همه‌ی رشته‌ها بشناسنشون! ولی فکر می‌کنم برای این مقطع همین بیشتر از کافی باشه! تجهیزاتِ بسیار پیشرفته، استادای پر انرژی، پیگیریِ مسؤولانه و سیستمِ پیچیده ولی با نظم و کارآمد! چیزایی که هیچ کدومش تو ایران نبود!

3. این‌جا همه ملیّتی هست و باید به لهجه‌ی همه عادت کنی. از استادی که میاد با لهجه‌ی اصلِ شمالی با سرعت 1000 درس رو می‌گه تا هم خونه‌ایِ چینی که تو آش‌پزخونه بر می‌گرده بهت می‌گه “Do you need fork?” و این در حالیه که خودش فکر می‌کنه داره می‌گه: “Do you eat pork?”

4. این‌جا یه چیزایی هست که آدم می‌بینه و حالش گرفته می‌شه و از خودش می‌پرسه: “ببینم هنوز به قرنِ 21 نرسیدیم؟” مثلاً این‌که امروز یه گروهِ نژادپرستِ انگلیسی قراره یه تظاهراتِ ضدّ اسلامی راه بندازه! خودِ این گروه ادعا می‌کنه که نژاد پرست نیست و حتّی ضدّ مسلمین هم نیست و فقط با اسلامِ افراطی و اجرای قوانینِ اسلامی در بریتانیا مخالفه. این در حالیه که نظرِ بیشترِ دانشگاهیا بر خلافِ این هست. حتّی اگه حرفشون درست هم باشه طبعاً بینِ اینا آدمای نژادپرستی هستند که جو رو مسموم خواهند کرد. البته در طرفِ مقابل هم یک گروهِ دیگه داره یک تظاهرات بر ضدّ این تظاهرات راه می‌ندازه! ولی به هر حال این‌که نژاد پرستی طرف‌دار داره واقعاً شرم‌آوره!

5. این‌جا چقدر همه چیز گروووونه…

6. این‌جا اینقدر کار دارم که وقت ندارم بقیه‌شو بنویسم…

Should I become a scientist or a philosopher?!

This entry and its proceeding one will be two of the most interesting posts I’ll ever publish in my weblog. The reason is that these posts aim to clarify the crucial criteria, one needs to consider when he wants to decide between becoming a scientist or a philosopher when he is young; say in the age between 18 and 22. Nevertheless, despite my career in science, these criteria have never become clear enough even for me! Here I have asked Amyr Anvary, a friend in philosophy side, to write an article describing why he is more interested in philosophy. In the next post I’ll explain the reasons I preferred science for myself.

___________________________________
I have always been more drawn to Philosophy than Science. That is because I find philosophical cognition more authentic and genuine. in order to explain my viewpoint and this make this post easier to read I decided to talk about what I think Philosophy is (Part One), discuss Science in contrast with Philosophy (Part Two) and name two reasons why I think scientific cognition is neither complete nor satisfying (Part Three) separately.
1.
Although people usually define Philosophy by its ‘subjects of concern’, I am more comfortable with my own definition (which is of course a work in progress). Philosophy is a unique way of talking about potentially everything using reason and intuition and coming to a result with which one can rest satisfied. I purposefully use the word ‘talking’ –and not thinking or study- because I believe Philosophy is a form of discourse. This does not necessarily mean that a philosopher is talking -directly or indirectly- to someone. What I want to imply is that Philosophy is a language-dependant phenomena and it happens with motives of communication. The uniqueness that I pointed out in my definition of Philosophy is because of doubt. Same as Science and unlike engineering, Doubt is a crucial method in Philosophy and since you don`t have a ‘unified reality’ -in a philosophical sense- to measure yourself with, doubt plays a more important role in Philosophy than Science.
2.
Science and Philosophy have more in common. They are both concerned with understanding of Nature, the difference is that in order to understand Nature Science tries to understand how it works but Philosophy takes a more ‘ontological’ approach. Meaning that while the main objective of Science is to understand Nature, Philosophy tries to use what is so far grasped about Nature and talk about concepts like existence and reality. Especially in recent decades Philosophy has been influenced by Science more than ever. Philosophical ideas also play a big role in evolution of Science; since many of scientific assumptions are backed up by huge philosophical backgrounds. Let us discuss this further.
Any scientific cognition takes place in a well defined consistent and arguably complete axiomatic system. Meaning there are fundamental and mostly philosophical concepts on which our further definitions and theories depend. How are these propositions, which we label as axioms or assumptions, philosophical? To answer this let me point out the difference between two kinds of axiomatic systems. In a mathematical axiomatic system such as Euclidean Geometry or Group theory axioms are interchangeable with other proposition within the system. These axioms have been selected from a bunch of basic propositions because they contain all the information we need in order to define the structure of our system. They can be replaced by other propositions. Galois came up with most of fundamental definitions and statements of Group theory without even formalizing axioms of Groups. But in Newtonian mechanics, for example, existence of space without quantification is assumed. ‘Existence of space without quantification’ is a statement which cannot be replaced by any proposition within the Classical Mechanics. Beside axioms, in a scientific axiomatic system, some other propositions are assumed (consciously or not). Even though this sort of assumptions might look like physical statements but they are backed up by many controversial philosophical ideas, some of these assumptions include determinism, causality and existence of mathematical discipline beneath any physical phenomena. Any scientific revolution happens exactly by challenging these philosophical assumptions. That is why I think any scientific cognition evolves in a world provided by philosophical ideas.
3.1
How is reducing a phenomenon to mathematical formulae providing us with some sort of satisfying cognition? Science has proved to be successfully able to predict and use Natural phenomena. But how is this helping us understanding Nature?
3.2
In 17th century René Descartes used the term res extensa (thinking subject) in opposite of res cogitans (read physical reality); although his intentions were towards discussing individualism somewhere along the way he formalized something much deeper and more profound, by separating the thinking subject and the physical reality, Philosophy and Science became two separate entities and went their separate ways. As a result Science became incapable of knowing itself and even scientifically understanding itself. This is the main reason behind the creation of some schools of Philosophy such as epistemology or phenomenology.

Quote of the day

Quantum mechanics is much like religion. In both cases you have to believe in some unseen facts. As soon as you see them, there are no morals!

NINJAS vs PROFESSORS

PhD Comics is one of the greatest sources which best fits nerds’ interests. Have fun

 

Participation in Simulating the Climate Change and Quantum Computing

There are many programs on the web which allow you to volunteer computing power for a range of scientific ventures, which they need a huge computational resource, powered by BOINC. Among these, there are two programs that I feel responsible to invite you to take part.

The first one “is the largest experiment to try and produce a forecast of the climate in the 21st century”, as they say. If you are interested in using your idle computer to help calculate global warming then log on to www.climateprediction.net .

The second one is the D-Wave’s AQUA (Adiabatic QUantum Algorithms). Whether you believe they have a quantum computer or not you can take part in this very low cost but important project. Once D-Wave collects the results of the simulations and processes the information, it will compare the simulation against an actual run of its latest quantum computer, which should be completed in the next few months. If the figures match up, then D-Wave will have shown that it really has a quantum machine. “Either the hardware will agree with the prediction or it won’t,” Mr. Rose said. “If it doesn’t agree, then you don’t have a quantum computer. On the other hand, if the data tracks the predictions, you have smoking gun evidence that what you built is a quantum computer.”