Monday

Administration & Management

It's Art of Governance & Not Commerce Alone

Monthly Archives: May 2011

Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century

In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.

In one salvo, he completely demolished an entire class of scientific theories.

Gödel’s discovery not only applies to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has earth-shattering implications.

Oddly, few people know anything about it.

Allow me to tell you the story.

Mathematicians love proofs. They were hot and bothered for centuries, because they were unable to PROVE some of the things they knew were true.

So for example if you studied high school Geometry, you’ve done the exercises where you prove all kinds of things about triangles based on a set of theorems.

That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.

Yes, it does seem perfectly “obvious” that a line can be extended infinitely in both directions, but no one has been able to PROVE that. We can only demonstrate that Euclid’s postulates are a reasonable, and in fact necessary, set of 5 assumptions.

Towering mathematical geniuses were frustrated for 2000+ years because they couldn’t prove all their theorems. There were so many things that were “obviously true,” but nobody could find a way to prove them.

In the early 1900′s, however, a tremendous wave of optimism swept through mathematical circles. The most brilliant mathematicians in the world (like Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert and Ludwig Wittgenstein) became convinced that they were rapidly closing in on a final synthesis.

A unifying “Theory of Everything” that would finally nail down all the loose ends. Mathematics would be complete, bulletproof, airtight, triumphant.

In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible. He proved they would never prove everything. (Yes it sounds a little odd, but is exactly what Kurt Gödel did)

Gödel’s discovery was called “The Incompleteness Theorem.”

If you’ll give me just a few minutes, I’ll explain what it says, how Gödel proved it, and what it means – in plain, simple English that anyone can understand.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”

You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they’re all built on Euclid’s 5 postulates which we know are true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.

Stated in Formal Language:Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.

Syllogism:

1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete

2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system

3. Therefore the universe is incomplete



You can draw a circle around a bicycle. But the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.


You can draw the circle around a bicycle factory. But that factory likewise relies on other things outside the factory.


Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.


Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Everything that you can count or calculate. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language and philosophy.


Gödel created his proof by starting with “The Liar’s Paradox” — which is the statement

“I am lying.”

“I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false; and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true.

Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted this Liar’s Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that no statement can prove its own truth.

You always need an outside reference point.

The Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the “positivists” of the time. They insisted that literally anything you could not measure or prove was nonsense. He showed that their positivism was nonsense.

Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic. Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong.

He wasn’t wrong. It was really true. There are more things that are true than you can prove.

A “theory of everything” – whether in math, or physics, or philosophy – will never be found.  Because it is mathematically impossible.

OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?

Here’s what it means:

  • Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
  • All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
  • You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.

Reasoning inward from a larger circle to a smaller circle (from “all things” to “some things”) is deductive reasoning.

Example of a deductive reasoning:

1.    All men are mortal
2.    Socrates is a man
3.    Therefore Socrates is mortal

Reasoning outward from a smaller circle to a larger circle (from “some things” to “all things”) is inductive reasoning.

Examples of inductive reasoning:

1. All the men I know are mortal
2. Therefore all men are mortal

1. When I let go of objects, they fall
2. Therefore there is a law of gravity that governs all falling objects

Notice than when you move from the smaller circle to the larger circle, you have to make assumptions that you cannot 100% prove.

For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time.

Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws.

You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.

(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws – and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):

  • There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
  • The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
  • The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
  • If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. Because all the matter and energy are inside the circle. It’s immaterial.
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

We can apply the same inductive reasoning to the origin of information:

  • In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.8 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.
  • The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time.
  • All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
  • Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.

When we add information to the equation, we conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite and immaterial, it is also self-aware.

Isn’t it interesting how all these conclusions sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?

Maybe that’s why it’s hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it’s intuitive to most folks. But Gödel’s theorem indicates it’s also supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.

The person who proudly proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!

Interesting aside…

If you visit the world’s largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page you will find the following statement:

“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”

If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know all systems rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem, the folks at Infidels cannot be correct. Because the universe is a system, it has to have an outside cause.

Therefore Atheism violates the laws mathematics.

The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.

Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.

Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. They are two sides of the same coin. It had been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved it.

No time in the history of mankind has faith in God been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by rational thought, science and mathematics.

“Math is the language God wrote the universe in.” –Galileo Galile, 1623

Always Yours — As Usual — Saurabh Singh

Source: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness/

Draft Lokpal Bill Ready for Consultation with Citizen of India – Comments Requested

The drafting of the Jan Lokpal bill, which is to be finalized by June 30th, 2011, is underway. You can play your part in this historic moment by giving your invaluable comments/suggestions about the different provisions in the draft of the Jan Lokpal bill which will make it the effective, accountable and independent anti-corruption body that India needs right now. Otherwise, it will remain a law which exists only on paper and has no impact on the ground. Please provide your comments. The provisions and options for submitting comments are as detailed below:

  • Online : To fill your comments directly in the form on the Website it hosted Click Here
  • Email : Send us an email at lokpalbillcomments@gmail.com
  • Postal mail : Mail your comments to the following address
        Lokpal Bill Public Consultation
        A-119, Kaushambi
        Ghaziabad – 201010

To download the Full Text Draft of Jan Lokpal Bill Version 2.2 Click Here 

To download English Summary of Jan Lokpal Bill version 2.2 Click Here

[To Read These Documents You Will Require a Adobe Reader. It can be downloaded free from Adobe’s Website]

Your Participation is must…..Do not forego such Options…..This will help in bringing Good governance.

Expecting your full hearted participation…As it is basically non participation of learned and intelligence Citizen which Force Gifts a  Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly, who may not be most competent of all who are contesting polls. So, please let not the same happen again, and prove this by submitting your Comments or at least even by glancing through it.

Always Yours — As Usual — Saurabh Singh


US Celebrates Osama Bin Laden’s Death while Allies Try to Keep Smile Intact

A firefighter waves to the crowd as people celebrate after Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, during a spontaneous celebration in New York’s Times Square, May 2, 2011

U.S. President Barack Obama was preparing to announce Osama bin Laden was dead when word got out and crowds started gathering late Sunday outside the White House in Washington and at Ground Zero in New York City.

From Times Square to Ground Zero to the White House, the familiar chant of “USA , USA” resonated as citizens learned that the Osama bin Laden was dead.

The announcement sparked immediate jubilation. In Time Square, people gathered around giant news tickers to see the latest updates. Pam Sather recalls the moment she heard the world’s most wanted terrorist was dead.

“It is just amazing, we were just walking out of a pizza joint,” she said. “And, all the sudden we saw in the bar on the television. We were just glued.”

At the White House, young Americans climbed trees, climbed light posts, donned American flags and sang the national anthem.

The feeling was euphoric as thousands of Americans gathered in front of the White House just hours after U.S. President Barack Obama made the announcement that Osama bin Laden was dead.

For many, including student Kathryn Costello, it became a moment of reflection, thinking back to the nearly 3,000 lives lost on September 11, 2001, an act of terror Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for.

“I think a lot of us have grown up with the memory of 9/11 and sort of this constant notion of a threat and the danger of terrorism,” said Costello. “So this is a triumphant moment for all of us.”

For many U.S. soldiers, including U.S. Marine Jake Diliberto, this is a day they have been fighting for.

“We feel really really vindicated that we finally got him,” he said. “This is our generation’s VE, VJ. This is our generation’s victory and enduring freedom day.” 

Patriotism filled the air outside the White House into the early hours Monday.

Two hours after the announcement, with celebrations still roaring, the U.S. Secret Service brought in barriers to push back revelers from the White House.

International student Sunny Shih said the importance of the historical moment reaches beyond the gates of the White House.

“This is a very important moment for not only the U.S.A., but for the entire world,” said Shih.

Many world leaders are praising the achievement of U.S. military forces Sunday in Pakistan, who killed Osama bin Laden, captured his body and buried it at sea. But they are cautioning bin Laden’s death elevates security risks around the world.

Back at the White House, the focus remains on the justice the president said was delivered.

Always Yours — As Usual — Saurabh Singh

Source: Voice of America

Will Inflation Turn in Gamble in Fortune by Farmers

I was going through an article published in Sunday Economic Times [May 01, 2011 to be precise] which was titled “Will inflation turn out to be a game-changer in India?”

It was nicely crafted and argued article by T K Arun, and all the arguments look relatively on rational side, but I have my apprehensions, which may be dubbed as irrational or idiotic.  But I feel like sharing.  The below is article I am talking about.

Will inflation turn out to be a game-changer in India?

If the RBI decides its foremost task is to stamp out inflation, never mind if it flattens the growth rate also in the process, that would be change we don’t want. However, inflation can also drastically change the rural landscape, boosting farm output and delivering millions out of poverty-provided the right policy initiatives are forthcoming.

Inflation is driven by, even if not confined to, food, particularly superior food: vegetables, egg, meat, milk, fish and lentils, vegetables and protein, in other words. Nor is this confined to India. Over the past 10 years, the least developed countries as a group have grown at an average rate of 7% a year. All of them witness a spurt in the demand for food. And for a variety of reasons ranging from prolonged drought to excessive rains, supplies have been disrupted, raising food prices across the board. Of course, the huge expansion in liquidity unleashed by the US and other developed countries, pumping speculative capital into all commodity markets, adding a thick layer of froth to the real pressures pushing prices upwards, plays its role as well. The net result: Thomas Malthus, who made the dire but fortunately erroneous forecast that the human race would proliferate faster than food production can grow, is back in fashion.

Beating Malthus is fait accompli. People not only have proliferated with abandon but also enjoy ever-improving standards of living, instead of straining hollow eyes into a darkening future of dwindling food supplies. However, beating Malthus promises to rise as a fresh challenge, an enormously profitable one. India has varied agroclimatic regions, capable of producing a great variety of crops. The challenge is to harness the potential and boost India’s farm output to feed not just a burgeoning India but also the rest of the world. It looks daunting but is, in fact, eminently doable.

Agricultural economist Ashok Gulati reports that the largest boost to farm income comes from investment in rural roads compared to other forms of agri-related investment. This offers a key insight that our policymaking obsession with the technical means of raising yields has ignored: farm production, too, is determined by the market. If you provide farmers easier access to markets for farm inputs and output, they would make use of that access to raise output and incomes. If the best seeds and fertiliser boost production in an interior village which cannot evacuate the surplus harvest to a market outside, the only result of the surplus would be to depress local prices and farmers’ incomes. On the other hand, if farmers can take their produce to buyers outside, their income would amplify.

A primitive system of state-mandated monopoly denies Indian farmers the freedom of choice in whom they sell to. The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Act must be scrapped. An organised, efficient supply chain must link farmers with urban consumers. This is what organised retail would do, if it is allowed to. Amul achieved this in the case of milk. New farmers companies or cooperatives should now be catalysed to accomplish this for other produce.

Observation of and by Blogger:

Please do not get surprised as reality is rarely known. People know, what I will call as a sucessfull propaganda, turning in Fad, leading to creation of a Mirage which looks like a Panacea to a very long [nearly seeming to be perpetual] Problematic Issue.

These days every body keeps talking about what ever he/ she feels will sell, without any consideration on its merit. Be it Organic Farming, Growing Jatropa for Bio fuel, Setting up of private mandies or scrapping of APMC Act.

Would someone like to comment on the situation that forced a Nation’s Goverment and its legislatures to formulate, pass and implement APMC Act, that today every one says should be scraped.

Inplace of just talking of implementing what the columnist T K Arun has argued in his article “Will Inflation Turn Out to be A Game Changer in India”; I would like to take my audiences a step ahead and deliberate on one of such models.

On the same lines as mentioned in paragraph above lets have some discussion on a very popular model — Acclaimed by Corporates as a Great Success Story. I do not think that every individuals who talks about it and considers it as a success has gone deeper in search of reality. So here it starts:

E – Choupal of ITC

Widely acclaimed as an ICT success story, it typifies the complete corporatization of the social enterprise model.

An initiative seeking to become the Wal-Mart of rural India, e-Choupal is a gateway to an expanding spectrum of  commodities leaving farms and also selling to rural India urban oriented goods and services like FMCG, consumer durables and insurance services (Gurumurthy, 2009; Prahalad, 2006).

Based on a business model providing connectivity and services to a closed network of farmers through an entrepreneur whose role, interestingly, is projected by ITC as a “public office”, e-Choupal exemplifies the win-win problematique (Gurumurthy, 2009; Prahalad, 2006).

However a closer study of the model, from a development perspective, unpacking the socio-politics of the e-Choupal ecosystem, indicates a monopolistic control over the entire local agriculture ecology by a transnational corporation through the use of a captive ICT infrastructure, with minimal regulation and competition.

The e-Choupal hubs serve as sales outlets for agriculture and other products and services. Cutting off alternative systems, local middlemen and government services, e-Choupal locks in a large number of farmers into its network.

While the project has resulted in some increase in rural agricultural incomes through privatization driven efficiency improvements in the supply chain, e-Choupal underscores ‘trickle-down’ and individual enterprise at the village levels (Gurumurthy, 2009; Prahalad, 2006).

The average village shopkeeper/entrepreneur is bound to get affected as local demand for goods and services shifts to ITC and Choupal sagars. Needless to mention livelihood of traders/middlemen whose livelihood has been squelched through this model.

Further, the ‘DNA’ profile of the farmers acquired during the registration of e-Choupals has allowed ITC to determine and understand their buying behavior very closely.

This has allowed targeting, positioning and delivering goods and services to match their needs and wants continuously, succinctly called Customer Relationship Management (CRM) in marketing parlance.

This makes them more vulnerable to a shift from the present more or less sustainable existence to materialistic consumerism. Little awareness of their (farmer’s) rights may not guarantee total protection of the database and its unethical usage. This is where the government is expected to protect its citizens from such transactions.

However, the government has been changing slowly but surely towards a free market economy.

[The blogger, here is not arguing against or in favour of India moving towards a market economy. The above discussed issue has to do with not only business but ethics, morale, privacy, awareness and many other social issues.]

The information above has been picked from a Research Paper Titled E – Choupal – Hope or Hype. The Same can be accessed by Clicking here. ]

The Rest of the article continues……

Farmers require investment in infrastructure, not subsidy. Politics must shed its love for doling out subsidy and invest massively in harnessing water, roads, power and scientific storage of farm produce.

Policy must change, too, in allowing farmers access to global markets. The short-term distress this creates would be more than removed by the rise in incomes and employment that would result.

Farming would cease to be a punishment and become the biggest fighter against poverty. Inflation is indeed a horse that India’s beggars could ride their way out of poverty

Always Yours — As Usual — Saurabh Singh