Thought of the day or for the end of days:

ستفتش عنها يا ولدي في كل مكان


وستسأل عنها موج البحر وستسأل فيروز الشطآن

وتجوب بحاراً وبحارا .. وتفيض دموعك أنهارا

وسيكبر حزنك حتى يصبح أشجارا


وسترجع يوماً يا ولدي


مهزوماً مكسور الوجدان

وستعرف بعد رحيل العمر

بأنك كنت تطارد خيط دخان


من قارئة الفنجان – نزار قباني

Here is a mediocre English translation of the whole poem.

Update: I couldn’t help but translate the whole poem. Right now I can’t find a nice online database for translated poems. So here it is:

The Fortune Teller -by Nazar Qabani

She sat, with fear in her eyes,
contemplating my flipped coffee cup,
she said: don’t be sorrowful, my son.
Love is your destiny.

My son, he who has died for love
has died a martyr.

I have told fortunes many times, my son,
but I never saw a cup like yours

I have told fortunes many times, my son,
but I never found a sorrow like yours

You can live forever in the sea of love without sail
and all your life can be a book of tears
and you can remain a prisoner amid water and fire.

For despite all its fires,
despite all its history,
despite the sadness in us, day and night,
despite the wind, and despite the raining weather and the hurricane,
love will remain the sweetest destiny, my son.

In your life, my son, a woman.
Her eyes, praise Whom we worship.
Her lips, drawn like a grape cluster.
Her laugh, melodies and flowers,
and her mad gypsy hair
travels the whole world.

She might become, my son, a woman
that the heart loves;
she might become the world.

But your sky is raining
and your path is blocked, blocked.

Because the love of your heart, my son,
is sleeping in a monitored palace.
Who enters her room, who wants to marry her,
who nears her garden, who tries to undo her braids,
my son, is lost, lost.

You will look for her everywhere, my son
you will ask the waves of the sea about her
and the Turquoise stones of the shores,
you will roam oceans and oceans
and your tears will overflow into rivers
and your sorrow will grow into trees.

Then you will return one day, my son
defeated with a broken spirit
and you will know, after your days have gone,
that you have been chasing a trace of smoke.

The love of your heart, my son,
has no land, no country, no address,
and how hard it is, my son, to love a woman
without an address.

Updated: Feb 10.

Beautiful expression of thought in “Piece of Truth“ by Mary Shenouda.

Before you keep reading, go read it first. Otherwise you would be doing injustice to the following comment on it and possibly to Mary’s blogpost as well.

I am not sure if the following comments represent my mind’s idea of what truth is and how to get it, but they represent a closely related idea to say the least. This is a path many times branching into a question (or two or three or infinity), many times blurry, and many times simply still and unmoved under construction. It’s something like a backbone of (my) Philosophy. All I can say is ‘this is one way to look at what  Mary wrote.’ I hope you enjoy both pieces of writing. I can safely say that this is probably my best piece of writing, and perhaps thinking, to-date.

Beautiful Sophia:

450px-efez_celsus_library_3_rb

First, an idea:

Truth is good.

“Ever since one opens their eyes in the morning, and the small rays of light penetrate the depth of darkness from the night before, a small piece of truth appears … truth can only exist in light”

Search for truth:

“As soon as one starts on their morning rituals – prayers, meditations or any other form of liturgy – one stumbles cross another piece of truth … the presence of something beyond the perceived world.”

1. Religion and ascribing to its dogma of the supernatural.

“Going out into the street, one looks around to see much happiness and misery in the world … the truth of pain and happiness are revealed”

2. The primality (as in both importance and precedence) of feelings. If it was up to me, I would have switched 1 and 2. A person has to perceive the world first and then think about something beyond her perception, but then again in religion many things are upside down.

“Heading off to work or study reveals a lot more truths … all those equations and technologies are small simple manifestations of the invisible science rules which govern our everyday lives.”

3. Science and its hidden mechanisms. Science is not invisible though, it’s only the hard to see. And some think that science is the only and most visible “thing”. 

“Eating reveals even more secrets and more truths … the amazing machine inside each of our simple-looking bodies which have the capacity to turn food into energy … turn the visible food into invisible energy.”

4. More machines: the machines in us.

“Talking shows one another side of the truth… the relative side of perspective … when one talk contradicts another talk.”

5. What is not a machine? Looking for the not-machine. Some find the soul. I find the individual subject and sometimes the possible impossibility of universality.

“Laughing is a magical activity that reveals some hidden truths … the deepest inner capacities to enjoy life are never as crystal clear as when someone’s laughing from the heart.”

6. The simplicity of wisdom and the love of life. Is this really looking for another not-machine? I think this is much more than a not-machine.

“But everyone goes through everyday life, goes through all these experiences, but hardly ever re-looks into what they call the TRUTH.”

7. The truth is so strong to come back from being forgotten. It’s like a phoenix that comes back to life younger only after going through a holy fire. Or it’s like “what they call the TRUTH” as in they never look into their own notion of truth. 

“I wonder if there can really be anything except ONE TRUTH”

8. The question of God, the unity in all truth, the unity of all truth, the unity supervening upon all things. Nice use of capitals. I wonder too.

“and we all are simple observers of little pieces of it which we stumble across on our way.”

9. Our participation as observers and higher-knowledge. I love how “stumble across” is used here. Great choice of word. Higher knowledge as accidental! It can’t be planned, this I am sure of and I totally agree to.

“I wonder if the only way to collect the dispersed pieces of truth is in fact for all humans to speak out their own pieces so the picture could be complete!……”

10. The communion of knowledge:

The communication of these truths is impossible or at the least very hard. Otherwise all-knowledge would be simple, but complex is more than simple. If it is less, if it is only simple then picture wouldn’t be needing any completion anyway.

Is the quest for completion a correct path? What is it a path to? Is this the person finding the stumbling across troublesome? Is this greed for and in “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”? Is this confusion, a mixing of ideas from different realms/contexts (the mathematical and the actual)? (I will have a post about my idea of what a realm is soon). What does Completeness mean?

I shall leave this last question for a future post. I have to say that Mary’s direction towards the end was a little too platonic for my taste.

Wow! The number comes out to be exactly ten! Is this a sign? :) 

Am I reading too much into this?

A distant friend reminded me of this re-encounter with Nietzsche  a month and half ago:

A glimpse of light has sparkled across my mind in regards to the world’s sad state of affairs after re-reading the Four Great Errors in Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols (full text).  He reminded me that I must be what I am, I must leave the upper reaches of reason to live with myself. I must forget cause and effect, forget the spirit, forget the inner “me” and simply be me. There is no “essence” to things, only essence to me. There is no final theory of basics which “explain” things, definitely not capture them. Back to the problem of Initial Conditions… Will it have a solution? Can the question ever be real?

He even took the concept of being from the concept of the ego; he interpreted “things” as “being” in accordance with his concept of the ego as a cause.

Nietzsche, here as in my imagination, speaks in red. What’s more: a clear conscience is already there. I don’t have to do anything to win it.

All that is good is instinctive — and hence easy, necessary, uninhibited. Effort is a failing: the god is typically different from the hero. (In my language: light feet are the first attribute of divinity.)

I have thought that people aren’t free doing what they do and this is why I forgave them, tolerated it. I regarded them as prisoners who can’t just go outside their courses of action but prisoners who having been imprisoned all their lives don’t even know what lies behind the walls of themselves let alone imagine the strangeness outside.

 What alone can be our doctrine? That no one gives a man his qualities — neither God, nor society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor he himself. (The nonsense of the last idea was taught as “intelligible freedom” by Kant — and perhaps by Plato.) No one is responsible for a man’s being here at all, for his being such-and-such, or for his being in these circumstances or in this environment. The fatality of his existence is not to be disentangled from the fatality of all that has been and will be. Human beings are not the effect of some special purpose, or will, or end; nor are they a medium through which society can realize an “ideal of humanity” or an “ideal of happiness” or an “ideal of morality.” It is absurd to wish to devolve one’s essence on some end or other. We have invented the concept of “end”: in reality there is no end.

It is true that I have always looked for an end. I have hurt myself greatly in doing so. Why have an ideal society? To abolish pain is my answer. But is this goal worth going after with a requirement of sacrificing the honesty of the quest for truth?

Is it worth going after at all if indeed in reality there is no end? Am I simply and unknowingly trying to create a very stable system, am I thinking about bettering the system, a system which has no reason to exist in the first place? Why do I care about it? Perhaps it is because it’s all I know, perhaps because I am part of it. I seek an ideal, that’s true. Why not settle for what’s available or even possible?  

Nietzsche already asked me to stop trying to answer: no one gives me my qualities, not even me. An “end” is also Physics’s goal  – the problem of Initial Conditions. Maybe the solution to it is that we must abolish the problem itself: there is no beginning nor end. Furthermore, perhaps there is no basic formulas and basic constituents of matter too, only everything at once and nothing at all at once too.

I was reminded that this was too much aimed towards too little. A change of direction is what it signaled.

I will write here again.

I’ve been writing for the Daily News Egypt for the past few months and have been ignoring this space.

But I am once more ready to share new ideas and new writing experiments.

 

Since I will be trying to write sciencey stuff, here is an article to get me back in gear for writing. Your comments are very much appreciated!

Every successful science relies on a handful of basic assumptions. The fewer and the simpler, the better. If you ask most scientists, one assumption is always better than two. Since its beginnings as an observational science near the middle of the past century, modern Cosmology has contributed great strides to human knowledge. Cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is one science that scientists are in love with. It boasts only one basic assumption.

“Let’s assume that the Universe is homogenous and isotropic on the large scales. In other words, no position is special,” an Astronomy professor would tell her students in Cosmology 101. This is the so-called Cosmological Principle. Cosmologists have a not so romantic definition of the word “special”. They use it in regards to the average amount of matter, temperature, and other physical quantities.  With the help of increasingly powerful telescopes, this principle has been verified over and over again for the past seventy years or so.

Recently, this assumption has been facing increasingly difficult challenges. If these challenges stand the test of further analyses, then our Universe might be closer to an Orwellian animal farm than some people think, a Universe where all positions are (apparently) equal yet some are more equal than others.

First, what does it mean that the Universe is homogenous and isotropic? Homogenous means that it is the same everywhere. Isotropic means that it looks the same in all directions. If you try to test this statement by taking a look around you here on planet Earth, we will (hopefully) very quickly discover its speculator failure! Yet it turns out to be true on the large scales, by large I mean distances between clusters of galaxies large.  

As you can see, the Cosmological Principle is by no means obvious. Actually, I can’t think of a less obvious scientific principle. Every time it was believed (sometimes religiously so) that one place in the Universe is more unique than others, observations force the opposite point of view. To disprove that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, it took great thinkers in the likes of Aristarchus, Al Biruni, Nicolaus Copernicus, and finally Isaac Newton himself. With the onset of modern Cosmology and as more stars and galaxies were regularly observed, it was much easier to disprove that neither the Sun nor the center of our Milky Way galaxy, however interesting, is a unique cosmic position. In some regions of our world, however, the force of these observations are yet to be successful.

All you need in order to check the Cosmological Principle is a map of the Universe at extragalactic scales. The disagreements to it emerge from the clearest map scientists have today for the early Universe. Since its launch in 2001, NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has been collecting data to perfect this cosmic map. 

It is a map of electromagnetic waves (like light) that left the Universe when it was at the infant age of 380,000 years young after the Big Bang. At this time, the Universe is one big hot body, a “blackbody” glowing the brightest in the microwave frequency range, so this map imaginatively goes by the cosmic microwave background (CMB) map! 

 

The cosmic microwave temperature fluctuations from the 5-year WMAP data seen over the full sky. Red regions are warmer and blue regions are colder by about 0.0002 degrees Kelvin or Celsius.

 

 

Using the WMAP data, scientists create a temperature map of the night sky confirming the homogeneity of the Universe to one part in 100,000. The small amounts of deviation from the cosmic average of 3 Kelvin (270 degrees below zero in Celsius) are the seeds of the rich cosmic structure we see around us today. Another 13 billion years later and with gravity pulling everything together, these tiny inhomogeneities evolve to give us planets, stars, nebulae, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and superclusters of galaxies. To give you a feeling of how grand this large scale structure is, it is enough to mention that an average galaxy contains a few billion stars (as our own Sun) while an average galaxy cluster contains a few thousand galaxies. In our observable Universe, each galaxy cluster enjoys the often quite distant company of about another one billion clusters.        

Is the Universe also isotropic as well as homogenous? Does it look the same in all directions or is it hotter one way than the other? The temperatures calculated along each direction in the sky should also match which they do. Almost. Understanding these inhomogeneities and anisotropies is one task of current Cosmology.   

Work on answering this puzzle earned John Mather and George Smoot the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics “for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background.” The CMB data, being one indisputable evidence for the Big Bang, is a huge scientific hit. 

Four anomalies have been observed in the CMB. First, there is one plane on the sky where the temperature fluctuations are unusually concentrated. The axis perpendicular to this plane has been cleverly dubbed “the axis of evil.” Then, in the southern hemisphere, there is a suspiciously large colder than average area. These two anomalies have been known for quite a well, and explaining them away as mere observational effects due to the probe’s position in our Galaxy has not been very successful. 

The more recent third and fourth anomalies are even stranger. Adrienne Erickcek, Marc Kamionkowski, and Sean Carroll at the California Institute of Technology discovered a hemispherical power asymmetry in the CMB. In other words, they found that the “total size of the fluctuations on one half of the sky seems to be slightly larger than on the other half.” This effect, they hypothesize, is an imprint from an asymmetric inflationary era, when shortly after the Big Bang our Universe went through a short period of very rapid expansion called inflation. The reason some parts of the Universe would go through more inflation than others is a best a matter of  speculation. One imaginative, though not impossible, speculation is that this asymmetry is a signature of events before the Big Bang, an era where current physics breaks down and new physics is awaiting discovery.  

If this doesn’t seem outrageously unexpected enough, a new paper by Nicolaas Groeneboom and Hans Kristian Eriksen both at the University of Oslo suggests that our Universe might be “elongated” meaning that there are bigger temperature fluctuations along one axis than on the plane perpendicular to the axis. The signal found is 3.8 times as what would be expected from normal correlated noise, a borderline confidence indicator. The authors describe this result as “highly intriguing” but call for more understanding of the noise in the data before it can be given a cosmological interruption.

So what are cosmologists making out of all of this? The new insights studying these cosmic anomalies bring will definitely be interesting. Our Universe is full of surprises and when a scientific principle falls, new science emerges forcing us to stretch our imagination. The best way to describe a scientist’s reaction to these finds is to borrow the words of Sean Carroll from his popular blog Cosmic Variance. “We don’t know yet. That’s what makes it fun.”


 

                        

I was compelled to pick up Leibniz’s Monadology after a comment from John Barrow in Smolin Lee’s “The Life of the Cosmos” that anyone who is interested in Cosmology should read him. I have found Cosmology interesting for two reasons: physically it tells us some very interesting things about the nature of the Universe, and philosophically  it is unlike any other scientific (or non-scientific) theory because science (or any other mode of thought) makes theories as a way to describe a class of phenomena, objects, or ideas and therefore one can’t have a theory about only one phenomenon, object, or idea. This is exactly what Cosmology is: a theory of the history of one thing, the Universe which is by its very definition is all that is, was, and will be. Such a theory must be different from all other theories, in its very construction. Perhaps the one other form of study to come close to Cosmology is monotheistic Theology, as its subject is the one God; the main difference being one usually can’t do experiments on God.

One question that a Cosmology must answer is that of initial conditions: What is the origin of the structure (or properties) of the basic elements in the Universe, if they have any properties? In its modern form, this reduces to asking why do elementary particles (electrons, photons, and so on) have the masses, charges, and initial distributions in phase space (positions and momenta) that they have? The current standard theory of Cosmology has no answer. If we can envision a more advanced more unified physics based on one elementary particle, we still have the same problem, unless this one elementary particle will have no properties at all! I am not sure if this theory would still be physics and not metaphysics. Leibniz has avoided this initial conditions problem altogether in his Metaphysics by simply making the basic elements non-physical eternal entities completely devoid of structure which he called monads. I must say that Leibniz arrived that the concept not to avoid this problem of initial conditions but rather metaphysically, as he considered “unity” and “simplicity” to be one and the same and both to be the condition for being. So he concluded that the basic units of the Universe should be simple, i.e. structureless, substances, otherwise they wouldn’t be units at all. He also concluded that they are the only elements of the Universe since they are the only ones satisfying the condition for being. I will have more to say about these two basic metaphysical truths that Leibniz arrived at. but let me first tell what follows from them.

My first reading of Leibniz’s Monadology was surprising. It seemed that some of the first 18 sections were describing the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics: a concept which physics has arrived at to describe nature at the sub-atomic level, and its use has been extended to describe almost all phenomena at all distance and energy scales with exception of gravity especially in its maximum strength near very compact objects like black holes. Here are some of the properties of monads that Leibniz writes down which fits QM wavefunctions. From section 2:  “no extension, or figure, or divisibility is possible.” From section 8: “However, monads must have qualities, otherwise they would not even be beings.” From sections 11, 12 ,13: “the natural changes of the monads proceed from an internal principle” and “there must also be an internal complexity of that which changes” and “this internal complexity must enfold a multiplicity in unity or in the simple.” Section 15: “The action of the internal principle which brings about the change or the passage from one perception to another may be appetition. It is true that appetite cannot always attain altogether the whole perception to which it tends, but it always obtains some part of it, and so attains new perceptions. From section 17: “perceptions and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions.” People didn’t like the properties of wavefunctions at their first conception; this is referred to as “the weirdness of the quantum world.” It would be too much to say that Leibniz had the faintest idea of quantum mechanics, but it wouldn’t be too much to say that Leibniz knew for sure that the concept of particles at his day was not to last long, and that he did look for an alternative. 

After a very condense introduction to the monads and their properties scarcely sampled above, Leibniz goes on to state his basic two laws on which the Universe is to be built out of these monads. First, the Principal of Non-Contradiction, which basically says that a truth is possible if (but not only if) it is non-contradictory to other truths. Second is the Principal of Sufficient Reason, which in short makes the further demand that a truth is “chosen” to be actual only if there is sufficient reason to choose over all the other possible truths. Combined with Leibniz’s belief in an all-good, all-powerful God, this results in the ultra optimistic conclusion that the Universe we live in is the best of all possible Universes. I think this is the most holy marriage of Christian Theology to postmodern hippie metaphysics in a time way before their legal marrying age, but it really depends on who you think is legitimate enough to bless this wedding.        

My second reading of the Monadology was better. I saw that Leibniz’s monads were not just the basic elements of physical reality but of the whole of reality. I was blinded by physics to not see his metaphysics. Getting back to his ideas of being, especially that of simplicity and unity being identically one and that they both predicate Being. Is it true that a Cosmology must say something about Ontology? Something substantial? I will post more soon.    

 

 

100_3169.jpg

It is a bit heavy and it is called “Leel” (not 100 % sure of the name).

(Again, it is Arabic, so I apologize for most of the mono-lingual English speaking readers)

100_3165.jpg

Outrageous: The news story of the Saudi court sentencing a woman to 200 lashes for “illegal mingling.” If you are a Saudi woman, unlucky you. You can’t mingle with men unrelated to you. Oh, I forget to mention that they stood by their verdict even after they found out she was gangbanged by those men she was mingling with.

Something I respected about the first BBC coverage is their total refrain from any judgment on the Saudi law or the judges. But by the time I was reading their second story, I liked Clinton’s outrage at Bush’s neutrality towards this sentence, but I was appalled by the non-judgement the US system seems to provide, and provide generously, to the Saudi freedom to implement this kind of laws. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for freedom, but a country can have such horrible laws only if they are not free. Should the US stand back and not bring out their axis of evil winning card against such laws? This can only remind me of the many many major injustices the justice system in Saudi uses against its foreigners.

Is this the same situation where you have American feminists fighting their lives off to assure the legality of gay-marriage in the US, while turning their backs on grave and everyday injustices done to women worldwide? (To be  fair, some  of them glance back on other women  every once in a while)

Women can’t drive in Saudia Arabia. No strings attached. Period.