What is science?

There are tons of articles out there that address this question. I realize that anything I write, with the awkward style that I can't seem to improve on, would add little value to the wealth of resources on the internet. Yet, I really want to write about this. I realized that this blog of mine is more a journal than it is a blog- about 1% of all the views it has come from myself, and I find it quite interesting, or amusing, or even embarrassing, to read things I wrote a few years ago. It's like looking at a stupider version of myself. It makes me feel good that I didn't stay that stupid later on.

Anyways, that little "Note to self" aside,
What is science?

Different people refer to different things when they say "science". Even I refer to different things at different times, and sometimes different things AT THE SAME TIME.

Sometimes, the word "science" refers to the body of scientific literature. All of the conjectures, hypotheses, and theories that are currently accepted to be sensible. Sometimes it also includes hypotheses that we, today, say are invalid. The geocentric theory, for instance, is sometimes considered part of science- but we all know today that celestial bodies do not revolve around the earth.

And at other times, the word "science" refers to the scientific method. One phrase I love using is, "Let's do some science". It carries that feeling of adventure, of invention, and of altruism, the excitement that goes with doing something that no one has done before, knowing something unknown to the rest of humanity.

When one says, "We are doing science", they are referring to the scientific method, not the body of literature.

But then again, not everything that follows the scientific method is called science. Learning to hit a target with a projectile isn't called a science, although the mind does do a bit of experimentation, a bit of modeling, and in the end produces skill in being able to predict and control projectile motion. No, "science" requires more rigor. More data. MORE MATH.

And this is what makes me embrace this definition for science:
Science is the practice of mapping the physical world to the mathematical world.

I don't remember who said that, but this definition for science is the one I've been using for quite some time now. The scientific method helps identify the right mapping, and the scientific literature is the collection of maps.

With my definition for science, three things become clear:
1) If a "hypothesis" does not involve mathematics, it cannot be science.

2) It pisses me off when someone says "I came up with this super cool theory, and it doesn't even need math."  I'm sorry, but if there's no math in there, it's not worth squat.

3) Mathematics has a special, some might call it mystical, connection to the physical world.

(Note: There are the so-called "soft sciences" that don't involve much precise math. Medicine, for instance. I don't think that these sciences don't involve math. Rather, the complex dynamics of these systems make the math so hard that we are simply not competent enough to deal with it.)

The first consequence makes sense. After all, one of the biggest motivations for doing science is the ability to make predictions. And except for the most mundane things, predictions involve math.

The second, well that's a given. We wouldn't need to spend billions of dollars on funding mathematicians, and building super computers, if all it took to understand the universe was for little Johnny to scribble some ignorant non-sense on a piece of paper.

The third one, that's quite philosophical. I guess it's obligatory to cite this article here: The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences
Why math? What's special about it? And, this is where it gets interesting, WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?

People have different definitions for math too. And, again, the one I embrace is:
The art of (finding) (non-trivial) tautologies.

That's all I can think of when I try to understand what math is. You start with a bunch of axioms, and you use logic to arrive at non-trivial conclusions. Well well well.. And what exactly is logic? (shit just got real)

Let's see. Logic is a consequence of language, it's the practice of mapping "statements with the same meaning" to one another. Again, that's how I choose to understand logic.


So, this is what I understand of what we're doing:
We have two, apparently separate, worlds.
1) The natural world that just does its thing without caring for our desire to understand it.
And
2) The mathematical world, which is a huge collection of statements that all, after loads of manipulation, mean the same things as a small set of statements put together (the axioms).

Some of the greatest geniuses of our species devote decades to find more statements that mean the same thing as others we are interested.

And some of the other geniuses devote decades to map things in the natural world to something in the mathematical world- either to the axioms directly, or something derived from the axioms.

As long as the axioms are sensibly chosen, and the mapping from the natural to the mathematical world is well-made, we can make all sorts of predictions- thanks to all those mathematicians who have already worked thousands and thousands of things that follow.

And this leads to the question that's really been bugging me- can we come up with a better math?

After all, all  we need is a set of consistent axioms, and a mapping from the physical to this new mathematical world. Is our math the ONLY possible math? Is there a better math "out there" that can do a better job at explaining nature? Would artificial intelligence be able to come up with different maths than we did?

If there are different sorts of math that can explain nature, which one do we hold? The best one? The worst one? A mediocre one? Supposing there's an intelligent alien life a few thousand light years away, could they have identified a better math?

Bonus reading: The reasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics

Should we celebrate wealth?

Just about a week ago, my family moved from a flat we owned to a house we're renting. My mum had taken a loan to buy the house, and after 4 years of payments, the principal amount of the loan has barely decreased. I told my mum, "We're not using that flat anymore, and we have no plans of moving back into it anytime soon. So why don't you just sell it off and repay the loan, and keep the rest of the cash as your retirement fund."

I thought I made a sensible suggestion. It seemed to make little sense to be paying interest on a loan taken for something we didn't use. Yet, after hours of trying to convince my mum, she didn't want to sell that flat. Her reason was this- Owning property is 1) an investment, and 2) a status symbol.

The investment part of it didn't make much sense, since she would have to pay the interest on a loan, and the price of the flat may not keep up with inflation in consumed goods. I could easily convince my mum that keeping that flat wasn't a good way to invest her cash.

But it was the second reason that was more important to my mum. My parents had very humble beginnings, having to work full-time throughout the year with no properties to their names. After 20 years of hard work, steadily rising amongst the ranks from a typist's position to that of a manager in a company, my mum finally saved enough cash to buy a house, and then another. Having gone from not owning any property to owning a house outside the city, and a flat close to the city, apparently her status in her social circles rose. And selling that flat would chip away at that status.

This, I can't wrap my head around. There's absolutely no reason for people to be owning multiple houses. And yet, when we know of someone who owns several houses, people tend to think of them as being a successful person. They might have taken out loans, or been involved in some corrupt business, or cheated someone into selling property. All of that, for nothing- people can't use multiple houses.

This is especially bad when it happens in cities. Cities have limited space, and there are lots of people moving into cities for work. People need a place to stay. But thanks to property owners, people have to either pay lots of rent for space, or pay tons of cash to buy a place.

Think about it- a flat close to a city (I'm using Hyderabad for reference) would cost about INR 20 lakh. Even skilled workers probably make only INR 3-4 lakh per year. That means it takes 6 whole years of salary for someone to be able to buy a flat. For semi-skilled or unskilled workers, it would take a decade or two- that is, if they saved all of their income without spending any of it.

After all, a flat is just a little bit of empty space (construction doesn't cost much). It shouldn't cost years and years of hardwork for someone to own a little bit of empty space close to a city. Think of it in terms of resources- picture the amount of resources (say, rice and vegetables) that can be bought with an years worth of rent or a part of a flat's cost. The farmers and factory workers have had to exchange all those resources for that lump of empty space.

The best thing, for society, would be if people only owned one house/flat for themselves. Anyone who finds work in a city should be able to rent or buy a house/flat for a tiny cost. Owning multiple houses is bad for society- because- supply and demand. When people own more property than they need, they're simply hoarding valuable city space. That's bad. We should be deriding people for doing that. But we don't. For some reason that I cannot understand, we have decided to praise and respect people who hoard property. This has to stop.

So, the next time someone comes to you and says they bought a new house they don't need, think about what you should say to them:
"Well done. I respect you for your success."
or
"What's wrong with you? Why do you want to spend all that cash on something you don't need, something that someone else could really use? I'm appalled at your lack of consideration for others."

Because society isn't something separate from us. We build and shape society, through our thoughts, words, and deeds.

Missed connection, and Turkish treats...

I was on only my second ınternatıonal flıght yesterday, flyıng wıth Turkısh Aırlınes, from London to Istanbul to Mumbaı. The fırst one got delayed, and here I am, usıng a Turkısh keyboard to type thıs post, tryıng to get used to the bunch of addıtıonal alphabet and the Turkısh key posıtıonıng... They have thıs letter: ı, whıch ıs located where i ıs supposed to be, and I decıded ıt´s too much of a paın to try to go for the i.

Anyways, I´m quıte jobless at the hotel, so here´s an account of how I ended up here...

So I booked a tıcket wıth Turkısh Aırlınes- London to Istanbul to Mumbaı. I was supposed to land ın Istanbul yesterday at 6 35 PM, and then take another flıght at 7 35 PM to Mumbaı. I was quıte aware that just an hour for the connectıon ıs pushıng ıt a bıt too much, but the aırlınes gave me that tıcket and they run both flıghts, so I fıgured they´d hold the second flıght ıf the fırst got delayed (but apparently not).

I was ın the fırst flıght, at Gatwıck aırport, London. Everythıng was goıng nıce and smooth, ıt was all on tıme. Plane´s loaded, pılots goıng through all the checks. When I thought they´d turn on the engınes and start to taxı, the cabın crew announced that they´d have to waıt to check all our luggages- because someone apparently lost somethıng. And just lıke that, ıt went from everythıng beıng on schedule to a 40-mınute delay at take-off, because someone couldn´t manage handlıng a couple of bags. As one can ımagıne, I was quıte pıssed off. Holdıng a plane for 40 mınutes for a bag of stuff- that´s completely unreasonable. And ıt wasn´t lıke ıt was the aırlıne´s fault eıther, just some schmuck who dıdn´t gıve a shıt about other people´s tıme.

The flıght eventually took-off. Beıng run by Turkısh Aırlınes, all announcements were repeated ın Englısh and Turkısh. I can´t understand Turkısh, so I don´t know what they saıd, but ıt seemed lıke the crew dıdn´t even bother to make an effort for the Englısh announcements- except for a few keywords, I never understood what they saıd and had to guess what they were sayıng based on the sıtuatıon.

Other than that, ıt was all pretty smooth- they served a regular Turkısh meal- whıch felt a bıt weırd sınce ıt was totally dry wıth no sauces at all. It was boıled rıce wıth grılled chıcken, somethıng that tasted lıke a mınced steak fıllet, grılled peppers, grılled brınjals, and cheese. As I saıd, no sauce at all. But ıt was stıll a good meal. And the programmıng ın those tıny screens on the back of the seats also ın Turkısh and Englısh, but the optıons for Englısh were quıte lımıted and I had to watch one of the few Englısh movıes.

The flıght landed ın Istanbul, 30 mınutes late. That meant I stıll had 15 mınutes before the boardıng closed on the flıght to Mumbaı. And thıs tıme ıt was a woman who decıded she´d take her own sweet tıme to play wıth her kıds ınstead of gettıng on the shuttles that took the passengers to the termınal. I understand ıt´s not easy handlıng kıds, but the lady dıdn´t even ask for the crew´s help. A bus fılled wıth passengers watched her and her kıds (there were 2 of them) take 4 mınutes (yes, someone dıd check the tıme) to clımb down the staırs, after already havıng waıted about 10 mınutes for them to get to the exıt. There were about of couple dozen others who had to make the same connectıon as mıne, and all of them were pıssed.

The shuttle dropped us off at the termınal and we all rushed to the gate (gate ınfo was provıded on the prevıous flıght). The ınfo boards ın the termınal already showed that the gates were closed for our flıght, but I hoped they would let us on sınce the connectıng flıght was delayed, or at the very least, to talk to the staff about what flıght they would put us on. But when we dıd get to the gate, the staff had already left. And then the weırdest thıng happened. Everyone was just sıttıng at the gate- as ıf someone would magıcally turn up ıf they waıted long enough. And no one dıd. Gıven that there were a couple dozen people wıth the same story, I wasn´t sure ıf ıt would be best for me to go talk to the aırlınes by myself. But after waıtıng for about 5 mınutes, I left to fınd the aırlınes´help desk. I wasn´t very effıcıent wıth the search and took quıte a long tıme to fınd the rıght desk. And when I dıd, I was ıssued a boardıng pass for a flıght for the next day rıght away, no questıons asked.

The questıon came from me though- I had a day to spare and I needed the place to say. Agaın, the aırlıne saıd they would accommodate ın theır hotel. The problem was that theır hotel was outsıde the aırport and I dıd not have a vısa. They asked us to get a tourıst vısa (valıd for a month), whıch cost USD 43, and told us they´d refund us for the vısa after arrıval at Mumbaı.

And then started my journey across the entıre termınal- I´m not kıddıng, I dıd go through the entıre termınal. For the vısa, we had to pay ın cash, but only ın USD or Euros (or Turkısh Lıra), and I only had UK pound sterlıng. I kept askıng people for dırectıons to an exchange counter, but I kept gettıng lost and ended up goıng to all of the gates, everywhere except the lounge. I fınally decıded to just use an ATM machıne next to the vısa offıce, whıch I avoıded because the exchange rates are bad and commıssıons are hıgh. And then I had to run back and forth between passport control and vısa counters, and fınally got my Turkısh vısa after about an hour and a half of runnıng around.

After I got the vısa, I realızed I forgot to ask where I needed to go to get to the aırlıne´s hotel. And agaın, I vısıted several desks of the aırlıne before I ended up at the rıght one. In the process, I met a bunch of Pakıstanı guys who thought I was from Pakıstan too- these guys were ıllegal ımmıgrants and they dıd not know much about aırport procedures. They were beıng deported, wıth tıckets arranged by theır embassy. After a brıef chat about Indıa and Pakıstan and how people ın Pakıstan thınk of Indıans as theır brothers and all that, I told them I had to fınd the help desk ASAP and took my leave. When I dıd fınd the rıght desk, the aırlıne´s staff took a look at my boardıng pass and arranged a shuttle to take me to a hotel ın about 15 mınutes, and I ended up at thıs hotel called ``Radısson Blu´´. The hotel looks pretty good, although there are a few thıngs they could ımprove upon. And the aırlınes- although I would have apprecıated ıf they had sent a representatıve to meet us rıght after we came to the termınal- ınstead of us havıng to fınd theır desk, they have done quıte well. When they heard the connectıng flıght was delayed, they ıssued us boardıng passes for the next flıght and they arranged for a hotel rıght away. Some of theır staff had trouble communıcatıng ın Englısh, but they were stıll quıte polıte. And now I waıt for theır shuttle to come pıck me up from the hotel.

And about the Turkısh treats I mentıon ın the tıtle- that has to do wıth the breakfast they serve at the hotel- lots of kınds of cheese, olıves, pastrıes, fruıts, and nuts- probably the best breakfast I´ve ever had.

The duty of the privileged

I have been on Quora regularly for about an year now. And I got into some interesting discussions, one of which has motivated the current post.

First, I must say that I'm not religious. I do not believe in any deities, and I do not believe that people have been created and assigned a specific role that they need to serve. I also do not believe that humans are "special" compared to other life forms. We are born with improved mental faculties, and physical abilities compared to some, and that's it.

So, the world's not fair. A hen that's hatched in a cage, with no option but to get killed by these huge monstrous species called humans, definitely has circumstances much worse than a lot of people. The hen didn't choose to be born like that, that's just how it is. The world is not fair.

And even among humans, a prince in a monarchy has a life that is much better than that of a unwanted child in a backward country. Or even in the same neighbourhood, a kid with caring parents has it much better than one with ill-tempered ones. I don't even have to talk about how hard life is for women. The world is not fair.

But people did not think like this in earlier times. Small groups of people came up with schemes to control larger groups of people. A king living in a castle, surrounded by knights in armour, told the people that it was God's will that the king rule the people. And opposers were executed by the king's soldiers.

The priest living in a mansion, funded by the kind and guarded by his soldiers, told the people that what the king said was true. There indeed was an invisible man in the sky who was all-powerful, who knew every little thing that everyone did. And he was going to torture them in hell, unless they followed all the rules that the priest had set. And it was God's will that some people were born into unfortunate circumstances, because they had sinned in a previous life, or their ancestors had sinned, or it was all a test and the best performers would be rewarded. And disbelievers were stoned and burnt by the believers.

And there were nobles, favored by the king, who got away with whatever they did. And feudal lords, favored by the nobles, who owned lands where workers slaved. And they got away with whatever they did. Then there were merchants, who owned trades and manipulated markets. And law enforcers, who cared only for their own gain.

So these small groups of people controlled much larger ones, with cunning schemes of tempting rewards and horrible pains. And what did the large groups do? Well, they believed in all that shit. That there was an invisible man in the sky. That he communicated exclusively with a bunch of priests. That some wimpy kid was chosen by the invisible man in the sky. That lands belonged to someone for no apparent reason. That there are rules that must be followed, which are arbitrarily set and always seem to favor the merchants. That some people are born to rule, and some are born to slave. That women had no role but to serve her man. That the stars hold their future and cats can cause their death.

These large groups of people who gave in to those unfair schemes, a lot of people call them victims, but I disagree. A grown man or woman has no excuse for being ignorant, for blindly believing in whatever someone else says. Each person is responsible for their own decisions.

But what of the generations that follow, the kin of this man and woman who submitted to others of their own will? Who agreed that they would slave their life away for promise of imaginary protection from the wrath of imaginary beings? What can a kid born into a backward family in a messed up society do?

The world is unfair.

Gullibility, ignorance, desire, and insecurities of people who lived decades and centuries ago have screwed up the lives of those that live today. A kid is born in the powerful nation with every resource he/she can want. A kid is born in a place where water cannot be found. There are some who are highly privileged, and others with none.

Do the privileged owe something to the under-privileged? Should they give it out to them? Or should the under-privileged fight for it themselves? And what about animals? Should we recognize that they were unfortunate to be born the way the are, and extend them the same care that we may owe to the less-privileged of humans?

Is there a duty that the privileged must dispense? Or should we all simply accept that the world is not fair and let the less-privileged fight their own battles?

Suppose God does not exist- Part 2

Please read part 1 of the article before you read this one.

In part 1, I talk about a world without God or Morals. A world where a lot of people are irrational. This world is influenced by a few smart people who realize that people must work in teams, and these teams must have some rules. To give weight to the rules, we say they are given by an all-knowing, all-powerful, invisible man in the sky.
Now, suppose this world IS OUR WORLD.

...
...
...
...
Think about what that means. The implications. There is no God. There are no morals. There are just a few rational people surrounded by a sea of irrational people.

......
......
.....
......
......
......

 





.....
.....
Do you feel like you have lost something? What do you lose when you assume that there is no God and there are no morals?


You lose everything you have learnt from religions and morals. Or do you? When you understand morals as rules that we need so that our society can work properly, and religion as a way to make people strongly believe in these morals, what else do you lose?

You lose answers to the big questions, such as
1) Who am I?
2) What is the reason for my existence?
3) What is right, and what is wrong?
4) How does the universe work? How and when did it start, and when will it end?
5) What happens to me after I die?
6? What is the most important thing in my life?

The answers to these big questions are lost when you discard religion. But is that really a bad thing?

If you do not have these answers, you can set out to find our own answers- try to comprehend your own existence, understand your purpose in life. Isn't that more exciting than listening to some stories?

I have asked these questions, and I have arrived at answers to some of them. The answers I have are not complete, and they are not the same as the ones I had 5 years ago. The interesting thing that I have figured out is, I had to define some of those answers.

If you can figure out some of those answers, ask yourself if what you are doing is in line with that answer. If the answer to "Who am I?" is, " I'm a super-hero who can fly", then what are you doing sitting in front of a computer for most of the day (or whatever else you may be doing)? Shouldn't you be trying to fly? (Please don't jump off a building and hope to fly, the super-hero thing was just an example)

What is holding you back from doing what you want to?




Or, you can always be happy with the answers given by your religion or your community. But what fun is it to be content with answers given millennia ago by someone you never knew?

Suppose God does not exist- Part 1

Suppose God does not exist, just for the sake of argument. To be more accurate, suppose that all the major religions are just playing a guessing game, and everything they say about 'God' is just a fairy tale and none of it is true.
Taking a step further, suppose that there are no morals either. Suppose that there is nothing inherently wrong in killing another person.
Going into more improbable territory, suppose that human beings are not completely stupid. That is to say, assume that some people are capable of being smart, some of the time. Suppose that some people can be rational.

It must be quite clear that I say that a lot of people are irrational. I do not mean it as disrespect to anyone, but look around and you know that people are not rational. I subscribe to evolution, and I think human beings have not evolved enough for the entire population to be as rational as we usually think we are.

Imagine the world that we have just supposed: There is no God, there are no morals, and some people are smart. Would this world be different from the one we currently live in? How different would it be?


Think about a game of football. Suppose you're playing the game. Your aim is to score as many goals as you can, and also make sure the other team does not score any goals. Suppose you hate all your teammates and you don't want to work with them, and it's the same story with the rest of the people on the team. You don't pass the ball to your teammates, and you tackle them whenever you get the chance. Now, suppose the other team is not like yours, and they are all good friends and they co-ordinate well amongst each other.
Assuming that all the players in both the teams are at the same skill level, the other team will easily win the game.

What can you take away from that game of football? When you share a common goal with others, you improve your chance of achieving it if you co-operate with the others. This is what happens with any regular football team- all of them want to win the match, and they help each other. But they don't all run after the ball. One guy has to be the goal-keeper, some of them have to be defenders. Even the attackers don't always get a shot to score, they usually pass to the striker. While each player would want the glory of scoring, they sacrifice that desire, because they realize that they will definitely lose if all 11 players just run after the ball. They all stick to their roles and take pride in the team's victory, rather than think about how many goals each of them scored.

In the world without God and morals, there are still some smart people who can realize that if they want to survive, it is better to team up with the others. If you are stranded with 10 other people on a deserted island, you can fight with the rest of them till there's only one person left alive. But after this happens, how long will that single person be able to survive?
If the group of stranded people had a few smart ones, they could persuade the others to work together- to help each other to survive, just like in the game of football. Except that it is not about winning, it's about surviving. It's not against another team, but against nature, or may be a tribe that lives on the island that doesn't like outsiders.

You can see this kind of living anywhere you look. Team sports- everyone in the team takes up a role so that the team wins. War- each soldier protects the others, sticks to his orders, and carries his mission out. Lions - they hunt together, defend each other, and protect their territory. Bees- some go looking for nectar, one lays eggs, some look after the infants, and if there is a disturbance, all of them attack the invader. Ants- same as bees.

Working together means that the members of the team must support each other. Over time, they grow to have faith in each other. A lion knows that the other members in the pride will support it when it attacks a bigger animal, like a buffalo. A soldier knows that if he tries to advance to the enemy lines, others will cover him. The striker in a football game knows that the other attackers will pass the ball to him when he is in good position to score.

But the whole team thing comes with a price. Some rules need to be set up, roles need to be assigned. In a football game, the players are assigned roles (based on their skills, unless the captain or the manager is corrupt). Each of them may want to score as many goals as he can, but he does not do that, because then the team breaks down.

The rules in the football game are quite straight-forward. Goal-keeper saves, defenders and attackers pass, striker scores. But with the people stranded on the island, it is not so simple. They need a more elaborate set of rules. First, they need to get food. Some of them may not be as good as the others in hunting. Should these people be left to starve, or should the others share their food with them? Suppose there are 3 women and 8 men, and each of the men wants to have one (or more) of the women to be their partner? How do they decide who gets who and who is left without a partner? Should the men fight to the death? Play a sophisticated version of rock-paper-scissors? Have a hunting contest? Or should the women be allowed to choose? Will the men without a partner respect that decision? Suppose they finally managed to gather enough material to build a canoe to escape the island, but it can only carry 8 out of the 11 people. Which 8 should be allowed to use it?

These and a lot of other difficult situations tend to arise when people team up. Each person has desires that cannot be met with the available resources. They could settle these things with a fight to the death. Or, they can all agree on a set of rules that they will all stick to. Let's call these rules, 'Morals'. People can always decide not to follow the rules, and even if a few of them stop following the rules, the team can easily break down. So, make up another rule- If someone does not follow the Morals, the rest of them beat the crap out of him.

Suppose that this group of 11, stranded on the island, managed to survive and reproduce. A 100 years later, when the original 11 have passed away, there's a larger population that doesn't really appreciate all the rules. What if someone is not happy with the rules? Or if he is too strong or fast for the others to beat him up? If he's secretly breaking the rules? Or, if he's not breaking any of the rules and someone else accuses him of breaking the rules? What if one of them is not scared of the others anymore and decides to do whatever he wants- starting with stealing their food and forcing the women? And just beating him doesn't work.

Here's an idea- Tell them that there is an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And the 'Morals' were actually rules that the invisible man had given to the people. And there is a special place called hell,  far away from the island and in the depths of the earth, for anyone who breaks the rules. And people who break the rules go to hell and will be tortured for eternity.

The people don't buy it? Make it more appealing. The invisible man is not all evil. If you stick to the rules, he takes you to another place where you can enjoy in any way you want to. And as a side note, tell them that the invisible man talks to you and everything you say is true. They still don't buy it? Make a deal with some of the others- tell them you will help them if they spread the rumor that there really is an invisible man who is all-knowing and all-powerful, and he talks to you. How do you help these guys who spread the rumors? Simple- tell the people that the invisible man told you that your supporters must be allowed to rule the rest of the people- The divine right to rule.

The story of the 11 people on the deserted island, this could very well be the story of the world without God and Morals, with a few smart people. And if you can imagine this world- where smart people realize that it is easier to work as a team, and that teams need rules, and that these rules can be made more appealing to the people if you say that they come from an all-knowing, all-powerful invisible man in the sky who will give them all kinds of pleasures if they stick to the rules, and all kinds of pain if they break the rules; how different will this world be from the world we live in today?

TV Series I've watched

This post doesn't go with the tone of the blog, but still.... I thought I'd make a list of all the TV series I've watched, and then rank them. This is my ranking of the 40+ TV series I have watched in the last 3 years.
If you plan to watch any of the anime on the list, watch the Japanese version with English subs. The English dubbed versions are not nearly as good as the subbed ones.

48. Californication
Tried watching about 6-7 episodes, didn't like it at all.



46. Breaking Bad
A chemistry teacher who starts cooking meth. Too slow. Too many annoying characters. People say it's the greatest show ever made, so I put up with it. But it sucks. After 4 seasons, I had to give up.


45. Kuroko no Basuke (Kuroko's Basketball) (Anime)
There are these freakishly good high school basketball players, and then there's this guy called Kuroko who prefers to play with a team with his own style. Wasn't too bad, but was slow and failed to take-off.



44. Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann (Anime)
Huge robots. Fighting. With special powers. There were some moments when it was a bit exciting, but on the whole, it's quite boring.


43. Boondocks
About a couple of black kids (and their racist uncle). The first few seasons were awesome, but got boring later.



42. Spiral: bonds of reasoning (Anime)
About a genius kid, whose elder brother was also freakishly smart. But the elder brother leaves the house for some reason and the younger one tries to figure out why. The first 5-10 episodes were good, but they just lost it after that.



41. Gantz (Anime)
When people die, they are recruited into a game. And these people have to complete missions. The plot was good and I felt it had great potential. But the anime was filled with stupidity and the ending really sucked. 


40. Naruto (Anime)
It's based in the Japanese ninja tradition, and the ninjas have these awesome techniques. And there's a kid who was very lonely once and doesn't want anyone else to go through the same. It was okay in the beginning, but got really annoying after a while. The lead character is annoying, and the mangaka seemed to not care about consistency at all.


39.5. The Simpsons
People say it's awesome. I didn't find it to be funny enough.



39. Fairy Tail (Anime)
It's about people who can do magic, who form guilds, and then fight for their guilds. Some people like this anime, but I just can't seem to get into it. Too repetitive, boring battles, too much sentimental stuff (which is also pretty repetitive).


38. Bleach (Anime)
So there's three worlds, the regular one we know, and a couple for souls. And there are people in both soul worlds that try to either mess things up or save the world. It was pretty decent, but battles stretched on for too long. Becomes a bit too repetitive after a while. The characters don't seem to have any depth.



37.  D. Grayman (Anime)
A world where souls are turned into machines by something like the devil, and there's a group of people trying to free these souls.. I thought the series had a lot of potential. I haven't read the manga, so I don't know if it was the mangaka who messed up or if it was the animators. The plot was pretty well thought-out, but the implementation couldn't keep up.



36. VEEP
A sitcom that wasn't funny at all. Although I'm all up for commedy, the show shows some of the top politicians (and their staff) of the US to be stupid, petty, and incompetent- which starts getting a bit annoying at times.

35.5  Sayonara zetsubou sensei  (Anime)
It's about a high school teacher who's too pessimistic, and his class filled with weirdos. It's as unpredictable as a show can get. Seriously. It's the weirdest show I have ever watched. The first season was good, but then it got boring.

35. Only fools and horses
A British sitcom. It's alright, but again, not funny enough.



34. Avatar
A cartoon about a monk-kid with special powers based in a fantasy world. It was okay, felt like it was stretched a bit too much. The characters had no depth. But it was still funny enough to make me watch 3 seasons. And the spin-off that came after, which followed the next avatar, sucked (that's what I felt after 4-5 episodes and gave up).


33.5 Prince of tennis (Anime)
It's just as the title says, a new kid appears in high school tennis. It was good in the beginning, had some humour, seemed to have a decent plot. But it's the same thing going on and on.. And the sport itself is very poorly represented.


33. How I met your mother
A sitcom. Has its moments. But there's too much of nothing between funny scenes.


32. South Park
A cartoon with lots of gross scenes, but it's hilarious. At least it used to be. The new seasons suck.



31. Seinfeld
It's a sitcom. I liked it, but not as much as Friends or TBBT. And it does get boring quite often.


30. Dexter
A serial killer who only kills bad guys (with some exceptions). The story was well-paced, but has too many stupid characters in it.

29. True detective
Its about a couple of cops trying to solve some cases. There's one guy who's religious, and another who thinks religion and morality is all a load of crap. It can get interesting sometimes, but has too much drama with not much happening with the plot. 

28.  Magi (Anime)
In its universe, there are wizards who are supposed to choose someone worthy of being a king, and then help them become one. There's a lot of magic involved, and some battles. It has its moments, but on the whole, it's far from being a great show.

27. Prison Break
Sometimes too good, sometimes boring.The first season was especially good.



26. Two and a half men
First 5-6 seasons were awesome.


25. House
Liked it when House wasn't involved with the other doc. It had some humour, some satire, and a hint of philosophy. But then all of that was gone and there was just drama left, which I don't care for.


24. The Big Bang Theory
The geeky version of "Friends".But it went downhill after about 3 seasons.


23. Detective Conan (Anime)
It's quite a childish anime (it was made for kids). It's sometimes funny, and it never gets boring. Although the cases that the detective solves can get monotonous, there's still not boring. I have watched about 220 episodes now, and it has 500 more to go. Good for me.

22. House of Cards
There's nothing special about it, but it never got boring.


21. Sherlock
Need I say more?


20. Code Geass (Anime)
A bit boring some times, but awesome most of the time.
There are huge human-controlled robots, and some of the characters have superpowers. 


19. Game of Thrones
 Again, need I say more?


18. Samurai Champloo (Anime)
Short and awesome.
The story follows two swordsmen with conflicting personalities, who promise to help a girl find her father. 


17. Dragon Ball Z (Anime)
Follows a guy who wants to be the strongest fighter in the universe. And while he's trying to do that, he saves the earth and a bunch of other planets from bad guys. It got a bit too serious, with too many battles and power-ups. But it's still way better than a lot of TV series out there.


16. Gin no saji (Silver spoon)  (Anime)
It is what is called a "slice of life" anime. Set in a school of agriculture, it follows a kid from a city as he adapts to life as a farmer. It flows smoothly, has good humour, has no annoying characters, and could be a bit philosophical for some people.

15. Hunter x Hunter (Anime)
There are these professional people who are called hunters, because they have a range of skills and do all kinds of stuff. A kid, whose father was apparently a famous hunter, sets out to become one. Except for some episodes where it just stretched on without much happening, particularly the Chimera ant arc, the series was pretty damn good. I'm not really sure why I'm not putting this in the top 10 series, but I'd definitely recommend it for anyone who likes anime. Personally, I was more interested in the kid's friend's story.


14. Spartacus
Set in ancient Rome, where people owned slaves. And a bunch of slaves, who were also gladiators, fight for their freedom. The battles were awesome.


13. Steins; Gate (Anime)
Sci-fi. Based on time-travel. An amazing plot, beautifully animated. Especially episode 13. It was so awesome that I watched it over and over. I rarely re-watch episodes that aren't hilarious, but I couldn't stop watching this particular episode.


12. Eyeshield 21 (Anime)
A sports anime- about American football. The lead character's a wimpy kid, who I didn't care for at all. But the characters around the kid are interesting, the humour is good, and despite the length (125 episodes), it didn't get boring. I hated the way it ended though.


11. Fullmetal Alchemist (Anime)
Alchemists can make things out of raw materials, or break stuff, based on what they call "the principal of equivalent exchange". But things are screwed up when a kid tries to bring his dead mother back to life. It's a beautifully made anime. It has an amazing plot (you can't predict what's coming), the characters are well made, their back stories make sense, and the soundtrack is also very good.


10. Shingeki no kyojin (Attack on titan) (Anime)
Out of nowhere, giants appear and start eating humans. Humans build concentric walls, and live inside them. After a hundred years, the giants manage to break through the walls, and that's where the anime starts. Battles aside, human nature is so wonderfully explored in the anime- If one wants to understand morality or religion or fear or courage, forget books and discourses; watch this anime


9. Hajime no Ippo (The first step?) (Anime)
Follows a high school kid who takes up boxing, because he thinks boxers are really strong and he wants to understand what it means to be strong. The first season (76 episodes) was brilliant, on par with the best series on this list. But it went downhill afterwards. The second season was decent, and the third was a total let-down.



8. shijou saikyou no deshi: Kenichi (History's strongest disciple: Kenichi) (Anime)
A bunch of expert martial artists of different styles take in a disciple, and train him like shit. And this disciple is challenged by other people, usually bullies in school or gangs, but later by strong disciples of other teachers. It's quite entertaining- got good battles, a fine story, and tons of funny scenes. But it lacks a soul- the anime ranked better than this are all captivating, this anime isn't...


7. Death Note (Anime)
So a guy finds a book owned by a death-god. And if he can visualize a person and write the person's name in the book, they die. The first half of the series is just too good.


6. Haikyuu (Anime)
A sports anime, about Volleyball. A couple of guys passionate about the sport join a new school, one's goofy and the other's a genius. It's extremely well made- the matches, characters, back stories. It's funny, got a bit of drama, doesn't get boring- it's just perfect. I watched 25 episodes back-to-back, except for 9 hours of sleep. I would actually rate it as the best anime, except that it's too short to compare with the others.

5. Gintama (Anime)
A lazy, idiotic samurai who takes up minor jobs to earn a living, and has a wimpy kid and a super-strong, stupid girl as his assistants. Humor, parody, battles, emotional stuff- it's got everything. It's got a whole bunch of characters that keep making you laugh. Some episodes are slow, but most of them are brilliant.


4. Friends
Forget reviews. Just go for it. I watched the entire series (about 240 episodes) 6 times.



3. Dragon Ball (Anime)
It's a prequel to DBZ. It's funnier than DBZ, especially kid Goku. Although the animation was pretty bad compared to others, it gets points since it started out way before the rest of the anime on my list.


2. Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood (Anime)
Upgraded version of Fullmetal Alchemist. The first series did not follow the manga and the plot got a little too simplified. The manga version is absolutely brilliant. But the characters don't get enough time to establish a back-story, and the soundtrack isn't as good.


1. One Piece (Anime)
Follows a kid who wants to be the greatest pirate on the planet. In his crew, one guy wants to be the greatest swordsman, one guy wants to find this place in the ocean where there's fish from everywhere, a girl wants to draw a map of the world from her experience, a wimpy guy wants to be a warrior of the sea, one wants to be the greatest doctor, one wants to build a ship that sails all the oceans, one's an archaeologist trying to figure out some secret history, and finally, there's one a musician who's trying to keep a promise he made to someone 50 years ago.
Best.TV.Series.Ever. If you haven't watched this, you've missed out on loads of fun and tons of epic battles. Zoro and Shanks- Most bad-ass characters in any story, ever. I want to say "TV series can't get better than this", but One Piece has slowed down recently. But that's to be expected when an anime has been running for 15 years. I hear the manga is still as awesome as ever.