out of context

God does not play dice with the Universe
-Albert Einstein

This is an oft quoted statement which was originally in Deutsch (but of course):
Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, dass _der_ nicht würfelt.
[At any rate, I am convinced that _He_ [God] does not play dice.]
---Einstein, Letter to Max Born, 4 December 1926 in _Einstein und Born Briefwechsel_ (1969) p. 130

In the context of the letter, it is thought better to translate it is:
God may be subtle, but He is not malicious.

Einstein's photoelectric effect which won him the Noble prize was one of the cornerstones of the foundations of Quantum Mechanics. However, Einstein did not like the probabilistic interpretation of QM (uncertainty principle).

For that he (and Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen) gave the world the EPR paradox which, as a quirk of fate, allowed Bell and Aspect to in fact prove that our universe is indeed run by probabilities (or quantum entanglement or stuff like that) and that Einstein was in fact wrong.

Einstein struggled through the second half of his life to eliminate the uncertainty from QM but never could.

Theists often use his statement to underline his belief in God. However, Einstein was an atheist and the use of the word God was only in a proverbial sense:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

-Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press

It is unfortunate that statements made by great minds are quoted out of context and used by people for their own purposes.

Also, many of the great minds were great when the bodies that held those minds were young. But age and beliefs catch up, and the statement that Einstein made reflects more his beliefs about how the universe runs than how science believes it does. So, even if it comes from one of the greatest minds from the last century, it is something that most rational, scientific minds reject.

The following applies to many of our personal and day-to-day situations too.

Try to understand the context in which statements are made, as also the mental make of the person making it when it is made

does blogging need a reason?

[When I started blogging] I felt like a mosquito arriving at a nudist camp - not knowing where to start. There is so much to be written.

But never look a gift horse in the mouth (if you do not know thats because you can say how pure the breed of a horse is by examining its teeth). So I decided not to let there be any teething troubles and quickly fired off two salvos.

I know that like so many other bahaddars, the pace here will slacken as well. The race ka ghoda will start trotting, and stumbling. But I will try to get back every now and then and type my thoughts on this and that.

Anyway, that brings me to the quote of the blurb (as I henceforth - at least temporarily - christian these, as Jay would call them, thingies):

If you do not believe my words,
You should not believe my silence
-Ashish Mahabal aka aschig

(So many people are ready to believe
your silence, but not your words).

This was prompted by
(1) seeing the picture of the famous roaring Niagara falls with the following quote:
If you do not understand my silence,
you will not understand my words
and,
(2) seeing too many gullible people and too many overcautious people (incidentally both creeds share the amazing quality that they fear the compassionate God).

So, for those who do not believe my words, even if you do not see any new postings from me (equivalent to my silence), you should not believe the silence and assume I have posted something and not believe THAT and ... (I lost track).

PS: I recently read Ray Bradbury's "Zen in the art of writing" and decided its a worthy thing to experiment (and since I have guinea horses, I took the bait). Read the book. Its great.

Write at least a page a day (well, may be a page a week).

on protecting fools

Gods do not protect fools.
Fools are protected by more capable fools.
-Luis in Larry Niven's Ringworld

This is another sentence which took a few minutes to register. But once it gets into you, you can not forget it. It seems to be analogous to the The Peter principle formulated by Laurence J. Peter which states: "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." Larry of course goes one step ahead and states why that is so.

The incompetence is patronized by the clients - us. Various social evils are a direct consequence including, but not limited to bribery.

Whenever you let go a foolishness under the name of compassion or whatnot, you are being a greater fool. A positive and gentle criticism may go a longer way in avoiding further foolishnesses.

By no means should you be not forgiving or protecting. Just ensure it does not lead to a higher order foolishness.

BTW, Ringworld is a wonderful sci-fi novel.

timelessness

The times came as a result of a particular human culture.
The timeless came as a result of any human culture at all.
-Walter M Miller, JR, in The Darfstellar

I came across the sentence above in a science fiction story. It took me a few minutes to understand what was being said. But once I did understand it, I spent several minutes marveling at how accurately it captures the history of humankind.

Look at any of the movements we have seen: Hippie, Hare Krishna to name two diverse ones. Like a meme jumping from one brain to another, such movements quickly gather followers, but in a few years just join the ranks of other cults. That is true with fashions too: minis, and balds, and hair colors, and piercings, and what not. Different fashions belong to different cultures and are a sign of those times (and regions). Partly these are driven by peer pressure.

On the other hand are the features of humanity that transcend all cultures and regions. These can be said to include love, hatred, and basic needs for survival. But also the love of knowledge, curiosity and such.

When we look at happenings around us, we are generally able to analyze them based on the criterion above: their timelessness. If an issue does not seem to be timeless (i.e. has its relevance only over a few years or decades) it is likely to be of limited importance. I would put most feuds in this section. Especially those perpetuated by peoples who enclose themselves in artificial geographic boundaries, or hide behind Gods of small causes.

Be purposeful.
Let at least part of that purposefulness be timeless.