ponytail

Where Fantasy Meets Reality

Manav Ujjwal Samaj Samiti Privacy Policy

[The following is the first draft of Manav Ujjwal Samaj Samiti's privacy policy. Please have a look, review it and let us know how we can improve it. Contact us at muss4us@pm.me]

This NGO is domiciled in India.

We, Manav Ujjwal Samaj Samiti (hereinafter referred to as “we”, or “MUSS”) respect your concerns about privacy. This Privacy Policy document contains types of information that is collected and recorded by MUSS and how we use it.

By providing personal information to us, you acknowledge that you have read and understood this Privacy Policy and agreed to the terms and conditions of this Privacy Policy

We will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your personal information is stored and processed securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and applicable laws.

This Privacy Policy applies to personal information, which is information that can be used to contact or identify a single person.

We collect information that you give us, including, but not limited to: • email address • date of birth • name

How we use your personal information?

• The personal information we collect allows us to keep you posted on our latest announcements and upcoming events. If you don’t want to be on our mailing list, you can opt out anytime by updating your preferences. To update your preferences you can contact us at muss4us@pm.me

• We may use your personal information to respond to your inquiries and fulfill your requests.

Do We Share the Information?

We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of MUSS unless one of the following circumstances applies. MUSS may share personal information with your consent.

Instances where MUSS may need to share your data;

• To meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.

• To enforce applicable Terms, including investigation of potential violations.

• To detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, or technical issues.

• To protect against harm to the rights, property, or the public as required or permitted by law.

Data Retention, Rectification, Erasure, and right to lodge a complaint:

• We keep your personal information only as long as we need it for legitimate business purposes.

• You can directly contact us to edit or delete your personal data stored or collected by MUSS.

• In case of violation of your rights, you have the right to lodge a complaint to the competent supervisory authority.

Changes to our Privacy Policy:

If we decide to change our privacy policy, we will post those changes on this page. The current version is dated 19 January 2020

Contact Us:

If you have additional questions or require more information about our Privacy Policy, do not hesitate to contact us through email at muss4us@pm.me

Call For Educational Reforms In 2020

India needs drastic educational reforms. In the days of Hindu-Muslim, Cow cures cancer, etc. We need to promote logic and reasoning. This can only be done through schools. This can only be done with the help of a revolutionary educational policy by the State. The fundamental duties require us to have a scientific outlook towards life, unfortunately, the majority of us fails to do so. It is the time for the State to step in. This will be a brave new step, but it can not be overlooked because it is also the duty of the state to promote reason and logic.

Education must be without religion. Today you can find poems about God, entire stories of Mahābhārata and Ramayana in school textbooks. Whether to be religious or not, should be our choice. Religion should not be imposed. Sadly religion is always imposed on us. There is no harm in being religious or believing in God. But there is a lot to lose if that belief is without reason and logic. There is a lot too loose if that turns into hatred towards other religions and beliefs.

From the early age, we need to teach our children different religious philosophies, not to make them a believer but to teach them that every religion teaches us the same basic principle, to be a good human. At the same time, Rationality should be a mandatory subject in our schools teaching our kids to think logically and to apply their own brain. There are a lot of better theories than “God created us”. Our world could be a simulation, who knows. Let the students decide what they want to believe. Let the students realize themselves that the existence or the non-existence of God has little to no effect on our lives.

In 2020 and in the next decade religion needs to die. Otherwise, there won’t be any sociological development of our race. Religion is a creation of our collective imagination. God exists but in our imagination. As of now, we have no evidence to know whether if there is any God outside our imagination.

What do we need? A better, peaceful, scientific future. And how we can achieve it? Through a good educational policy.

First, there has to be a strict separation between education and religion. If you teach religion in schools, make sure to teach all the religions and the similarities between them not there differences.

Second, a mandatory subject for everyone to learn rationality and logic.

Third, the history of human evolution must be taught to everyone, we need to learn who we are and how we got here. And why it is important to know who we are.

In the days of Hindu-Muslim and Cow cures cancer, we need to have more scientific and logical people. Because we need more scientific and logical people in Parliament, we need more scientific and logical people everywhere.

Citizenship Amendment Act, Threat To India’s Secularism

What is the Citizenship Amendment Act, and why there is a nationwide protest against it?

The Citizenship Amendment Act gives Indian citizenship; to six non-muslim religious refugees (Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians, Buddhist and Janis), from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, who fled to India before December 31, 2014, to avoid religious persecution.

In simpler words, religious minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who fled to India because of religious persecution before a cut off date will be given Indian citizenship.

There are many questions which can be asked, for example, why only these three countries? Why only these six religions? And why a cut-off date? But the most important question, “Is Citizenship Amendment Act constitutionally valid?”

The opinion is mixed, many will say that the Citizenship Amendment Act is legally correct and many say that the Citizenship Amendment Act violates the principles of our constitution.

Let us start with the preamble of the Constitution. It declares that the Republic of India is a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. This means India as an ideology is supposed to be sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic and a republic country.

Now, does the Citizenship Amendment Act violates the principles mentioned in the preamble?

But first, let's understand what CAA aims to achieve and whats being left out.

An Act for granting Indian citizenship to non-Muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who entered India before December 31, 2014, because of religious persecution or if they fear religious persecution.

Muslims are not included in this act. What about those who don’t have any religion? The Act is silent. Maybe in the eyes of the Indian government, every human has a religion, if not two religions or no religion.

This act is clearly against the Constitutional fabric of India. It is clearly against the basic principles of the Indian ideology.

Article 11. Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law. Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part (Part 2 which deals with citizenship) shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision concerning the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.

This provision allows the parliament to make any law for taking or granting Indian citizenship. Citizenship Amendment Act is because of Article 11.

Article 13. Laws inconsistent with fundamental rights.

This makes everything more interesting. According to this any law in force which is inconsistent with the fundamental rights are void. It also imposes a duty on the state that it should not make any law which is inconsistent with the fundamental rights.

If the Citizenship Amendment Act is inconsistent with any of the fundamental rights, as per Article 13 it is void.

Does the Citizenship Amendment Act violate any fundamental rights?

Article 14 talks about equality, equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

Article 14. Equality before law. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

If you read this you might think CAA is against Article 14, because it does not provide for equal treatment of the refugees. Some of them are more equal than others.

Article 14 is for everyone, even non-citizens. Every human being inside the Indian territory is entitled to equal protection of the law and equality before the law.

Equality before the law and equal protection of the law does not mean equal treatment to all. It guarantees similar treatment but not equal treatment. Article 14 is based on the principle of Reasonable Classification, equals must be treated equally and unequals must be treated differently.

Citizenship Amendment Act discriminates on the bases of religion by excluding Muslims.

Are Muslim illegal imigrants equal to non Muslim illegal imigrants? Are Muslim refugees equal to non-Muslim refugees? Are immigrants equal to locals?

Everyone is entitled to equal treatment as humans, as all humans are equal as humans.

Muslim immigrant, legal or not, is equal to non-Muslim immigrant, legal or not. Allowing some communities the right to citizenship and excluding others is discriminatory and a violation of Article 14.

Even if the government tries to cover this up by claiming that the CAA is to give citizenship rights to religious minorities facing religious persecution.

Why not protect all the refugees coming from all the neighbouring countries facing religious persecution?

Restricting the CAA to just three countries is arbitrary when there is evidence of religious persecution in several neighbouring countries. Tamils in Sri Lanka and Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, for example, face religious persecution and have taken refuge in India.

Apart from fundamental rights, CAA violates Human Rights and other international customary laws.

“To protect the human rights of refugees, in 1951, under the aegis of the United Nations, countries adopted a convention relating to the status of refugees (Refugee Convention), which was later amended by the 1967 Protocol. These two global legal instruments, now ratified by 145 countries, constitute the major international legal framework on the treatment of refugees globally. India is not a party to either the Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol.” – Prabhash Ranjan (Senior Assistant Professor, South Asian University’s Faculty of Legal Studies)

Citizenship should never be given on the bases of religion. All religions are equal, religious people are equal to non-religious people.

By explicitly not including Muslims, the state has reinforced the Hindutva’s belief that India is the sacred land of Hindus, not of Muslims.

Religious discrimination hurts economic development. In July 2018, researchers from the Universities of Bristol (UK) and Tennessee (US) published a study, 'Religious change preceded economic change in the 20th century', clearly establishing the causal relationship between secularism and economic growth.

This is CAA in isolation. If we see CAA with NRC (National Register of Citizens) the situation becomes a nightmare for Muslims and poor of the country.

As of today, 60 petitions have filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging the Act, and the court has not yet put a stay on the law. The next hearing is on January 22, 2020.

As of today, we need more scientific and logical people in Parliament.

The views expressed are personal

Update | Ponytail.ink is now Write.as/ponytail

Dear readers, it is been 13 months since I started this blog.

Till now I have published 9 articles. That is 0.6923 number of blogs in a month or one blog in 1.4444 months.

Ponytail.ink is shifting to write.as/ponytail

This change comes with many pros and cons.

Ponytail.ink is currently hosted on WordPress, and it is costing me around 5000 INR per year to maintain the website.

With no domain and no premium plans on write.as this cost will reduce to zero.

Write.as is a minimalist, privacy-focused writing and publishing platform.

Moreover, you can reach this site through fediverse.

Write.as does not support email subscription in its free plan. Therefore, you should be following me through social media to be notified whenever I post anything new.

Write.as also supports anonymous publishing, that means criticising the government is going to be my new hobby.

From January 17, 2020 Ponytail.ink will no longer be active.

All the current posts will be available on write.as/ponytail soon.

Unless I find a way to maintain this website. You can also support me through Liberapay and Ko-Fi.com or by sharing this website with your friends and increasing my viewership.

Currently, I have 18 followers and 29 visitors per month.

Come back soon. I have been working on a radical idea based on the universal basic income. Its an experiment to change the basic structure of a welfare scheme. Just kidding, it is just an article on UBI with some new ideas, it is nothing radical or revolutionary.

Thank you!

Ponytail.ink

My New Ironic Religion

I’m creating a new religion called Lubnaism.

I’m creating a new religion because I want to legalise same-sex marriages. And I have some different set of theories explaining the trivial matters of life and the existence of god.

This will be the religion of the future. A religion which accepts conflicting opinions and encourages questioning everything.

My only motive to create a new religion is to legalise same-sex marriages and marriages between any two (or more) humans legal.

The Indian culture doesn’t accept marriage between people of the same sexes. Moreover, the constitution hasn’t legally recognised same-sex marriages in India.

India is a deeply religious country, 80% of its adult population said that religion is very important to their lives.

In India there is no uniform law for marriage, people from different religions have different laws for their marriages. Marriage laws in India are derived from religious texts and their scriptures.

No major religion in India allows same-sex marriage, hence same-sex marriages are not yet recognised in the country.

To change the narrative we have two options, either we all come together and demand equal rights for all. Or we create a new religion which supports the cause. If we are able to legally recognise our new religion in the country and are able to create our separate laws for marriage, just like the separate laws Hinduism, Christianity and Islam have in India. We might be able to legalise same-sex marriages without a legal fight.

Creating a new religion isn’t easy.

We will be needing an all-powerful god, some vague philosophy explaining everything in this universe and something to offer afterlife. And most importantly we will be needing followers.

As an atheist, I don’t think god is real. It could be but we humans don’t believe in the real God who created everything, in fact, we believe in an imaginary god which we had created in our imagination.

This new religion will not be a theistic one. The followers of this new religion must understand that the existence of God or the non-existence of a god is beyond our control, and it doesn’t affect our daily lives in any way.

It is just like living in a simulation, or not living in a simulation. If we are in a simulated world, it will not change our lives. If we are not in a simulated world, again it won’t make any difference.

75% of Indians pray daily.

They pray to whom exactly? God? The one we created in our collective imagination? Or the real one, if it exists?

Prayers have no real benefits to human life, expect it might help us psychologically.

Your prayers to reverse climate change will not do any help until you yourself take any action.

If there is a god, not the one we created in our collective imagination, but the one whose presence we are not aware of, isn’t it an all-powerful thing which created everything in this universe.

How come my disbelieve in that power can challenge its authority? And why do these religious vigilantes need to defend an all-powerful thing? In addition, that all-powerful power, if it has any consciousness, isn’t a super insecure being who will punish us if we do not believe in it.

My thoughts can’t affect that power, that power can’t affect my thoughts, even if it does, it’s beyond my control. Therefore, its existence doesn’t make any difference.

This will be the underlining philosophy of my new religion. And just like any other religion, this new religion also encourages its followers to be good humans and to treat everyone with equal dignity and respect.

But unlike other religions, you will not get any rewards for your good behaviour in your afterlife. Because heaven and hell are not real places, they exist in our collective imagination. There won’t be any rebirth, because when you die, you die forever.

The reward you will get for your good deeds will be from the fellow humans you will come across.

PS. Creating a new religion sounds stupid. Creating a new God for a new religion sounds stupid. Having your own philosophy to explain the world sounds stupid. A religion to legalise same-sex marriages sounds stupid.

But we all need to understand this and accept that every other major religion in this world once started with similar stupid ideas. And today for us it’s the most important thing in our lives.

Virtual Immortality

There is a chance that we are living in a simulated universe. If that is true, what if that simulation is an extremely advanced video game? And we are a character in that game with predefined actions? We act in a way in which are coded by the creator of this game of life.

And if this is a game, there must be some number of lives we have to live. What if we have an unlimited number of lives? What if we never die, until we complete the mission?

This is only possible if we are in a simulated universe, if this is a real universe, we may never be immortal without the help of medical science. But we don’t know this yet whether we are in a simulated universe or not, because we cannot differentiate between the two. This may be a simulated universe but it seems real to us.

“There is a one in a billion chance that this is base reality” -Elon Musk

Coming back to the game analogy, if we are in an extremely advance video game, with unlimited lives.

Am I the only one who is immortal? Or we are all immortals? If we all are immortals, why do people die? I never died before, perhaps I am immortal. But the idea that only one or few of us are immortal seems rather bizarre. How is this possible? Or it isn’t? We don’t know that yet.

But what if this is an extremely advanced video game and I am the only conscious character in it or I am the only main character being controlled by someone, possibly the gamer.

Does this sound possible? Nobody knows that. Because your attempt to disprove this might be due to the algorithm governing our actions.

You say, “I am real and a conscious being” because you are programmed to say that.

You say, “I am real and you are not, you are acting in a particular way because you are programmed to do so” because you are programmed to say that.

This assumption may be wrong or incomplete, but what if it isn’t? What if I am actually the main character or an only conscious character in this extremely advance video game with unlimited lives?

Now does that makes me immortal? Does this mean I can never be killed? Or does this means if I die, I can respawn to the last saved checkpoint?

If I die and respawn at the last saved checkpoint, will I remember I died? Will I know that I respawned?

For this to be proved I need to kill myself and wait to be respawned again. But I won’t be able to prove this if I don’t remember that I died and respawned. What if this isn’t a video game? What if there are no unlimited lives in this game? What if I am not immortal? And what if this is the base reality?

This again leaves us in a situation will never be proved or disproved.

Killing yourself to prove this is not a good idea because we are not sure, or I should say that I am not sure, that whether this is a simulated video game or not.

Considering all the possible outcomes and probabilities, from the best of my knowledge, I came up with a number. I calculated that there is a 4.16666666667% chance we are immortals or at least I am immortal.

As I doubt my mathematical skills, I have reasons to believe that this number is inaccurate. As we consider more and more factors, this number will change, most probably it will further decrease our chances (or my chances) of being immortal(s). Here how I came up with is number

Philosopher Nick Bostrom in his research paper “Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?”, said that there is a 20% chance that we are in a simulation.

On the other hand, Elon Musk says that the chances that we are in a computer simulation are much higher.

Nick Bostrom in this paper argues that one of the following propositions is true: 1. The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a posthuman stage. 2. Any posthuman civilization is extremely likely to run a significant number of simulations. 3. We are most certainly living in a computer simulation.

From this, I have given all the three possibilities equal chance to be true. That is 1/3. Therefore, there is a 33.33% chance that we are living in a computer simulation.

Further, the idea that we are in an extremely advanced video game is only possible if we are in a computer simulation.

  1. We are in an advanced video game.
  2. We are not in an advanced video game.

That is, there is a 50% chance that we are in a video game if this is a simulation.

Now I further divided the idea of being in a video game into two possible outcomes.

  1. We have one life.
  2. We have more that one lives.

If we have more that one life, there are again two possibilities.

  1. We have unlimited lives.
  2. We don't have unlimited lives.

If we have unlimited lives, then we are virtually immortal.

From the above assumptions, I made few calculations, (1/3)(½)(½)(½)(100) = (1/24)*(100) = 4.16666666667%

Hence, there is a 4.16666666667% chance that we are virtually immortals or at least I am virtually immortal.

The Future Of Lawmaking And Governance

Probably the craziest ideas ever:

This all started with the idea to make my own laws. Elon Musk has created his own school for his children because he did not like the traditional way of teaching. Similarly, if you don’t appreciate your current laws, why not make your own laws just like Elon made his own school?

You might think that it is impossible to make our own laws. You may be right, but I came up with three different ways by which we can achieve this.

In India, we have different personal laws for different groups of people based on their religions. A Muslim is governed by Muslim personal law, a Hindu is governed by Hindu personal law, etc. There is no uniform civil law in India. Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is an ongoing debate within Indian mandate to replace personal laws based on the scriptures and customs of each major religious community in India with a common set of rules governing every citizen. UCC has been a proposal even before the independence of the Republic of India.

I support the Uniform Civil Code, I want every single Indian citizen to be governed with a common set of rules which are secular in nature and treat everyone with equal dignity and freedom.

But in 2015 the Supreme Court of India said that the UCC cannot be accepted, otherwise, every religion will say it has a right to decide various issues as a matter of its personal laws. In 2018 The Law Commission of India said, “the UCC is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage.”

Also, an average Indian is not comfortable with the idea to have laws which are non-religious in nature. But at the same time, there are many people in India who want laws which are based on pure logic and reasoning rather laws which are based on outdated religious scriptures and customs.

  1. The first way to make your own laws.

Here in India we already have different personal laws, why not have another set of laws for those who want to be governed by the laws which are not based on their old customs and traditions?

Why not create a community and demand for our own laws? Personal laws in India are divided by religion. My idea is to make a community for everyone who chooses to be governed by a common set of rules which doesn't discriminate anyone by their religion.

The main idea is to remove old customs from our laws. But unfortunately, we can’t do that in India very easily. But what we can do is to make our own laws void of old customs and traditions.

If we manage to unite people with similar views, we can demand separate laws from the government.

If we can’t have a uniform law why not let the people decide what they want?

And in this digital age internet will play a major role.

  1. The second way to make your own laws

If all the humans with similar views are able to unite and demand change, but the government chooses not to acknowledge our demands, why not make our own government? Why not make our own country?

At this point, you will be thinking that this is indeed the craziest idea ever. But hold it right there, the craziest part is yet to come.

I agree, demanding our own nation is utterly stupid and no reasonable human will think it is possible. I also know that this isn’t a reasonable demand and the Indian government won’t even reply to my email if I send them an email with this demand.

What if a drunk politician accidentally grants us permission to make our own nation. Beside some political outrage and public revolt, nobody is going to move into our newly formed nation (and move outside if they want to). But we all know that this isn’t possible, so let's remove this possibility.

The idea to create a nation is indeed a stupid idea, but the idea to create an online nation isn’t.

You surely can’t create your physical nation with actual land. But you can create your own nation, online. With no physical land, no borders, no army, no police, no infrastructure, without a welfare state, etc.

An online nation might seem to be an extremely stupid idea, more stupid than demanding your own physical country. But who knows this might be the next political ideology of the future.

An online nation is like creating an online community of like-minded people, aliens, animals and computer AI's. But this is more than an online community. An online nation will give immense freedom to its citizens. A citizen of an online nation can reside anywhere on the planet. The world will be a borderless society.

If this happens in the future there will be many different nations on our servers made by like-minded humans or aliens or your dog. Every nation might have different laws according to there needs and belief, some might still be governing their citizens by their old customs and traditions.

As per 2019, this sounds like science fiction. But this might be the next political revolution. Why not start by creating a website for our online nation, let the users buy our citizenship. We can add a draft constitution and a draft of our civil laws on our website for future citizens to know what we stand for.

We want to create a nation for those who chose to be governed by a common set of rules made with pure logic and void of outdated customs.

Who knows we might start issuing our passport to our citizens. (Literally not possible in the next 50 years)

The number one problem we will face if this becomes a reality is going to determine how to make a uniform criminal law? And that too online?

  1. The third way to make your own laws

This again seems impossible in 2019 but will be the future soon in the next 10 to 20 years.

With the advancement in artificial intelligence and machine learning, it is hard to ignore the fact that automation will soon take over our jobs and it will be able to perform those functions much better than humans.

Lawmakers, judges, lawyers and everyone else in the legal field will soon be unemployed. AI will soon be in our courtrooms providing justice. You might hire a robotic lawyer to represent yourself in the court of law.

AI taking over the judiciary will be one of the greatest things achieved in the 21st century. A lot of people will lose their jobs but all those cases pending in our courts will be dealt away as soon as possible. Justice will be served with no delay. And if you are worried about those who will lose their jobs then don’t worry, they will soon find new jobs, created due to automation.

Automation of judiciary seems an amazing business opportunity for a hardcore capitalist.

All we want to do is to make an infrastructure which can support automation of judiciary.

Start by building courts all around the country and install the machines to replace the lawyers and the judges. Or do it all online. Pitch this idea to the government and ask them to privatise the judiciary. Let the private companies take over the role of the judiciary. Or if they don’t privatise it, provide the government with your infrastructure and help everyone access affordable and fast justice.

Sounds impossible but this can be achieved if done properly.

If you manage to create a system like this, if you control the judiciary it won’t take much longer to start making your own laws.

But this too comes with difficulties to overcome. Why would any government privatise its judiciary? And what could happen if a private company controls the judiciary functions of the state? What would happen if a company has a monopoly over the judiciary?

Does this sound like a future in which justice will be served without any discrimination and without any delay or does this sounds like a future in which only the rich and the powerful will control the whole world?

All the above mentioned three ways to make your own laws are interlinked. One can lead to another.

This could end up being the next big thing of the 21st century, a new political ideology with online state and private owned judiciary and legal system.

It is very much likely to have this kind of governance in the future, which not only exists in our imaginations but also in our computer servers.

Why does anything exist at all?

At the moment of the Big Bang, the incredibly hot, impossibly dense mass known as the universe exploded to create every particle of matter that now surrounds us.

Here's the problem: The way physicists understand it, the processes that formed those first particles should have produced an equal number of antiparticles, thereby annihilating all matter and effectively cancelling everything out.

So according to physics, the universe shouldn’t exist. But the universe does exist and this has left physicists scratching their heads for decades trying to answer this most basic question: Why does anything exist at all?

The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe. But today, everything we see from the smallest life forms on Earth to the largest stellar objects is made almost entirely of matter. Comparatively, there is not much antimatter to be found. Something must have happened to tip the balance. Why do we see an asymmetry between matter and antimatter?

Antimatter particles share the same mass as their matter counterparts, but qualities such as electric charge are opposite. The positively charged positron, for example, is the antiparticle to the negatively charged electron.

It is a mathematical theorem that every type of particle has a corresponding anti-particle, with exactly the same mass. Actually, it’s not just a theorem: for all known particles the antiparticle has been observed experimentally, so we don’t need to have a debate about it. Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy.

During the first fractions of a second of the Big Bang, the hot and dense universe was buzzing with particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. If matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy.

CERN explains this using a coin analogy: Consider a coin spinning on a table. It can land on its heads or its tails, but it cannot be defined as “heads” or “tails” until it stops spinning and falls to one side. A coin has a 50-50 chance of landing on its head or its tail, so if enough coins are spun in exactly the same way, half should land on heads and the other half on tails. In the same way, half of the oscillating particles in the early universe should have decayed as matter and the other half as antimatter. However, if a special kind of marble rolled across a table of spinning coins and caused every coin it hit to land on its head, it would disrupt the whole system. There would be more heads than tails. In the same way, some unknown mechanism could have interfered with the oscillating particles to cause a slight majority of them to decay as matter.

But not always, try to spin a coin a hundred times. Count the outcome. Having 50 Heads and 50 Tails are very less likely to happen. Therefore, the mysterious force which disrupted the whole system and created more matter than anti-matter doesn’t have to exist. As having more matter than anti-matter is completely natural.

What if it isn’t natural and the universe is nothing else just some leftover pure energy? What if the universe we know doesn’t exist at all?

Think of this as your noise cancelling headphone. To cancel out the noise, the headphone creates an equal and opposite noise. And we as an observer doesn’t hear that noise any more. But that noise and that anti-noise still exist, as an observer, we fail to hear that as the noise and the anti-noise cancel out each other. Maybe the universe doesn’t exist at all for an observer who is not a part of this universe.

We can interact with this universe as we are a part of this universe. For us, the universe exists but for someone who is not a part of this universe, there is no universe, just some leftover pure energy.

These are just my thoughts, who knows what’s real and what’s not. I may be wrong!

Sources:

“CERN Accelerating Science.” Superconductivity | CERN, home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem.

“Particle/Anti-Particle Annihilation.” Of Particular Significance, 26 Mar. 2012, profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/particleanti-particle-annihilation/.

“The Universe Shouldn't Exist, According to Physics.” Curiosity.com, curiosity.com/topics/the-universe-shouldnt-exist-according-to-physics-curiosity/.

Scroll Free For A Year (Part 1)

Vitaminwater, a Coca Cola company has challenged US residents to give up their phone for one whole year and in exchange, they will give you $100,000.

The challenge has been put up to stop US citizens from smartphone addiction.

Do you know 1 out of 2 people say they couldn’t live without their smartphone?

This challenge sounds fun and exciting, no phone for a year and you can get a chance to win $100,000.

Vitaminwater is willing to bet you can’t do it and they are right. Living without your smartphone in 2019 seems to be next to impossible.

Our lives are completely dependent on our smartphones nowadays and 365 days without your smartphone sounds like a crazy challenge rather than a fun and exciting one.

I would consider myself as an average smartphone user, I’m not addicted to my phone.

But still I’m going to try this and I will not use my smartphone in the year 2019.

NOTE: I’m not a US citizen, therefore I can’t win that prize money.

Just like an ordinary person I use my smartphone for making payments, using maps, taking photos, etc.

Calculating the collateral damage

If you are like me who is willing to give up their phone for a year. Then its always better to analyze all the pros and cons.

Pros

This journey will be an extremely challenging one. Filled with new challenges and opportunities. I will have a lot of free time which I can use to learn something new. I think I will be able to connect, by disconnecting with my smartphone, with those I care about. I think I will make a lot of new friends in 2019, when they know I’m not using my phone for a year.

Cons

I’m afraid that I might lose connections with some of my friends. I won’t be able to make payments, book a cab and use maps. I won’t be able to use the camera app and I have to carry my other camera everywhere I go. I won’t be winning the prize money :( By 2020 my smartphone will be outdated.

And maybe these are the reasons why Vitaminwater thinks nobody can complete their challenge.

Prepare for impact

I have decided to ditch my smartphone for a year starting January 1, 2019. To see how does it impact my life.

To make sure I can live without my phone, I need to make myself less dependable on my phone.

I started by switching to the browser versions of the apps I use on my phone and downloaded PC friendly apps so I can use them from my workstation.

I changed the two-factor authentication (2FA) settings so I don't have to use my phone every time I sign-in to my account. Scroll Free For A Year (Part 1)

I started my search to find a reason for which I'm willing to ditch my smartphone. As the excitement to win $100,000 will not work in my case.

I will continue to use a feature phone, for basic calling and receiving texts.

Follow me on Twitter @romil_kurt for more updates and other stuff.

And keep an eye out for the Part 2

Wish me luck.

Scroll Free For A Year

To Infinity And Beyond: A Thought Experiment

Disclaimer: This article is based on pseudoscience

Infinity is a concept describing something without any bound, like natural numbers which are never-ending.

But, is it even possible to have something which never ends?

In reality, there isn’t anything which is infinite. We say that the universe is infinite but we aren’t sure about it. In our collective imaginations, we tend to believe that natural numbers are infinite. Add one and you will get another number never seen before.

Anything which traps itself into an infinite loop of repetition destroys itself.

An audio system with a microphone and a speaker crashes if it is trapped inside an infinite loop of energy, going through the microphone in a form of sound and coming out, amplified, from the speaker in a form of sound. The cycle continuous till the system has collapsed.

Infinite loops are not stable and thus cannot exists.

Counting to infinity: An infinite loop

If you try to count till infinity, though we know we will never reach the end, all we need is a +1. If we try this we will end in an infinite loop of addition, which will be unstable to exist. But, how human imagination can be unstable? As numbers and concept of addition is a result of our collective imagination?

The laziness syndrome

If it doesn’t exist on the first page of the google it doesn’t exist at all. Similarly, if we aren’t able to count until the end of the number line then it doesn’t have an end.

The reason why we say that the universe is infinite is that we aren’t able to reach till the end.

Its an assumption, similarly the never-ending numbers are an assumption too.

Some infinities are bigger than other infinities

Natural numbers are infinite. 1,2,3,4......... There are infinite numbers between 1 and 2, between 1.1 and 1.2, between 1.11 and 1.12, etc. Infinity is finite wrt time The passage of time proves that there is no such thing as infinity. Again this is a thought experiment. Time exists because the world is finite. Imagine a clock. Ticking.

For every hour to complete, a smaller unit than an hour has to complete its cycle. A minute. For every minute to complete, a smaller unit than a minute has to complete its cycle. A second. Similarly second has a smaller unit and its smaller unit has a further smaller unit. If this same trend continues till the infinity, then the time will never move forward. If the seconds’ cycle won't complete the minutes’ cycle will not be able to complete and hence the hours won't increase and it will result in the stagnation of time.

In reality, time is moving forward. Hence this might proves according to the above thought experiment that there is no such thing as infinity. For time to move forward, it is necessary to exist a last smallest unit of time, which will complete its cycle independently.

Skepticism:

Natural numbers and the concept of addition are our collective imagination and anything is possible in our imagination. The concept of time is also a part of our collective imagination. Time and concept of infinity are not related and hence doesn’t make any sense to relate them. It is not logical as it is just a collection of vague statements. Infinity is not a number.