Scales

Shrimali sir says there are 7 fundamental physical quantities (he is confused till date whether to call charge or current the fundamental quantity, well never mind). all other physical quantities can b derived from these seven and can hence b measured. but having said this, the word remains PHYSICAL. oh now wtf, sure only physical quantities can b measured. "tum mujhpe kitna trust karte ho?" sweetie, had i known the dimensions of this god-forsaken quantity called "Trust" i wud have definitely let u know. ok for time being why not try to derive the dimensions. lets c, trust....one HEAVY feeling tht keeps thumping like sony ericsson's bass reflex headphones...makes M1. trust seems to b inversely proportional to the time tht relation sustains, so much so tht it makes T-2. so far, so gud. M1T-2. darling i trust u 12.376 metres/second2. now get a physics tutor and a life.

Over and Out

32700, something. dont remember the exact figure and am in no mood to open another tab for it too. time was around 7.45. cudn't sleep the whole night through. mom and dad were having their morning tea. bloody me, i felt as if i ruined it. ruined it? are u mad. is nething left to be ruined. have been thinking for some days, some spiteful things about people who care the most about me in the world. every thought came crashing down though, this morning. also been thinking for some days, tht these people's worlds are revolving around me. even if it isn't so, it atleast seems so. dont know why tht doctor said tht my eyesight is 6 by 6(watever tht means). i do have to put a lot strain to see the score. neways, he has asked me to go to him again, but am sure the first thing he is going to ask is the same tht i expect him to. dont know whether i wud want to go or not. i dont think this shud b the feeling at the moment but i m still thinking if i'll be going for the movie on monday or not. i've asked dad to remember to bring the pencil colors. do i have everything else. geometry box, check, pen, sort of, admit card, yes, pencils, wtf. dont know whether st pauls will b gud for it or bad. i mean the environment might prove inconclusive. but again, wtf. no centre was better or worse as yet. so why fret. still want a t shirt, u asshole, wudn't tht b enough. bikes, t shirt, girls, mobiles. i even switched this one off in the morning. mithapur was bad. really bad. i mean there were a lot more to b discussed thn chocolates and chocolaty things altogether. wudn't know wat they have got. 216 shud b gud, or so did i think. the ratio suggests it shud b gud. but statistics lie, people lie, results are amazingly gud. she was saying on tv tht u cant judge a persons knowledge in 3 hours or something like tht. another sucker on the microphone i say. u can grade people like nething. why those grades dont lie. u can see the picture, clear as is meant to be. i still think she lies.

Wish you were here

So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from Hell,
Blue skys from pain.
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

And did they get you to trade
Your heros for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?

How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls
Swimming in a fish bowl,
Year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found?
The same old fears.
Wish you were here.

Omnipotent God or Good God??

Before i start writing anything, i ought to warn the readers beforehand that anyone who is sufficiently satisfied with his or her concept of god and other related religios stuff need not read any further. this is my effort to cater to those eternal questions of the rationalists who have ever been confused whether to believe in the prevailing definition of god or not. what i write further is based on a simple analogy. what i want to prove is that God cannot be both omnipotent and GOOD at the same time. and if i succeed in proving this, it wud b a direct contradiction of the basic definition of god. consider this example -
you are standing outside a burning house wearing a fire proof jacket. u have all the other required resources which provide u the ultimate the ultimate fire resistance and u have no fear whatsoever of fire. now suppose u know that there is a small child inside the burning house whom u can easily save, provided your fire protection. what wud be your most spontaneous action at that moment. surely u wudn't think twice before going in and saving the child. given the omnipotence of GOD, as per the popular beliefs go, what do u expect god to do when he sees the millions here suffering from AIDS and other similar diseases. doesn't it become his responsibility to save the victims rather than leave them to die. You wud surely save the child and not leave him to burn to ashes so as to give the people an 'example' that one shudn't leave their gas cylinder's nozzles open so as to avoid fire. doesn't the same applies to god as well.
So this directly proves that either God is not Omnipotent and doesn't have resources to help the victims of AIDS or he is not Good. in either case he is not God. replies will be acknowledged.

Pascal's Wager (God is a safe bet)

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

This argument is known as Pascal's Wager. It has several flaws.

Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell.

Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?

Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing in the wrong God -- the true God might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer.

Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely -- or at least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a God is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely to convince those who believe already.

Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.

Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:

1. One does not know whether God exists.
2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist.
3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.
4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.

There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view Statement 1 as an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it. The problem is that there's really no way to arrive at Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple logical inference. The statements just don't follow on from each other.

The alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are both assumptions. The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then basically an assumption which states the Christian position, and only a Christian will agree with that assumption. The argument thus collapses to "If you are a Christian, it is in your interests to believe in God" -- a rather vacuous tautology, and not the way Pascal intended the argument to be viewed.

Also, if we don't even know that God exists, why should we take Statement 2 over some similar assumption? Isn't it just as likely that God would be angry at people who chose to believe for personal gain? If God is omniscient, he will certainly know who really believes and who believes as a wager. He will spurn the latter... assuming he actually cares at all whether people truly believe in him.

Some have suggested that the person who chooses to believe based on Pascal's Wager, can then somehow make the transition to truly believing. Unfortunately, most atheists don't find it possible to make that leap.

In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple belief; almost all Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.

Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. A God who sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists would be prepared to consider worshipping.

Entropy - The Band

The Raze, Shanx, VZ, Bahamut, the Soul. Entropy was initially formed as an amatuer so called 'rock' band. i use so called bcoz none of us had even the faintest idea wat comprises singing with all the world's vigour, guitars in hand, fingers bleeding as one switches from G to A minor. but seems now tht we know our standings already. shanx already got a guitar, my synthesiser sounding high as ever. Soul's beautiful voice touches ones senses with such ease as does a hot knife to butter. but it wud take time yet to sprout. JEE, PMT and all other fucking stuffs are no kid's job as of now. but watch out and get hold of some gud seat belts and head gears as well. we're gonna rock soon.