Theory of parts and the whole concern both formal and material ontologies. It pertains to the former as a pure theory of independence and non-independence, and to the latter as regards the particular laws of non-independence that apply in the various ontological regions.


Mereologies are generally classified into extensional and intensional, where the former are ontologically monistic: every object that exists is an object; the parts of objects are objects; and the compositions of objects are objects as well. This is the position put forward by Stanisław Leśniewski, who starts from his definition of ontology where he gives formal definition of the concept of ‘object’ and then extends it in his concert of mereology based on the concept of being a ‘proper part of’, then developing it further in his theory of space and time. Intensional mereologies, by contrast distinguish the parts of an entity into independent and non-independent parts. The former are termed ‘pieces’, and they are those that effectively assume the denomination ‘part’, while the latter are called ‘moments’. From an ontological point of view, parts are objects in the same sense that the entities of which they are parts are objects. Moments have a different ontological valence. they are secondary objectualities and solely in the translated and subjective sense. Which, however, do not mean arbitrary. Note the formulation employed by Husserl, who speaks of the independence of parts and the non-independence of moments, not of independence and dependence. The difference is a subtle one, but it is deliberately introduced. The reason for it resides in Husserl’s mathematical training, where the use of negation is that these cases signify that equality is possible. where a is said to be not greater than b, this means that a is less than b or is equal to b. Translated into the present scenario, when one says that a is non-independent of b, the intention is to say that a is dependent on b or that a is equal to b. Moments, may therefore be equal to the whole of which they are moments, where, however, the concept of equality should be understood in the sense of indiscernibility. The possible indiscernibility of the moments from the whole should not be confused with the possible identity of the part with the whole. A part may even be the whole itself, whereas the moment can at most coincide with the whole; or it may be indiscernible from the whole, but is nonetheless distinct from it.

Tensoring Heterotic Superstring Theories


The left-moving and right-moving modes of a string can be separated and treated as different theories. In 1984 it was realized that consistent string theories could be built by combining a bosonic string theory moving in one direction along the string, with a supersymmetric string theory with a single q1 moving in the opposite direction. These theories are called heterotic superstring theories. That sounds crazy — because bosonic strings live in 26 dimensions but supersymmetric string theories live in 10 dimensions. But the extra 16 dimensions of the bosonic side of the theory aren’t really spacetime dimensions. Heterotic string theories are supersymmetric string theories living in ten spacetime dimensions. Heterotic string theories are built by tensoring a left- and a right-  moving string which do not have the same base fields. More explicitly, it is constructed by tensoring the right-moving super string with 10 left-moving bosonic and 32 internal left-moving fermionic fields. Internal here means that the field does not transform under Lorentz-transformations, this implies that the boundary conditions on these allow for rotations. The two types of heterotic theories that are possible come from the two types of gauge symmetry that give rise to quantum mechanically consistent theories. The first is SO(32) and the second is the more exotic combination called E8XE8. The E8XE8 heterotic theory was previously regarded as the only string theory that could give realistic physics, until the mid-1990s, when additional possibilities based on the other theories were identified.



I might be now be better placed to outline my critique of the notion of Smart Cities and the political thereof. The example of China is valid, but more inclined towards the domestic sector where export-oriented growth imploded, leaving the realty estate in a vacuum. Assuming that these habitats lend values to their inhabitants, the point of rupture would lie in setting up ground for vendors and their allies and alliances with a techno-savvy cognitariat operating the digitally conceived spaces. These would be precisely license-free, for they would have ample expertise in architecture of infrastructure and communication lines. Such technological platforms with network connections would plug and play into monetising services involving access to subscriptions and the latest big-thing in town, ‘data analytics’. A successful implementation of such would mean economising any sharing applications with others venturing out to have their version of success involving a plethora of professions and professionals creating a viability gap between the cognitariat and the precariat. And this would be precisely the gap where political fires would be ignited, grounded, and without an across the gulf implementation, systems integration would only be diffused. Such a diffusion would do no politics any good, and only exacerbate the already fragile ecology. 

Instead, what needs to be done is not any replication of failed systems, but a cognisance of how such monopolistic citadels are recognised and how and what intensity-level of intervention is required. In the form of monetisation when it comes to providing services, my political take goes from the inhabitants being charged to a massive costs overhead involved in when others try and replicate this successful model across other cities. Thats where the related question of monopoly would get in, and thats going to be a war of the corporations that poses a scare for me. And this is a political battle We’d be up against.If Smart City is a dystopia, their planners are much smarter than we have thought of them hitherto. That unbundling is what I mean by flipping the coin. 

Capitalism’s Triumph or Commoditizing Communism


Why is revolution not possible? This is an old debate.

Terms like “socialist” and “revolution”, and “right-wing groups” tend to mean different things to different people, according to their perspectives. which can be quite contradictory, in many regards. Revolutions don’t tend to resolve such contradictions as absolutely as idealists and ideologues tend to imagine. Counter-revolutionary tendencies persist in the society, and even among the revolutionaries, such that it’s never really “over”, and the struggle continues.

Technically, “socialism” is a theoretically “necessary” supposedly “interim” period, during which an elite vanguard seizes political power, “on behalf of” the proletariat, and struggles to transform society, toward the eventual emergence of communism, which is to say, democracy, the ultimate utopian communist dream. That transformation is essentially the suppression of counter-revolutionary (anti-democratic) tendencies, and inculcation and cultivation of revolutionary (democratic) tendencies among the masses.

Marxian concentration on capitalism was all about demonstrating how undemocratic, and thus unjust, irrational and inefficient capitalism tends to be, despite it’s claim to be, relatively speaking, “more democratic” than monarchy, say, or feudalism. He merely sought to show that it is not the ultimate, final stage of that evolution, as it’s proponents tend to assert, but that, like the “socialism” he proposed to supplant it with, an interim stage, which would, in fact, sow the seeds of it’s own destruction, even as previous socio-economic paradigms had done before them.

At the time he was doing all this theorizing, a hundred years ago, his premise of an educated working class, capable of democracy, seemed a virtually impossible utopian dream, considering conditions in the masses, steeped in centuries of ignorance, illiteracy, grinding poverty and religious indoctrination. Rather than second guess his conclusion, then, that further resort to elitism was “necessary” to change those conditions, I’d prefer to just point out that, in fact, those conditions have changed, profoundly, since then, such that the prospect of democracy is no longer such a distant utopian dream, but more feasible and viable a prospect than ever before in human history.

Technology, the engine of all socio-economic relations, has evolved, especially in terms of communications. Here and now, into the 21st Century, both capitalist and “socialist” elitism have become outmoded, I think, and need to “wither away” with the whole concept of the “State” as we now know it, as an externally imposed governor…as Marx predicted would some day be possible. Anymore, most of us aspire to democracy, and we realise that we aren’t there, yet. The issue is not whether anti-democratic rightwing reactionary conservative and fundamentalist counter-revolutionary elements of our society, will, or can, prevent democracy from ensuing. The issue is whether those, who tend to be staunchly opposed to racism, sexism, cultural chauvinism, eco-rape, murderous monopoly corporate fascist ripoffs, and imperialist warmongering, will call off the demoralized cynical defeatism of electoral boycott and excessive splitting, and will step up to actually seize the power, for a change…democratically, electorally…and then proceed to suppress counter-revolutionary anti-democratic tendencies legislatively and judicially, from now on…explicitly for justice and peace, to save the planet. Which, of course, is why the right is freaking out like they are, even now waging “low intensity” civil war, desperately trying to prevent that from happening. For Revolution to be at hand, we must not try and smash capitalism, or even right-wing resistance at that, as democracy is invested in and of itself with enough potency to destroy capitalism and its moribund form, fascism. But, the authorial point of exploiting freedom as against suppressing it is the Negri’s position on the corollaries of reaction to right-wing accelerationsim. So, whatever be the seductive power of neoliberalism, which indeed is undeniable, banking on the track record of proletariat would be stuck in the molasses of the past, or even getting to dynamically shift the agency to cognitariat be akin to letting the seduction of neoliberalism suck the agency in. The alternative is agency/ies, which someone like the obscure Agamben would call “Whatever Singularity” (even Gayatri Spivak flirts with the idea), or precariat, which is the umbrella term for the ones stripped of or dehumanised by the forces of neoliberalism. Unless, the left has this in vision, left is a position best avoided for excepting archival purposes. Yes, commoditising communism spells doom, and we are ideologically headed towards it.

The Physics of Epigenetics


Epigenetic regulation of gene expression involves silencing, i.e. a permanent and heritable inhibition of gene transcription (transciptional gene silencing) or translation (post-transcriptional gene silencing). The current paradigm is that gene silencing is achieved through chromatin condensation, in a so-called heterochromatinization process. Can we characterize the physical properties of heterochromatin and euchromatin? What are the physical consequences of heterochromatinization in terms of structure, dynamics and how do these physical consequences turn out into functional consequences? Histones simultaneously play a crucial role in determining the structure of chromatin; they are the substrate of a vast catalog of epigenetic markings, which is not a coincidence. This supports the hypothesis that epigenetic histone marks modulate gene expression through chromatin structural rearrangements at each level of the nuclear organization: nucleosome, chromatin fiber, chromatin loops, chromosome territories, whole nucleus.

the-physics-of-epigenetics by Ruggero Cortini et. al.

Spinors, Twistors and Ontologies of SpaceTime


Penrose’s conception of spacetime based on the complex analysis as well as Manin’s stem from the notions of spaces of spinors and twistors. Manin’s construction is complex space of spinors, which is a base by means of which 3-dimensional Euclidean space of the classical mechanics and 4-dimensional Minkowski’s space can be defined. The similarity to Plato’s world can be seen through the essential issue of the philosophy of nature, the issue of a relationship between a mathematical model described by a physical theory and the world. In contemporary physics, this relationship poses some subtle problems due to the fact that mathematical models themselves are constructions with abstract, intricate and many level structures. That is the case when we take into consideration the relationship between unitary space of spinors and the structure of physical spacetime. Here the relationship is indirect to a large extent. The Euclidean space and Minkowski’s space are the intermediate structures between fundamental mathematical structure — complex space of spinors — and physical spacetime. That the unitary complex space is fundamental means that it allows to define both, the Euclidean and Minkowski’s spaces. On the other hand, the indispensable intermediary role of those classical structures is played through their relation with experiments and measurement, that can be made only in their categories. Here, we find an analogy with Timaeus’ ontology. Plato’s triangles and bodies, geometrical substratum of the world, correspond to deep structure of spacetime — abstract, complex mathematical structure that allows to define models of spacetime of the classical mechanics. The significance of the latter models is not weakened since they describe adequately — to use the expression taken from the domain of linguistics — surface structure of the physical spacetime, as they enable us make concrete measurements, that serve as a base of verification of a physical theory. Therefore, they connect the ideal Plato’s world with the world of phenomena, similarly like in “Timaeus” a description of this surface structure of nature, i. e. concrete events, was made by means of the four elements, the frame of which was the actual geometrical substratum of nature. It is remarkable that Penrose, whose contribution to the examination of complex spaces of spinors and twistors was the most valuable in our times, shares the view of the strong mathematical Platonism concerning ontology as well as epistemology.

Relation: local-global is of great importance not only in ontology, but also in entire science and philosophy. On the one hand, ontology tends to be defined as knowledge concerning the notion of the whole — the notion of global nature, indeed. On the other hand, the contrast: local-global is often used to define and contrast scientific knowledge and philosophy. Such a view is expressed by René Thom, who thinks that the basic feature of a scientific theory is its locality expressed as the possibility to geometrize it. This view is also shared by Maurin, who states that a category of the whole is specifically philosophical, strictly religious. In the domain of the ontology of spacetime the latest mathematical models that use the methods of global analysis on complex manifolds let us obtain important results concerning the connection between local homogeneity of spacetime and its global homogeneity. The former one, well proved by the whole classical physics and through the Noether’s theorem connected with the principles of conservation in the classical mechanics, has purely scientific nature, the latter, on the other hand, left without any justification would be only an arbitrary metaphysical postulate commonly assumed, since it provides “comfortable” universality of physical laws in the whole Universe. And here, contemporary mathematics can give a kind of solution. The crucial significance for a demonstration of the global homogeneity of spacetime resulting from the local homogeneity of spacetime has Penrose’ postulate which defines spacetime as a 2-dimensional complex, i. e. 4-dimensional real, holomorphic manifold. For such manifolds the principle of identity binds. According to this principle, for any two holomorphic or meromorphic functions, if they are identical in optionally small neighbourhood, they are also identical on the whole manifold. Such a geometrical model of spacetime lessens remarkably the arbitrariness of the metaphysical postulate of global homogeneity of spacetime. What follows, is the connection between what is local, so scientific, and what is global, so ontological, — the means that enables this connection is mathematics, strictly speaking, global analysis.

Math Conundrum in Thomas Pynchon


Her idea of banter
Likely isn’t Cantor
Nor is she apt to murmur low Axioms of Zermelo,
She’s been kissed by geniuses, Amateur Frobeniuses
One by one in swank array, Bright as any Poincaré…

and so on in that vein.

It was when I came upon the word “automorphic”…Earth making its automorphic way round the sun again and yet again…periodic functions, and their generalized form, automorphic functions as a prelude to a scholarly discussion of time travel:

Time no longer ‘passes,’ with a linear velocity, but ‘returns,’ with an angular one. All is ruled by the Automorphic Dispensation. We are returned to ourselves eternally, or, if you like, timelessly.

You find an awful lot of hyperbolas in Against the Day. For example: the hyperbolic geometry in connection with automorphic functions; the “Automorphic Dispensation” which seems to be a “function… by which, almost as a by-product, ordinary Euclidean space is transformed to Lobachevskian”; and that “perfect hyper-hyperboloid” that “only Miles” Blundell, the one character to have comprehended the meaning of space-time, “can see in its entirety.” There are (hyperbolic) wave equations (and a whole family of Vibes) and the “noted Quaternionist V. Ganesh Rao of Calcutta University” who by rotating himself in an imaginary direction performs something “like reincarnation on a budget, without the element of karma to worry about.”

Or as the NewYorker puts it,

The readers will encounter many references to, and, frequently, extended disquisitions on, such matters as Hamilton’s Quaternions, Gibbsian vector analysis, Riemann spheres, Prandtl’s discovery of the boundary layer, the Hilbert Pólya Conjecture, the Minkowskian space-time track, and Zermelo’s Axiom of Choice. Inserting this stuff into novelistic situations produces passages like this one, describing a meeting of an outfit known as the Transnoctial Discussion Group.

“Time moves on but one axis,” advised Dr. Blope, “past to future—the only turnings possible being turns of a hundred and eighty degrees. In the Quaternions, a ninety-degree direction would correspond to an additional axiswhose unit is √-1. A turn through any other angle would require for its unit a complex number.”

“Yet mappings in which a linear axis becomes curvilinear—functions of a complex variable such as w=ez, where a straight line in the z-plane maps to a circle in the w-plane,” said Dr. Rao, “do suggest the possibility of linear time becoming circular, and so achieving eternal return as simply, or should I say complexly, as that.”. . . As if the hour itself in growing later had exposed some obscure fatality, the discussion moved to the subject of the luminiferous Æther, as to which exchanges of opinion—relying, like Quaternions, largely on faith—often failed to avoid a certain vehemence……..

Still coming to grips with this ?????????


100 Days of #Demonetization. Citizens’ Protest on 19th February 2017.


The highs of demonetization when the Government can’t be LYING low.

Countering the Economic Emergency imposed ON the people. 
The Government has redefined Democracy, A form of Government BY the people, FOR the people, OF the people and crucially, ON the people. Rather than democracy, Demonetization has shown what DEMONcracy is all about. Please join in huge numbers on the 19th February 2017 for a Citizens’ Protest and shout out to the Government that Enough is Enough. 

#Demonetization #100DaysofDemonetization #CitizensProtest #JantarMantar

 नोटबंदी के 100 दिन 

धरना और रैली

19 फरवरी, 2017, रविवार , 12 बजे से 

मंडी  हाउस  से जंतर मंतर तक 

जंतर मंतर पर जनसभा और सांस्कृतिक कार्यक्रम

इसमें कोई गुंजाईश नहीं कि पिछले 100 दिनों में भारतीय जनता आर्थिक आपदा से जूझ रही है. 8 नवंबर 2016 की रात को प्रधानमंत्री ने 500 और 1000 के नोटों का विमुद्रीकरण कर इनके चलन को अवैध घोषित कर दिया और दावा किया कि इससे कालाधन पर रोक लगेगा, कर चोरी रुकेगी, आतंकवादी गतिविधियों के फंडिंग पर रोक लगेगी और जाली नोटों पर लगाम लगेगा. जिनके पास ये नोट थे, उन्हें जमा करने के लिए करीब 2 महीनों की मुहलत दी गयी और निकासी के लिए  भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक ने कई स्तर की सीमाबद्धता निर्धारित कर दी. भारतीय अर्थव्यवस्था जो मुख्य रूप से नकदी पर आधारित है और इसमें भी एक बड़ी तादाद ऐसे लोगों का है जिसे इस पूरे आर्थिक तंत्र से बाहर कर दिया गया है, वह केवल और केवल नकदी मुद्रा पर निर्भर है. यह गुहार किया गया कि “फौरी तौर पर थोड़ी तकलीफ सह लें” क्योंकि यह देश की सेहत के लिए बहुत जरूरी है. प्रधान मंत्री का यह आह्वान था कि इस “तात्कालिक मुसीबत” को झेल लेने से भारतीय अर्थ व्यवस्था की सारी बीमारियाँ ठीक हो जायेंगी.

लेकिन हुआ क्या? पूरे देश की जनता अपने बचत को जमा करने और नोट बदलवाने के लिए बदहवास बैंकों की कतारों में लगने को मज़बूर हुई. नए नोटों के लिए लम्बी और अंतहीन कतारों में लोग लगे रहे. इन कतारों में कई लोगों की जानें चली गयीं, बीमारों का समय पर इलाज़ नहीं हो पाया, सामाजिक कार्यक्रम जैसे शादी और मैयत के लिए लोगों को दर-दर की ठोकरें खानी पड़ी और ताने ये दिया जा रहा था यह कि देश की सरहद पर हमारे सैनिक अपना खून देकर आपकी रक्षा कर रहे हैं, और आप थोड़ी तकलीफ नहीं झेल सकते? पर उनका क्या जिनका किसी बैंक में खाता तक नहीं है. या उनका क्या जो बैंक या एटीएम से काफी दूरी पर हैं,वो अपना  नोट कैसे बदलवायें? उन लोगों का क्या जो अपनी छोटी-छोटी बचत को जमा करने के लिए अपनी दिहाड़ी छोड़ कर दिन भर कतारों में लगे रहे? उन महिलाओं का क्या जो बड़ी मेहनत और जतन से किसी विपदा के लिए वर्षों से कुछ बचा कर रखीं थीं? उन करोड़ों रुपयों का क्या जो कोआपरेटिव बैंकिंग सिस्टम में बचत कर के रखा गया था, जो अभी भी मुख्यधारा के बैंकिंग तंत्र से कोसों दूर हैं, लेकिन ये कई राज्यों में  करोड़ों लोगों के पैसे को हिफाज़त से रखते हैं? जो लोग इस मुसीबत को झेल रहे थे, मालूम हैं उनके लिए पी.एम. मोदी का समाधान क्या था? 9 नवंबर को लगभग तमाम अखबारों में विज्ञापन दिखा “अभी एटीएम नहीं पेटीएमकरो”

ऐसी क्या मज़बूरी थी कि सरकार यह नहीं बताना चाह रही थी कि अस्थाई मुसीबतें कैसे हमारे जीवन को, आजीविका को और अनौपचारिक क्षेत्र की अर्थव्यवस्था को स्थाई रूप से तबाह कर देगी . सरकार को पता होना चाहिए था  थ कि इस कदम के लिए न तो आरबीआई और ना ही बैंक पूरी तरह से तैयार थे, और यह कदम उल्टा पड़ सकता था. प्रधानमंत्री को यह निश्चित तौर पर मालूम था कि इससे कालाधन पर रोक नहीं लगेगा. अमेरिका-मेरिल लिंच बैंक के एक अध्ययन के मुताबिक अनुमान है कि सकल घरेलू उत्पाद में 25 % धन काली अर्थव्यस्था का है और इसमें महज 10 प्रतिशत हिस्सा ही नकद रूप में है. यानी कि 90 फ़ीसदी कालेधन का कभी भी नकदी के रूप में प्रयोग  नहीं रहा.  यह सच्चाई श्रीमान मोदी, श्रीमान जेटली और श्रीमान शाह अच्छी तरह जानते थे. आखिर क्या वजह है कि सरकार उसी जनता से लगातार झूठ बोल रही है, जिसके वोट से ये सत्ता में आये हुए हैं. आखिर किसके हितों को इस नोटबंदी के जरिये साधा गया.

जहाँ तक जाली नोटों का सवाल है, RBI का आंकड़ा दिखाता  है कि करीब 90.26 अरब भारतीय मुद्रा के नोट 2015-16 में चलन में थे, इसमें से मात्र 0.0007% ही जाली नोट थे. 2015-16 में इन नोटों का कुल मूल्य मात्र 29.64 करोड़ रुपये था जो कुल चलन में 16.41 लाख करोड़ रुपये का महज .000018 फ़ीसदी ही है. नोटबंदी का वास्तविक असर जैसा कि ढिंढोरा पीटा जा रहा था, बहुत ही आंशिक रहा . पुरानी कहावत  है कि “एक चूहे को पकड़ने के लिए पूरे घर को जला दिया गया”. इस नोटबंदी के पीछे यह भी तर्क दिया गया कि इससे देशद्रोही गतिविधियों के लिए फंडिंग रुकेगी. लेकिन क्या आज तक एक भी उदहारण देखने को  मिला जिससे कि आतंकवादी गतिविधियों में कोई रुकावट आयी हो? यदि कुछ प्रभाव पड़ा भी तो महज क्षणिक ही प्रभाव रहा जबतक कि नए नोट बदल नहीं लिए गए. नए  2000 और 500 के नोट पुराने 1000 और 500 के  नोट से कहीं ज्यादा देशद्रोही गतिविधियों के लिए माकूल हैं. तमाम गतिविधियों में नकदी का चलन बहुत छोटा हिस्सा है, यह ना तो आतंक का प्रेरणा स्रोत है और ना ही आतंकवादी गतिविधियों का मूल कारण. केवल एक ही दहशतगर्दी दिखी, वह थी सरकार द्वारा देश की जनता पर चलाई गई आर्थिक दहशतगर्दी.

आखिर यह पूरी कवायद क्या थी. हम भारत के लोग, पूरी शिद्दत के साथ अपनी आवाज बुलंद करते हैं कि हमें किसी अतिमानव (सुपर हीरो) की जरूरत नहीं जो अलोकतांत्रिक ढंग से काम करता हो और हमें सपने दिखाता  हो, और सपने बेच कर हमें उल्लू बनाता हो. हमें जनपक्षीय सरकार की जरूरत है ना कि कॉर्पोरेटपरस्त आर्थिक आपदा की. हम इस प्रकार के किसी भी आर्थिक और राजनीतिक  विमुद्रिकरण को अस्वीकार करते हैं, और पूरी शिद्दत के साथ मांग करते हैं कि हमें पारदर्शी और जवाबदेह सरकार चाहिए जो वर्त्तमान सरकार के कुतर्क तर्क और झूठे दावे “हमें मालूम है लोगों को क्या चाहिए” को पलट दे. हम आधार स्कीम के तहत सरकार के तानाशाही और दमघोंटू मुहिम का पुरजोर विरोध करते हैं और मांग करते हैं कि इस मुहिम पर तत्काल प्रभाव से राजनीतिक और न्यायिक दखल कर रोक लगाई जाय. हम मांग करते हैं कि सरकार नोटबंदी पर श्वेतपत्र जारी करे कि लोगों की जिंदगी और उनके आजीविका पर कितना प्रभाव पड़ा है और इसका तुरंत हर्जाना दे. हम मांग करते हैं कि कॉर्पोरेट द्वारा “कैशलेस” मुहिम को तत्काल वापस लिया जाय.

Indian people have undergone nothing less than an Economic Emergency for the last 100 days. On the midnight of 8/11/16, in a single pronouncement, the Prime Minister of India made higher denominations of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 illegal tender under the pretense of curbing black money, arresting tax evasion, stopping funding of terrorist activities and counterfeiting of currency. Those who had these notes were given a time frame of less than 2 months to deposit them and withdraw new denominations in different slabs of limits set by the RBI. The Indian economy, which is predominantly cash based and the Indian people, a great section of who are financially excluded, existing solely on hard currency, would somehow have to manage through this ‘temporary crisis’ for the greater good of the nation. This was the call of the Prime Minister to undergo ‘temporary hardships’ to root out the ills of the Indian Economy.

And so what happened? The country panicked and people rushed to banks to deposit their cash savings, exchange high denominations and lines formed. Long lines, winding unending lines full of people waiting to deposit and get new notes. People died in those lines, many patients could not get timely medical help, many social functions – marriages and burials got drowned in questions of “why cant you suffer a little for the country, when soldiers are giving their blood in the borders to protect you”. But what about people who never had a bank account? Or those too far away from a branch or ATM to withdraw or exchange? Or those whose earnings were so marginal that they could not spare losing a day’s work waiting in lines? Or women who had painstakingly collected money for emergency over many years? What about those crores of rupees that was saved through co-operative banking system, still far away from the mainstream banking operations – but was safeguarding the money of crores of people in many states? Modi’s solution for those suffering was clearly evident on the morning of the 9th, plastered on almost every major newspaper “abhi ATM nahin, Paytm Karo.”

What the government did not tell us was that these temporary hardships would leave a permanent damage on lives, livelihoods and disturb a major chunk of the informal economy. The Government should have known that with underprepared RBI and unprepared banks, the move was bound to backfire. In retrospect, the Prime minister surely knew that demonetization wasn’t about black money; it wasn’t about funding the terrorists; and it certainly wasn’t about counterfeit currency.  A study done by Bank of America-Merill Lynch estimates black economy at 25% of GDP and quantifies the cash component at 10% of the above. Hence, 90% of black wealth was never in cash. A fact that was well known to Mr. Modi, Mr. Jaitley and Mr. Shah. Why did the Government then lie to the citizens of India who voted them to power? Whose interest are being pushed through demonetization?

As for counterfeiting, RBI data shows that, of the 90.26 billion Indian currency notes in circulation in 2015-16, only 0.0007%, were detected as fake. The value of these fake notes in 2015-16 was Rs 29.64 crore, which is 0.0018 per cent of the Rs 16.41 lakh crore currency in circulation. The actual impact of demonetization is then so marginal that the ideology behind its application can best be captured by the old saying, “burning down the house to catch a mouse.” Seditious funding was also given as a reason for demonetization, but did we ever hear of any examples of how terrorism was halted by this move? Even if there was any impact, it can only have been temporary, until new cash replaced the old! The new Rs.2000 and Rs.500 note is as seditious as the old Rs.1000 and Rs.500 note then! Cash is merely one of many conduits; it is neither the source, the motivation nor the act of terrorism. The only act of terrorism seems to be by the government in economically terrorizing the entire population of the country.

So, what exactly was the drive for? We, the people of India, affirm that we do not need a superhero, who does not act democratically and instead is all about weaving and selling dreams. We need people oriented governance and not corporate driven economic emergency. We reject the economic and political premises of demonetization and affirm that a transparent and accountable government is required to replace the current logic of ‘we know what is good for the people’. We reject in totality the authoritarian drive to push the UID/Aadhar scheme down people’s throats and demand political and judicial intervention to stop the drive immediately. We demand that the government produce a white paper on the impacts of demonetization on people’s lives and livelihoods and compensate for the lives and livelihoods. We demand that the corporate driven ‘cashless’ economy plan be immediately withdrawn.

Paulian Idea, Bayesianism and Quantum Solipsism. Note Quote.


The best way to begin a more thoroughly QBist delineation of quantum mechanics is to start with two choice quotes on personalist Bayesianism itself. The first is from Hampton, Moore, and Thomas,

Bruno de Finetti believes there is no need to assume that the probability of some event has a uniquely determinable value. His philosophical view of probability is that it expresses the feeling of an individual and cannot have meaning except in relation to him.

and the second from Dennis Lindley,

The Bayesian, subjectivist, or coherent, paradigm is egocentric. It is a tale of one person contemplating the world and not wishing to be stupid (technically, incoherent). He realizes that to do this his statements of uncertainty must be probabilistic.

These two quotes make it absolutely clear that personalist Bayesianism is a “single-user theory.” Thus, QBism must inherit at least this much egocentrism in its view of quantum states ρ.

For, the “Paulian Idea”—which is also essential to the QBist view—goes further still. It says that the outcomes to quantum measurements are single-user as well! That is to say, when an agent writes down her degrees of belief for the outcomes of a quantum measurement, what she is writing down are her degrees of belief about her potential personal experiences arising in consequence of her actions upon the external world

With regard to the Paulian Idea there are two points that are decisive for dismissing the charge of solipsism. One is the conceptual split of the world into two parts—one an agent and the other an external quantum system—that gets the discussion of quantum measurement off the ground in the first place. If such a split were not needed for making sense of the question of actions (actions upon what? in what? with respect to what?), it simply would not have been made. Imagining a quantum measurement without an autonomous quantum system participating in the process would be as paradoxical as the Zen koan of the sound of a single hand clapping. The second point is that once the agent chooses an action {Ei}, the particular consequence Ek of it is beyond his control. That is to say, the particular outcome of a quantum measurement is not a product of his desires, whims, or fancies—this is the very reason he uses the calculus of probabilities in the first place: they quantify his uncertainty, an uncertainty that, try as he might, he cannot get around. So, implicit in this whole picture—this whole Paulian Idea—is an “external world . . . made of something,” just as Martin Gardner(1) calls for. It is only that quantum theory is a rather small theory: Its boundaries are set by being a handbook for agents immersed within that “world made of something.”

(1) “Well then, it is incomplete after all. Go seek hidden variables!” But that is to misunderstand the problematic here. Theories of decision that really are theories of decision just don’t “port” to theories or visions of the world in that way. From the point of view of being a theory for taking actions and gambles, quantum theory is already all that it can be.

Speculative String-Cosmologies as Geodesically Incomplete.


Penrose diagrams of de Sitter space in the flat (left) and static (right) slicings that each cover only part of the whole de Sitter space, and that are both geodesically incomplete.

Alan Guth, Alvin Borde and Alexander Vilenkin have argued that within the framework of a future-eternal inflationary multiverse, as well as some more speculative string-cosmologies, all worldlines are geodesically incomplete and, thus, the multiverse has to have a beginning. Unfortunately, if future-eternal inflation is true, all “hypotheses about the ultimate beginning of the universe would become totally divorced from any observable consequences. Since our own pocket universe would be equally likely to lie anywhere on the infinite tree of universes produced by eternal inflation, we would expect to find ourselves arbitrarily far from the beginning. The infinite inflating network would presumably approach some kind of steady state, losing all memory of how it started […] Thus, there would be no way of relating the properties of the ultimate origin to anything that we might observe in today’s universe.” (Guth).

On the other hand, Andrei Linde has argued that the multiverse could be past-eternal, because either all single world lines might have to start somewhere, but not the whole bundle of them (Linde), or there could even exist some (albeit strange) space-times with single past-eternal world lines.

This issue is not settled, and even in those scenarios a global arrow of time may not necessarily exist. However, there are other frameworks possible – and they have even already been developed to some extent, where a future-eternal inflationary multiverse is both not past-eternal and beginningless but arise from some primordial vacuum which is macroscopically time-less. Thus, again, the beginning of some classical space-times is not equivalent with the beginning of everything.

We can even imagine that there is no multiverse, but that the whole (perhaps finite) universe – our universe – once was in a steady state without any macroscopic arrows of time but, due to a statistical fluctuation above a certain threshold value, started to expand  – or to contract, bounce and expand – as a whole and acquired an arrow of time. In such a case the above-mentioned reply, which was based on the spatial distinction of a beginning of some parts of the world and the eternity of the world as a whole, would collapse.

Nevertheless it is necessary to distinguish between the different notions and extensions of the term “universe”. In the simplest case, Kant’s antinomy might be based on an ambiguity of the term “world” (i.e. the difference between “universe” and “multiverse”), but it does not need to; and it was not assumed here that it necessarily does. The temporal part of Kant’s first antinomy was purely about the question whether the macroscopic arrow of time is past-eternal or not. And if it is not past-eternal this does not mean that time and hence the world has an absolute beginning in every respect – it is still possible that there was or is a world with some underlying microscopic time. (By the way, one can also imagine that, even if our arrow of time is past- and/or future-eternal, there might exist “timeless islands” someday: for instance isolated black holes if they would not ultimately radiate away due to quantum effects, or empty static universes if they could split off of our space-time.)

Of course it is possible that firstly a natural principle of plentitude is realized and different multiverses (sets of universes) exist totally independent from each other, and secondly that some of them are truly past-eternal while others have an absolute beginning and others have only local starting points of local arrows of time as it was suggested here. If so, we might not be able to tell in what kind we live in. And this would be irrelevant in the end, because then every possible world is actual and probably exists infinitely often. But we do not know whether such an extreme principle of plentitude does apply or if cosmology is ultimately just and only a matter of pure logical consistency, allowing us finally to calculate the complete architecture of the world by armchair-reasoning.