Mutational Law of Karma (कर्म)?


During the preparation for cell division, for example, before the formation of the gametes or reproductive cells, the chromosomes may “cross over” so that material which originated from the male parent interchanges with that from the female parent. To quote from a standard work on evolutionary theory and genetics, Ernst Mayr’s Evolution and the Diversity of Life:

At some time prior to the formation of the gametes, the two homologous chromosomes exchange equivalent pieces with each other by a process called “crossing over.” By and large (there are many exceptions) no laws seem to determine where the chromosomes will break or how large the pieces will be that are exchanged. Which particular combination of pieces of maternal and paternal chromosomes making up the new chromosome will enter a given egg or spermatozoon is largely a matter of chance, at least in most chromosomes and most species. Likewise, it is largely a matter of accident which chromosomes will go into which germ cell, provided only that each cell receives its full set of chromosomes.

It is easy to attribute events to chance, but this only expresses scientific ignorance as to the real cause.

Another phenomenon is mutation: sometimes genetic codes suddenly change. This, too, is usually attributed to accident or chance, but then it is difficult to explain why any progression is made at all once biological systems have evolved to a certain level of complexity and perfection. The chance of a mutation leading to fatal, or at least less fit, properties is far greater than of a mutation making the individual fitter. Besides “crossing over” and mutation at one or several places on the chromosomes, another uncertain factor that Mayr and others mention is the distribution of chromosomes during reduction division (meiosis) to form reproductive cells. This process affects which side in the gamete the originally paternal or maternal genetic material goes to. Moreover, there are other opportunities for the course of events to be influenced from within: only part of the cell’s genetic code is active at certain times and under certain circumstances. Other parts are not active and may never become so during the present life. Thus, there are many secrets not yet unveiled by science, but nevertheless attributed to “chance.”

Chance, however, has no place in the theosophical view. Whatever happens is karmic, that is, it can be attributed to a cause, and this cause comes from within. In theosophy the different combinations of hereditary qualities in individuals are governed by psychomagnetic attractions inherent in the skandhas (‎स्कन्ध) of the reincarnating entity. Skandhas are the individual’s aggregates of properties — such as higher and lower mental consciousness, feelings, attractions, and physical characteristics — carried over from former lives. Thus, the specific magnetism of the soul, formed by its store of properties, determines which combinations of hereditary qualities will manifest in a particular incarnation. “It is . . . unquestionable that in the case of human incarnations the law of Karma, racial or individual, overrides the subordinate tendencies of ‘Heredity,’ its servant” (The Secret Doctrine).

Financial Forward Rate “Strings” (Didactic 1)


Imagine that Julie wants to invest $1 for two years. She can devise two possible strategies. The first one is to put the money in a one-year bond at an interest rate r1. At the end of the year, she must take her money and find another one-year bond, with interest rate r1/2 which is the interest rate in one year on a loan maturing in two years. The final payoff of this strategy is simply (1 + r1)(1 + r1/2). The problem is that Julie cannot know for sure what will be the one-period interest rate r1/2 of next year. Thus, she can only estimate a return by guessing the expectation of r1/2.

Instead of making two separate investments of one year each, Julie could invest her money today in a bond that pays off in two years with interest rate r2. The final payoff is then (1 + r2)2. This second strategy is riskless as she knows for sure her return. Now, this strategy can be reinterpreted along the line of the first strategy as follows. It consists in investing for one year at the rate r1 and for the second year at a forward rate f2. The forward rate is like the r1/2 rate, with the essential difference that it is guaranteed : by buying the two-year bond, Julie can “lock in” an interest rate f2 for the second year.

This simple example illustrates that the set of all possible bonds traded on the market is equivalent to the so-called forward rate curve. The forward rate f(t,x) is thus the interest rate that can be contracted at time t for instantaneously riskless borrowing 1 or lending at time t + x. It is thus a function or curve of the time-to-maturity x2, where x plays the role of a “length” variable, that deforms with time t. Its knowledge is completely equivalent to the set of bond prices P(t,x) at time t that expire at time t + x. The shape of the forward rate curve f(t,x) incessantly fluctuates as a function of time t. These fluctuations are due to a combination of factors, including future expectation of the short-term interest rates, liquidity preferences, market segmentation and trading. It is obvious that the forward rate f (t, x+δx) for δx small can not be very different from f (t,x). It is thus tempting to see f(t,x) as a “string” characterized by a kind of tension which prevents too large local deformations that would not be financially acceptable. This superficial analogy is in the follow up of the repetitious intersections between finance and physics, starting with Bachelier who solved the diffusion equation of Brownian motion as a model of stock market price fluctuations five years before Einstein, continuing with the discovery of the relevance of Lévy laws for cotton price fluctuations by Mandelbrot that can be compared with the present interest of such power laws for the description of physical and natural phenomena. The present investigation delves into how to formalize mathematically this analogy between the forward rate curve and a string. We formulate the term structure of interest rates as the solution of a stochastic partial differential equation (SPDE), following the physical analogy of a continuous curve (string) whose shape moves stochastically through time.

The equation of motion of macroscopic physical strings is derived from conservation laws. The fundamental equations of motion of microscopic strings formulated to describe the fundamental particles derive from global symmetry principles and dualities between long-range and short-range descriptions. Are there similar principles that can guide the determination of the equations of motion of the more down-to-earth financial forward rate “strings”?

Suppose that in the middle ages, before Copernicus and Galileo, the Earth really was stationary at the centre of the universe, and only began moving later on. Imagine that during the nineteenth century, when everyone believed classical physics to be true, that it really was true, and quantum phenomena were non-existent. These are not philosophical musings, but an attempt to portray how physics might look if it actually behaved like the financial markets. Indeed, the financial world is such that any insight is almost immediately used to trade for a profit. As the insight spreads among traders, the “universe” changes accordingly. As G. Soros has pointed out, market players are “actors observing their own deeds”. As E. Derman, head of quantitative strategies at Goldman Sachs, puts it, in physics you are playing against God, who does not change his mind very often. In finance, you are playing against Gods creatures, whose feelings are ephemeral, at best unstable, and the news on which they are based keep streaming in. Value clearly derives from human beings, while mass, charge and electromagnetism apparently do not. This has led to suggestions that a fruitful framework to study finance and economy is to use evolutionary models inspired from biology and genetics.

This does not however guide us much for the determination of “fundamental” equa- tions, if any. Here, we propose to use the condition of absence of arbitrage opportunity and show that this leads to strong constraints on the structure of the governing equations. The basic idea is that, if there are arbitrage opportunities (free lunches), they cannot live long or must be quite subtle, otherwise traders would act on them and arbitrage them away. The no-arbitrage condition is an idealization of a self-consistent dynamical state of the market resulting from the incessant actions of the traders (ar- bitragers). It is not the out-of-fashion equilibrium approximation sometimes described but rather embodies a very subtle cooperative organization of the market.

We consider this condition as the fundamental backbone for the theory. The idea to impose this requirement is not new and is in fact the prerequisite of most models developed in the academic finance community. Modigliani and Miller [here and here] have indeed emphasized the critical role played by arbitrage in determining the value of securities. It is sometimes suggested that transaction costs and other market imperfections make irrelevant the no-arbitrage condition. Let us address briefly this question.

Transaction costs in option replication and other hedging activities have been extensively investigated since they (or other market “imperfections”) clearly disturb the risk-neutral argument and set option theory back a few decades. Transaction costs induce, for obvious reasons, dynamic incompleteness, thus preventing valuation as we know it since Black and Scholes. However, the most efficient dynamic hedgers (market makers) incur essentially no transaction costs when owning options. These specialized market makers compete with each other to provide liquidity in option instruments, and maintain inventories in them. They rationally limit their dynamic replication to their residual exposure, not their global exposure. In addition, the fact that they do not hold options until maturity greatly reduces their costs of dynamic hedging. They have an incentive in the acceleration of financial intermediation. Furthermore, as options are rarely replicated until maturity, the expected transaction costs of the short options depend mostly on the dynamics of the order flow in the option markets – not on the direct costs of transacting. For the efficient operators (and those operators only), markets are more dynamically complete than anticipated. This is not true for a second category of traders, those who merely purchase or sell financial instruments that are subjected to dynamic hedging. They, accordingly, neither are equipped for dynamic hedging, nor have the need for it, thanks to the existence of specialized and more efficient market makers. The examination of their transaction costs in the event of their decision to dynamically replicate their options is of no true theoretical contribution. A second important point is that the existence of transaction costs should not be invoked as an excuse for disregarding the no-arbitrage condition, but, rather should be constructively invoked to study its impacts on the models…..

Genomic analysis of family data reveals additional genetic effects on intelligence and personality

H/T West Hunter.


The rare variants that affect IQ will generally decrease IQ – and since pleiotropy is the norm, usually they’ll be deleterious in other ways as well. Genetic load.


But, considering what is now known about the biological origins of cognition and intelligence, it is generally difficult to take claims of discrimination seriously when underrepresented groups also display relatively lower intelligence profiles. However, in this case there is no reason to think that conservatives as a group have an intellectual profile below the general population. Social conservatives tend to be a little lower in intelligence relative to liberals, but free-market conservatives (libertarians) tend to be smarter than liberals. Being very partisan, either liberal or conservative, tends to be associated with high IQ as well. Increased income levels, which are a proxy for IQ, also moves people right ideologically. In other words, there is nothing that biologically determined intelligence can do to explain the lack of conservatives, and even moderates, in the humanities….Race Hustling /r/science


A Rejoinder in Crass Humor: A Case of Corporate Genes

A company not many have heard of.  
A company that holds exclusive rights (patents) on BRCA1 and BRCA2.
Still the waters are murky. Big deal, so what? Hold on, hold on….before the spurting of curt questions….
One must know what would holding patents to these genes entail.
BRCA1 and BRCA2 are related to Breast and Ovarian cancers, and the patents are held by a Utah-based corporation, “Myriad Genetics”. Now, the curtness turns biting to oneself. Corporations are not people, but Corporations design people, build people, and ultimately own people. And, this is the incipient truth.
Imagine this:
Patients want to know if they have mutations and hence would want to go in for genetic testing. These mutations are associated with genes that have a significantly increased risk of breast and ovarian cancers. Myriad Genetics apparently created something patent-able by isolating these genes from the body. The tussle reaches the Supreme Court. Nine brilliant minds on legal affairs try their luck with genetic affairs now. One judge quips, “If you could get a super-microscope and look at what they have with the cDNA,you would discover something with an A there, you see, and you wouldn’t discover something with a U there. And there is no such thing in nature as the no-introns AGG, whatever.” This one judge is formally listed as Stephen Breyer…good nomenclature, and if one were to ask why?, well, if the justices could rant on genes, why can’t I rant on nomenclatures. Evens Stevens…elementary. Getting the green signal, and therefore moving on, there is an encounter with building blocks of life getting smashed into their juridical equivalents of cookies, baseball bats (good, IPL is yet to infect these judges!!) and bodily organs.
WELL, SWITCH SENSIBILITIES, this is all that is happening in the real space, and not the reel space of some over the edge, scifi derangement flick.
I use salt, sugar, baking powder, butter some kinda essence and bake a cake. I patent it depending on procedural techniques and a habit of good luck. So far, so good. so what? I cannot fight the right to the basic ingredients. Can I?
A cricket bat (sorry, you baseballers!!!) is a cricket bat, because it is isolated from the tree, branch, trunk. SO? Similarly, a genetic sequencing isn’t really a naturally occurring one, since geneticists isolate and recombine them in ways that is patentable. WOW. Amazoningly lost. Even a word called “Gobbledygook” says it could be understood. Let us contort the proverb and make it sound: kissing the weed for the cheese!!!
My funny bones are getting lame now. Time to get soporific. Why should Corporations own genes? was the case in point at the Supreme Court, and all of this sounded like some eternally coruscating slapstick from the heydays of 3 Stooges (personally, they are my all time favourites).
A twist to the grim side of life is what Peter Meldrum (he is retired since), CEO of Myriad Genetics echoes,
“were essential to developing diagnostic tools that have been used by more than 1 million women to understand their hereditary risks of breast cancer and ovarian cancer.”…..
“Were these molecules derived in part from natural material? Sure. But that is true of many patents. Labs routinely turn naturally found molecules into innovative medicines and get patent protection.”….
Our tests are also accessible; some 95 percent of patients get insurance coverage, and we offer the test for free to those who cannot afford it….
and lastly,
“Our patents have also promoted additional research; 18,000 scientists have studied the genes, resulting in 10,000 published papers.”……
A corporation that brags, commodifies the body in ways similar to a general who orders a massacre and brags medallions and stars on his uniform cannot be fought on cavils anymore. If this reality does not seep in, we could even be late for eating crows, for this would mean non-extant existence, denuding our senses to more and more invasions, making us vulnerable to corporatized-demon[crazy]-ness. Whatever, whatever could mean……

Complex Life, Randomised Paragraph

In this informationscape, one of the most prominent identities of the gene is as information, code, program, blueprint, recipe, and ‘book of life’. These metaphors dominate popular understanding of genetics and molecular biology. A good deal of scepticism has been expressed about these ideas by biologists and philosophers of biology. The idea of genetic information has been dismissed as merely metaphorical, or, slightly more positively, as referring to a loose collection of analogical models which make heuristic use of several different points of resemblance between molecular processes and human communication systems. Invoking the physics and chemistry underlying the substrate as a promising area in breaking the so-called perennial mystery argues for the importance of Francis Crick’s 1958 definition, which relates directly to the actual genetic code: “information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein.” Surprisingly, this definition can be generalised to apply to non-genetic factors in development. Doing so makes it possible to state clearly why the origin of nucleic acid-based heredity was an evolutionary ‘key innovation’ which made possible the evolution of complex life, while maintaining a balanced view of the role of genetic and other causes in the developmental biology of modern organisms. Quoting Deleuze in the appendix to his book on Foucault, where the very notion of overman, superman or expansiveness is lying outside the constraint of the usual anthropological forms of the human, and this expansiveness could be looked into by two means viz, the potential foldings proper to the chains of the genetic code, and the potential of silicon in the third generation machines. It is the latter versus the former, which is crucial here for consciousness to break free of human-centric logic.

Nucleosome With Dna Model