Libertarianism: Grounds Up Formulation

Introduction and Basic Definition:
In this post, I will informally describe the philosophy of libertarianism from the basic foundations. This is not meant to be comprehensive definition and analysis, however it presents the philosophy from it's foundational principles.

The beauty of libertarianism is it's simplicity. It is the simplest political philosophy to understand, because it rests essentially on a single axiom. Everything else is made through extrapolation from that single axiom.

The axiom of libertarianism is self-ownership: You own yourself. Your body is your property.

Owning property means that you have an exclusive right to control and make decisions about the use and function of the property you own.

With that in mind, this means by definition that owning your body means that you have an exclusive right to control and make decisions about the use and function of your body. Your body is the first property you own once you are born.

By careful analysis and study of the implications of the concept of self-ownership, we reach three further theoretical constructs that are conclusions from the axiom of self-ownership. Theory of property rights, theory of contracts, and theory of crime. I will not go into details of how those theories are formally derived from the concept of self-ownership; I will address that in future posts. Let's briefly discuss those theoretical constructs.


The Theory of Property Rights:
The major question of property rights is how does a person go from owning one property (his body) to owning external things in the world. There are two principles that need to be in place to answer this question.

1- The homesteading principle: The homesteading principle describes how a person might acquire what is previously unowned by anyone else. The principle states that a person gains property by mixing his labor with nature. Since a person owns his body, he also owns his labor. This means that a person can appropriate those parts of nature which he invested labor in.

2- Legitimate title transfer: The legitimate title transfer describes how one person might acquire the legitimate property of another person. A legitimate title transfer is defined as a voluntary transfer of property authorized by it's legitimate owner. There are many ways to transfer property: Giving someone a gift; Exchanging items through trade or barter (buying and selling); Inheritance; Or contractual agreements; All of these are examples of legitimate title transfer.


The Theory of Contracts:
Contracts are necessary to ensure securing property rights. Contracts can be simply understood as future (possibly conditional) property rights. For example, if you lend your friend a sum of money on the condition that they return it next week; This means that you have a right to that sum of money next week to be provided by that same person. If you buy an item on eBay, this means that you have a right to receive the item in question in the future. If you make a bet with someone on the outcome of a football match, it means that the property rights to certain sums of money are conditional upon the unfolding of a future event.

Contracts are important because they provide the necessary tools to secure property rights. In the case of lending someone a sum of money, the lender would have only agreed to voluntarily give up his property under the conditions of the contract. Violating contracts is a violation of the terms of the voluntary exchange under which one party agreed to transfer the property in question.


The Theory of Crime:
In libertarianism there is one -and only one- type of criminal activity: Violations of the property rights of others. In other words, any activity that violates the property of another person is a crime. Any activity that does not violate the property of another is legal.

In this understanding, we see that crimes generally fall under one of three broad categories of property crimes:

1- Crimes against property of the self: Since by definition every person owns his body, then violating the property rights of the body is a crime. Murder, rape, or physical violence are all crimes against the property rights of that person in his body. Murder, rape, and violence are akin to vandalism of the property rights of others.

2- Crimes against external property: Theft and vandalism are crimes against the property rights of others in external objects in the world.

3- Breach of contract: Since contracts are future property rights, thus breaching contracts is akin to theft in retrospective regard.


Libertarian Analysis of Some Political Issues:
The libertarian perspective is utterly simple as has been discussed earlier. All rights are essentially property rights. And all crimes are property crimes, and anything that is not a property crime should be legal.

Should murder be legal?
Murder is a violation of the property rights of individuals in their own bodies. Murder should not be legal.

Should rape be legal?
Rape is a violation of the property rights of individuals in their own bodies. Rape should not be legal.

Should slavery be legal?
Slavery violates the property rights of the individual slaves to control and decide the use and function of their bodies. Slavery should not be legal.

Should theft be legal?
Theft is a violation of the property rights of individuals in their legitimately acquired property. Theft should not be legal.

Should free speech be legal?
Speech does not violate the property rights of any individuals. All speech should be legal.

Should refusing to pay rent be legal?
Refusing to pay rent is a breach of contract. It violates the property rights of renters through retrospective theft. In other words, that person was given conditional rights to use the rented house, and not satisfying those conditions means that this person was retrospectively illegally using the house which they refused to pay the rent for.

Should homosexuality be legal?
Since individuals are the owners of their bodies, individuals have exclusive right to control and decide the use and function of their bodies. Consequently, they have unrestrained right to practice sexuality with any consenting individuals. Consent is required because without it, it would be a property crime (rape).

On the other hand, banning the practice by means of force or violence is a crime, since it is a violation of the property rights of individual homosexuals in their bodies, and their rights to control and decide the use and function of their property.

Should prostitution be legal?
Prostitution similarly is an exercise of the property rights of the prostitute with respect to her body. Prostitution is a legitimate contract since it does not violate the property rights of any individuals.

On the other hand, banning the practice by means of force or violence is a crime, since it is a violation of the property rights of the individual prostitutes in their bodies, and their rights to control and decide the use and function of their property.

Should drugs be legal?
Buying and selling drugs is a legitimate title transfer of property. The use of drugs by itself does not violate the property rights of anyone, thus it should be legal. The individual has the right control and decide what goes into their bodies.

Should driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs be legal?
This is a borderline issue. While drunk driving is not, in and of itself, a crime, it significantly increases the chance of committing a crime (namely, involuntary manslaughter). This question and other similar questions like "Should polluting the environment be legal?" require analysis of the theory of externalities; A theory I have not discussed in this post. The theory of externalities basically deals with indirect violations of property rights. For example, selling expired food imposes an externality on individuals whose health is damaged by such a practice.


Final Remarks:
There is a common saying that goes: "All you need to know about libertarianism you learnt in kinder garden: Don't hit other people, don't take their stuff, and keep your promises." - That is indeed all you need to know to understand the philosophy of libertarianism.

Economics and The Theory of Value (2)

Profit in the Subjective Theory of Value:
In the previous part, we discussed Karl Marx's theory of exploitation, and the thesis that profit is made though exploitation of one person of another. The subjective theory of value provides an alternative explanation of how profit is made in trade.

Let's review the story of Mr. Jesus Lover and Mr. Jesus Hater discussed earlier. In that story, Mr. Jesus Lover got a T-shirt as a gift with "I hate Jesus" written on it. Mr. Jesus Hater got a T-shirt as a gift with "I love Jesus" written on it. In this scenario, both of these individuals have negative valuation of the items they have.

Unlike our previous example, in this scenario, those individuals don't know each other; So, they are not going to engage in direct trade. Instead, let's suppose there is Mr. Trader. Mr. Trader meets Mr. Jesus Lover and offers him 6$ to get that shirt. Later, Mr. Trader meets Mr. Jesus Hater and offers him another 6$ to get that shirt from him.

Note that each of these trades are good bargains for these individuals, since for each of them, the shirt they have is worthless; But now each one of them has 6$ instead of a worthless shirt!!

Suppose now that Mr. Trader puts these shirts on sale. He offers both shirts for 10$. Let's assume that Mr. Jesus Lover values the first T-shirt for 12$, and Mr. Jesus Hater values the second T-shirt for 12$ also. Both of these individuals visit Mr. Trader's shop and buy their favorite shirts for 10$.

Let's examine what happened with this step-by-step table:



As we can see, Mr. Jesus Lover started out with a worthless shirt and 10$ in his pocket. He ended up with a shirt he subjectively values at 12$ and 6$ in his pocket. Giving him a total of 18$ in value. Mr. Jesus Lover has gained the equivalent of 8$ in this process!!

Mr. Jesus Hater started out with a worthless shirt and 10$ in his pocket. He ended with a shirt he subjectively values at 12$ and 6$ in his pocket. Mr. Jesus Hater gained the equivalent of 8$ in this process.

Mr. Trader started out with 12$ in his pocket, and ended up with 20$ in his pocket. Mr. Trader has made a profit of 8$ as well...

As a total for all people involved, we started with the equivalent of 32$ in value, and ended up with the equivalent of 56$ in value. The net gain for all people involved is the equivalent of 24$... Also, note that each step in this process increases the amount of value in the system, because each step is itself a positive-sum game as the people involved wouldn't trade unless each one of them subjectively views the trade as profitable.

By understanding this scenario, we learn three very important lessons:
1- In trade, everyone involved is a winner.
2- Trade CREATES new value.
3- In trade, profit is made in the process of different subjective valuation of the same commodities.

In our scenario, Mr. Trader profited from the process of transferring the ownership title of the two shirts, from the individuals who least wanted those items, to the hands of those who most wanted those items.

In technical economic terminology, profit is made by efficient allocation and reallocation of resources. In our example, the trader served to reallocate the existing resources (the shirts), from it's inefficient initial allocation (as worthless shirts) to their more efficient allocation (valued shirts).

Labor is a resource just like any other resource in the market. And business owners maximize their profit by allocating labor to it's most efficient use. This might not be easily understood as the trading example, and I will elaborate on this in future posts.

Trade brings profit by increasing the efficiency of allocating resources. In the T-shirts example, profit was made by goods simply exchanging hands. But, this is not the only way trade is beneficial. Trade also improves efficiency by conserving resources. See video below as another example of how trade increases efficiency of allocating resources in a more concrete sense.




In this series:
Economics and The Theory of Value (1)
Economics and The Theory of Value (2)
Next: Economics and The Theory of Value (3)

Economics and The Theory of Value (1)

An important concept in the theory of economics is the theory of value. Unfortunately, numerous economical theories have misguided theories of value. The prevalent theory of value in the 19th century is called "The labor theory of value" and most economists of that time used that theory of value.

Karl Marx in his formulation of the economic system of communism had made five fatal flaws in making in his theories. Those flaws are:
1- Using the labor theory of value.
2- Lack of understanding of information propagation and signaling in the market.
3- Lack of understanding of the role of discovery, learning, and creativity in the market.
4- Misinterpreting the direction of history (historical materialism).
5- Lack of understanding of the laws of causality (the relationship between cause and effect).

In this post, I will address the first topic, namely the theory of value. Hopefully, in future posts I will address the rest of the flaws in Karl Marx's theory of economics. Please note that most of the flaws in Karl Marx's theory were result of poor understanding of economics in the 19th century, so this post is not meant to question the intelligence of Karl Marx, but rather review his theory in the light of advances in economic theory in the 20th and the 21st century.


The Labor Theory of Value:
The labor theory of value states that the value of a commodity is proportional to the amount of labor that went into the production of that commodity. This means that any two commodities that had the same amount of labor invested in them should be equally priced, and sold for the same price. Similarly, if twice the amount of labor went into one commodity, then it's price should be double.

The labor theory of value is part of a sub-class of theories of value, called objective theories of value. Objective theories of value are those theories that state that commodities should have a specific value (and consequently specific price). Labor is one of the metrics that objective theories of value use.


The Subjective Theory of Value:
The subjective theory of value state that the value of a commodity is subjectively determined by both producers and consumers.

To illustrate the flaws of the labor theory of value, let's consider this example:

Let's assume for the sake of argument, that the same amount of labor went into the production of those two T-shirts. Do both T-shirts have the same value?! Certainly not! For a person who loves Jesus, the second T-shirt has negative value. That is to say, that person would not take the second T-shirt even if it was offered for free! Different people would have different valuations for the same commodity. This means that objective theories of value are all necessarily false including -among others- the labor theory of value.


Trade is a Positive-Sum Game:
A positive-sum game is the type of game where the sum of values of all players after the process is larger than the sum of values of all players before the process.

Let's consider an example of a zero-sum game to illustrate the meaning of the term. Let's say that two friends make a bet on the outcome of a football match, such that the loser of the bet would pay the winner of the bet 10$. This is a zero-sum game because in order for one person to gain 10$, the other person has to lose 10$. So, the winner had 10$ before, and 20$ after. The loser had 10$ before, and 0$ after. The sum of money before was 10$+10$ = 20$, and after is 20$+0$ = 20$.

Since, the difference in the amount before and after is zero, then it is a zero-sum game. In other words, in a zero-sum game, in order for one player to gain a certain amount of value, the other player must lose an equal amount of value.

Sexual intercourse is a good example of a positive-sum game. Both parties involved in a sexual interaction gain satisfaction. In other words, it is a win-win situation, where all players gain value.

Is trade a zero-sum game? Positive-sum game? Or negative-sum game?

If we assume that commodities have a fixed objective value, then trade is a zero-sum game. If PersonX owned ItemX and PersonY owned ItemY, and those items had fixed objective values, then a trade will not change the sum of values in the system.

However, when we assume the subjective theory of value, we see how trade is a positive-sum game. To illustrate that, let's go back to our T-shirts example. Say, Mr. Jesus Lover got the "I hate Jesus" T-shirt as a gift. And his friend, Mr. Jesus Hater got the "I love Jesus" T-shirt as a gift. Both of these individuals have negative valuation of the items they received. On the other hand, they both have positive valuation of the item their friend has received.

Let's say, Mr. Jesus Lover proposes a trade to Mr. Jesus Hater. Let's consider the conditions on which this trade will be successful.
1- Mr. Jesus Lover values the shirt his friend has more than he values the shirt he already has; Otherwise, he wouldn't have proposed the trade in the first place.
2- Mr. Jesus Hater values the shirt his friend offered more than he values the shirt he already has. If he did not value it more, he would refuse to make the trade.

From (1) and (2), we can easily see that voluntary trade is necessarily a positive-sum game.


Karl Marx's Theory of Exploitation:
I am not going to explore Marx's theory of exploitation in full, it is a mathematically intensive theory. But what is important to realize, is that the whole theory is based on the labor theory of value, and that trade is a zero-sum game.

According to the theory of exploitation, every trade is either neutral or exploitative. So, if two individuals enter into a trade, they are either going to trade items of equal value, or trade items of different values. In the case two people trade of items of different values, the person who got the more valuable item is an "exploiter", and the person who got the less valuable item is "exploited".

Then Marx focused on the trade between a business owner (the capitalist) and the employee (proletariat). And then went on to prove that the wages employees get is necessarily exploitative. In other words, employees are always exploited.

The proof is relatively simple. The price at which a product that is sold on the market equals the amount of labor that went into making the product. So, the only way the business owner can make a profit is to pay his employees less than the true value of their labor. So, the only way a business owner can make any profit whatsoever, is by exploiting his employees. And the more profit a business owner makes, the more exploitative his wages are.

To give a numerical example, let's say a cars factory owner bought the raw materials (steel and other raw materials) for 200$. This 200$ is the value of labor required to mine those raw materials. He then hires one worker to assemble a car in his factory. Later, the factory owner sells the car for, say, 1200$. According to the labor theory of value, the price of the car (1200$) is the value of the total labor that went into the production of the car. The value that the worker at the factory added is 1000$ (since 200$ was the price of the raw materials). So, if the factory owner gives his worker 800$ as a salary, and keeps 200$ as profit, then the factory owner has exploited his worker by not compensating him for 20% of his labor (200$ of the 1000$).

It can be easily seen, how in the labor theory of value, any profit a business owner makes is necessarily an act of exploiting his workers. Fortunately, it is obvious that the labor theory of value is not a valid assumption to build a theory.

It is also important to note that, Karl Marx's theory of historical materialism is derived from his theory of exploitation, and so, that theory as well needs to be put in question.


In this series:
Economics and The Theory of Value (1)
Economics and The Theory of Value (2)
Next: Economics and The Theory of Value (3)

The Intimacy Process Model

In psychology, one of the important theories is what is referred to as the "intimacy process model". Intimacy is a sense of closeness, familiarity, and affect toward another person. Intimacy plays a major role in interpersonal relationships as it is the basis of friendship and love. In this post we will look at the intimacy process model to have a better understanding of how intimacy is cultivated in interpersonal relationships.

To help put things in perspective, let's look at a diagram that sums up what this model suggests:

In this diagram, 'A' is someone who is disclosing information about him/herself to 'B' (I'll use the male pronoun for 'A' from this point on). Any kind of information that a person counts as significant about themselves counts. 'A' could be talking about a book they read, a movie they watched, an experience they had. 'A' could be talking about their feelings towards 'B' or someone else. Or he might be discussing some of their hopes, dreams, fears, ...etc.

Once 'A' shared some personal information, he is going to observe 'B''s reaction. 'A' is looking for confirmation from 'B'. The idea is that the feelings of intimacy that 'A' experiences towards 'B' will grow, insofar that 'A' feels understood, validated, and cared for. 'A' will be asking himself questions like: Does this person get me? Can he/she relate to what I am talking about? Does this person like me more or less now that I shared this information? Does this person's reaction show them to have interest in me?

'B''s reaction depends on two things, his/her interpretation of the information being revealed, and his/her own set of motives, needs, goals, and fears. 'B''s interpretation will depend on many factors, including -among others-: Past experiences, prejudices and biases, goals and dreams, fears, cultural background, sometimes even state of mind (eg. angry, excited, aroused).

Once 'B' has responded to 'A', now the same process of interpretation is going to happen. 'A' will interpret 'B''s reaction, and depending on how much his interpretation of 'B''s reaction is perceived as a sign of understanding, validation, and caring intimacy will grow. And of course, the cycle continues as long as 'A' keeps revealing information about themselves during the course of the relationship.

Needless to say, intimacy needs some balance. In other words, sharing and revealing of information should be a two way road. Both persons need to disclose something about themselves during conversations that take place in the course of the relationship. Lack of disclosure about personal information is usually perceived as lack of interest.

This process is significant throughout all the interactions between people, right from the moment you first meet a person, and all through the later stages of the relationship. It is important to be aware of how intimacy works, and how it is affecting your relationships with others.

Intimate Partner Violence (Domestic Violence)

Introduction:
Throughout the years one of most visited posts I had was the emotional rape post. Many people have acknowledged that post touched a relevant topic to people. In this post, I will address the social phenomenon of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), which I believe is a topic of extreme relevance, especially in the light of women issues.

This post is based on data and research done in the USA, and I am pretty sure that things are even worse when applied to Jordan and the general region that surround it. I am going to address this topic from surveys and sociology perspectives.

First, we must identify the two major types of IPV:

• 1- Common Couples Violence
• 2- Intimate Terrorism

Common Couples Violence (CCV) is the most prevalent form of IPV, and what differentiates CCV from Intimate Terrorism is not the degree or amount of violence, as CCV cover a wide range of violent behaviors from slamming the door in anger to attacking with a knife, and sometimes murder. But CCV is characterized as reactive, emotional, and motivated by frustration. CCV is a result of loss of control due to anger or some other forms of stress. CCV is usually mutual, in the sense that both partners participate in the acts of violence.

On the other hand, Intimate Terrorism is a much more dangerous form of IPV, and is believed to be less common compared to CCV. Intimate Terrorism is characterized as proactive, strategic, and motivated by desire to control the partner. Intimate Terrorism involves physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.

Common Couples Violence:

CCV is a sad reality of many intimate relationships. Everybody is pretty much familiar of how it happens; It starts with a heated argument, that escalates to name calling, then psychological aggression, and then physical violence starts. This physical violence manifests itself in various forms: Leaving the room angry, and slamming the door on the way out. Throwing something at the partner. Throwing a dish on the floor. Things might get even uglier where one partner hits, kicks, pushes, and maybe even punches their partner. There are several myths that surround CCV (and IPV in general), and I will address them now:

MYTH 1 - IPV is rare: Reasoned thinking might suggest that two people in a loving relationship would not hurt one another through violence. However, reality is not that simple; many people engage in violent behavior directed towards their significant other. In one survey, conducted by Straus in 1980, 12.1% of husbands and 11.6% of wives admitted that they engaged in physical violence against their partner. Note that this survey used self-reports methodology, in the sense that it asked participants to describe violence that they committed (as opposed to what they were subjected to). Obviously, this percentage is actually high, even considering that it must be an underestimate, since many people would not be willing to admit that they engaged in violent behavior.

MYTH 2 - IPV only happens between unhappy couples: Some people might argue that IPV only happens between unhappy couples or loveless marriages. Evidence does not seem to support this claim. Some studies have shown that 50% of newlywed couples (who also report that they are happy) engage in physical violence. Another study in 1992 has shown that high rates of engaged couples who engage in physical violence eventually get married.

MYTH 3 - Only men are violent: As the 1980 study by Straus suggests not only men are violent, but women too. In more recent studies, that also used self-reports methodology, women were reportedly being more aggressive than men. However, those studies have two known weaknesses. First, this result does not show that women are necessarily more violent, it could just mean that they are more willing to admit that they engaged in violent behavior. Secondly, those studies focused on behaviors without regard to impact. So, even if women were more likely to slap or punch their partners, the physical damage incurred in such occurrences is not symmetrical to a slap or a punch from the male partner towards the woman. So, studies that focus on violent behaviors can be misleading when the impact of violence is neglected.

MYTH 4 - IPV only happens between married couples: The rationale here is that only committed couples stay in violent relationships; Non-committed couples would simply walkaway. As previously mentioned, some engaged couples who experience violence do eventually get married. There is evidence that violence in relationships also happens in teenage relationships, college relationships, and cohabiting couples. Even some dating couples continue a relationship despite of violence.

Common Couples Violence can be categorized by the impact into two categories:

• 1- Moderately Aggressive: This includes throwing stuff, grab, shove, slapping, non-excessive punch.
  
• 2- Severely Aggressive: This includes: Bruising punches or slaps, heavy beating, threatening with a knife or gun, and attacking with a knife or gun.

In one study, newlywed couples were studied to see what is the relationship between CCV and divorce rates. After four years, 62% of non-violent couples were still married, 54% of moderately violent couples were still married, and only 7% of severely violent couples were still married. As it seems, severe aggression among couples was an important predictor of divorce, whereas moderate aggression was not a direct cause of divorce.

Many couples do not recognize violence as a problem in their relationship. In one study, women that were seeking couples therapy were asked: "What is the most important problem that you hope couples therapy would resolve?". Only 6% reported IPV as the answer to that question. On the other hand, 56% of those women reported that violence happens in their relationship. In other words, 50% of women seeking couples therapy reported that violence exists in their relationship, albeit it was not the reason they were seeking couples therapy.

This suggests that many couples don't see CCV as a problem in and of itself, but rather a manifestation of some other problems. So, if for example, one couple were arguing over a financial situation, and this argument escalates to physical violence, those couples are more likely to think that financial difficulties is the real problem, rather than CCV.

Intimate Terrorism:

Definition: A systematic and sustained effort to control and dominate a partner through physical violence, verbal and psychological abuse, sexual coercion and abuse, economic and social control, and threats.

CCV is reactive. Couples who fail to properly channel their anger and frustration, would let verbal fights escalate to physical violence. In CCV, couples lose control over their behavior an engage in hostile acts. However, Intimate Terrorism is proactive. It is purposeful and systematized. And the purpose of Intimate Terrorism is to control and dominate the partner. To put the partner in a state of fear and submission.

One of the mostly important contributions to the field of Intimate Terrorism is the "Power and Control wheel" (pdf).

This wheel shows "Power and Control" as the center as all the behaviors that are exhibited have one common goal, which is to gain power and control. The rim of the wheel shows "physical violence" because all of the behaviors being described are enabled through the use of physical violence. The behaviors mentioned are as follows:

• Emotional Abuse: Belittle and name calling. The idea is that the abuser tries to convince the victim that she is worthless, incompetent, and even not worthy of love. The abuser might say something like: "You are worthless. Luckily for you, I love you, because if I didn't love you, nobody else would!". The idea is that if she believes that she is worthless, then she would be broken, yet feeling in-debt to the abuser. Hence the abuser gains complete control.
  
• Sexual Abuse: Spousal rape. Disrupting sleep to have sex. Forcing unwanted sexual activities. Unfounded accusations of sexual infidelity.
• Isolation: To control who the victim knows, sees, or interacts with. Cutting ties with the family and the outside world, to make sure that the victim cannot get the help she desperately needs.
  
• Minimizing, denying, and blaming: The abuser denies that his actions are violent, convinces the victim that she is overreacting, blaming her for the violence. The abuser might say something like: "Well, had you done the things I asked you to do, I wouldn't have had to hit you. So next time be a dear and do exactly as I say."
  
• Using children: Making the victim feel responsibility towards the children, possibly by threatening violence towards the children if she does not obey.
  
• Economic Abuse: Denying women the right to work and making them dependent on the abuser. Closing their bank accounts, cutting their credit cards. All of these actions make the victim dependent on the abuser, and consequently giving them control.
  
• Male Privilege: Using social norms and gender roles to enforce and justify the situation.
  
• Intimidation, Coercion and Threats: Making threats of using physical violence.

One of the questions that arise is: Why do women who are with an abusive partner remain in the relationship? The question is difficult, but there are some good reasons that explain this behavior. First of all, those women are usually helpless. As explained by the behaviors mentioned above, those women are in a state of terror, their confidence is eroded, their ties with the outside world is limited, they are emotionally and financially dependent, and they are afraid that any attempt to escape will create extreme violent reactions from their partner. In USA, there are battered women shelters, which host battered women, give them protection, and in extreme cases those shelters would give the women new identities so that they can escape safely from their partners. However, some women in abusive relationships might not even know of the existence of those shelters, because their partner has cut down all routes of information which may be used to seek help.

Another important reason is revealed through the cycle of abuse (pdf).

The cycle of abuse happens in three phases (some might say four):

• Tension-building: The abuser shows signs of discontent, creates tense situations. This phase lasts for several days.
  
• Abusive incident: This is when the violence happens.
  
• Reconciliation: This is the most crucial phase. In this phase the abuser apologizes, promises to change, and promises the abuse would not happen again. The problem is that this phase creates positive reinforcement. After the abuse, the victim feels rewarded by for sticking around and not walking away from the relationship. The victim feels rewarded for forgiving her partner. It is also important to realize that the victim is highly motivated to believe those promises, because she is dependent on the abuser, and she is forced to a certain extent to put up with the abuse. And hence, this "honeymoon" phase is misinterpreted as a positive experience.
  

Studies have shown that the best way to resolve Intimate Terrorism is to help the victim escape, preferably with the aid of professionals who work for humanitarian causes.

Conclusion:
As usual, awareness if the first line of defense. So being educated about those issues should be crucial to battling those phenomena.


PS: This entry is based on lecture by professor Benjamen Karney, titled "Managing Differences, Part 2"

The Law Of Non-Contradiction

In logic, the law of non-contradiction is an important principle. This law states that no instance in the same respect can be in two or more contradicting states. Contradicting states can be defined as mutually exclusive states, or disjoint states.

In boolean logic, the not operator, -also called the negation operator- is defined as the operator which evaluates true as false, and false as true, where true and false are by definition -in the context of boolean logic- two contradicting states.

The law of non-contradiction is a concept that holds several types of logic from dissolving into trivial systems. Even higher forms of logical systems like set theory and mathematics would dissolve into trivial systems if the law of non-contradiction is not taken as part of its axioms.

Now I will try to demonstrate why the law of non-contradiction is important. First in logic. And for people who are not familiar with logic notation, I will then demonstrate it using mathematics. And finally, the importance of the law of non-contradiction for language and communication of ideas in general.


In Logic:
~: The logical negation
^: Logical AND
v: Logical OR

The law of non-contradiction states:
p: any statement
p ^ ~p = False

Denying the law of non-contradiction:
j: is a statement that defies the law of non-contradiction
j ^ ~j = True

The law of non-contradiction prohibits the existence of such statement as j. Lets see what happens if a statement like j actually existed:

p
= p v False
= p v ~True
= p v ~(j ^ ~j) ; Denying the law of non-contradiction
= p v (~j v j) ; By DeMorgan's rule
= j v True ; Tautology
= True ; Tautology

~p
= ~p v False
= ~p v ~True
= ~p v ~(j ^ ~j)
= ~p v (~j OR j)
= ~p v True
= True

The result is that all logical statements are evaluated as True. Even a statement and its contradiction became both true.


In Mathematics:
The law of non-contradiction would say that two different numbers are different.
IF a is always not equal to b THEN a is never equal to b

Lets say that there exists only one exception to this rule. Lets say: "1=2". Denying the law of non-contradiction would mean that a statement like "1=2" can be true. The law of non-contradiction prohibits such statements.

Lets now deny the law of non-contradiction and say: "1=2".... Now we can simply prove that any number is equal to any other number!
Consider this:

1=2 ; premise

5
= 2 + 3
= 1 + 3 ; premise
= 4 ; Result 1 (5=4)

20
= 5 + 2 + 13
= 4 + 2 + 13 ; Result 1 (5=4)
= 4 + 1 + 13 ; premise
= 18 ; Result 2 (20=18)
= 2 + 16
= 1 + 16 ; premise
= 17 ; Result 3 (20=17) and (18=17)

0
= 1 - 1
= 2 - 1
= 1 ; Result 4 (0=1)

Practically, by having ONLY ONE such an exception to the law of non-contradiction, as "1=2"... We can show that ALL other numbers are equal to one another! Not only for integer, but also for any other number. Observe:

For rational numbers:
0.5
= 10 / 20

We can prove that 10=200, and that 20=13

So we get:
0.5
= 10 / 20
= 200 / 13

For irrational numbers:
SQR: Square root
SQR 20
= SQR 50
= SQR 901

Now someone might say, that the operator of addition (+) is the problem, and that saying "20 = 1 + 19" is the problem. Fine, if we can't do it with addition, we do it with some other operators. Observe:

Using multiplication:
6
= 2 * 3
= 1 * 3 ; premise
= 3

Using power:
^: The power operator
16
= 4 ^ 2
= 4 ^ 1 ; premise
= 4

The end result, that to protect mathematics from dissolving by one such instance where the law of non-contradiction does not hold, you must deny numerous other operators that can be used to dissolve the system, including -among others-: Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, powers, logarithms... etc.

In short, the whole concept of algebraic manipulation needs to be abandoned to hold the system from dissolving into a trivial system.

This would mean heaven for lazy students who hate math and science. Because this means that any answer they put in their exams is necessarily correct!! All students now get 20 out of 20. And its no problem if you get 0 out of 20, because 20 equals 0! So if you are a lazy student, I suggest you start a campaign with the slogan "Say NO to the law of non-contradiction!"...


Communication and Language:
Denying the law of non-contradiction makes communication of ideas very difficult. To deny the law of non-contradiction is to say that: "To say something, and to negate that same something are two compatible views"...

Funny dialogs can result from this assertion. Consider this dialog, between two people: A and B... Hegel is a philosopher who -is said to have- denied the law of non-contradiction, and this fictional dialog was assembled to demonstrate how problematic this denial is.

A: Are you still a follower of Hegel?

B: Of course! I believe everything he wrote. Since he denied the law of noncontradiction, I deny this too. On my view, P is entirely compatible with not-P.

A: I'm a fan of Hegel myself. But he didn't deny the law of noncontradiction! You read the wrong commentators!

B: You're wrong, he did deny this! Let me get my copy of The Science of Logic.

A: Don't get so upset! You said that he did deny the law, and I said that he didn't. Aren't these compatible on your view? After all, you think that P is compatible with not-P.

B: Yes, I guess they're compatible.

A: No they aren't!

B: Yes they are!

A: Don't get so upset! You said that they are compatible, and I said that they aren't. Aren't these two compatible on your view? Recall that you think that P is compatible with not-P.

B: Yes, I guess they're compatible. I'm getting confused.

A: And you're also not getting confused, right?

source: Philosophy, et cetera Blog (link)

Quantum Mechanics And Classical Physics: The Limit Relation

I am not qualified to discuss neither classical physics nor modern physics (aka quantum mechanics) but I have some knowledge that I would like to share that should make things easier to understand to make things clearer to an "average Joe".

In short: Classical Physics is the limit to infinity of Quanta in Quantum Mechanics. Thats in a nutshell.

For people who are not familiar with the mathematical concept of limits consider this example:

Say, F(X)=1-5*10^-X (one minus five times ten to the power of minus X). In this example:
F(0)=-4
F(1)=0.5
F(2)=0.95
F(3)=0.995
F(4)=0.9995
F(infinity)=1

This is the concept of a limit, notice that for small values of X, say between 0 and 3 the value of the function changes dramatically. But from the values of 4 and above the change is negligible. Consider how much F(4) is close to one!!

So in Quantum Mechanics the formulas are more complex than Classical Physics, but when the number of Quanta is large, certain parts of the equation can be discarded since they are negligible. Just like how in "F(X)=1-5*10^-X" we can discard the "-5*10^-X" since its almost zero for large values of X. The concept of limits apply when moving from Quantum Mechanics to Classical Physics.

Another hot topic is the probabilistic model of Quantum Mechanics. While we cannot be certain of the outcome of Quanta in overly simplistic scenarios, this does not apply to large numbers of Quanta. Its the same concept of limits.

Consider the following scenario:

Say X is a variable that initially has the value of 0. We throw a die, and we add the value of the die to X. So lets see what happens to X after 3 throws.
Say, the outcome of the die was: 3 / 3 / 6
X=3+3+6=12
Another experiment has this outcome: 4 / 1 / 2
X=4+1+2=7
Yet a third with this outcome: 5 / 6 / 4
X=5+6+4=15

It seems that X is different for each of these trials... This is an analogy to what happens with Quanta. Each Quanta produces a different stochastic (random) behavior. And the behavior of a system of Quanta is the sum of all the behavior of Quanta at that moment.

Consider now the above example with a billion throws. While the outcome of 3 trials might have large differences in each experiment, as the number of trials increases the error margin decreases. The the most basic property of probability. The more the trials the more stable results you will get.

In the above example, I can say that the average outcome of the die is (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 3.5
So in one billion trials, the outcome should be very close to 3.5 billions.

The conclusion is that although when we consider Quanta in isolation they might produce diverse results, studying large numbers of Quanta is much easier and easily predictable with high confidence.

It is worth noting that one proton contains: 2.26*10^23 Quanta!! As you can see, even a single subatomic part contains a huge number of Quanta!! So even for a single atom assuming that the number of Quanta in it is infinite is a reasonable approximation in limit equations!

Games Of Life - Part 2: Equilibrium

Equilibrium is the state where all players have equal benefits and losses. There are several ways to achieve equilibrium. Assuming perfect play, a game reaches equilibrium if the game is balanced. A "balanced game" is the game which when played perfectly reaches equilibrium. Almost all popular games are balanced games. Poker is a balanced game. Card games like Hearts, Bridge, and Tricks are all balanced games. Chess is believed (although not proven) to be a balanced game!

In the case of card games, this does not mean that every round or game will end in a draw!! This means that if the game was repeated a large number of time, the scores will be drawish. The idea is, since cards are shuffled and given to players randomly, then making large number of games will be drawish. The concept is same as rules of chances in experiments like throwing dice. Everyone knows that for a "fair dice" each outcome from 1-6 will appear almost equally given a large number of trials. Thats why to reach balance we need repetitions to form statistically valid results.

Is life a balanced game? Assuming each player is unique from his parents, and considering the way things work, I would think that life cannot be considered a balanced game. Different amounts of effort are required by different players to reach equivalent statuses. This may not be true. It might be that if all the players played "perfectly" all the humans would reach a state of equality (even though they might not start with equal statuses). If we think of life as a balanced game and assume all players are playing perfectly, it should be that the rich get poorer and the poor get richer, until all players reach a state of equality. This may or may not be true. It is observed that the rich gets richer, and the poor gets poorer. But this outcome is not based on perfect play, and so it is not indicative of what would happen in the case of perfect play!

The concept of a "fair" game is different from a "balanced" game. A balanced game is defined as the behavior of the game on the long run. But not all balanced games are necessarily fair games. A fair game is a balanced game that requires equal effort to reach the state of equilibrium. If we assume that life is a balanced game, it probably is not a fair game. Maybe everyone can reach an equal state as other players, but this does not constitute equal effort.

Concepts of evolution suggest that life is not a fair game. A term like "survival of the fittest", suggests that certain individuals are more fit for the game of life than others. Thats why biologists model life as a game with bias towards certain traits that are more adaptive to the environment.

In this series:
Games Of Life - Part 1: The Broad Lines
Games Of Life - Part 2: Equilibrium
Next: Games Of Life - Part 3: Games Of Non-Zero-Sum
Next: Games Of Life - Part 4: Advanced Insight Into Games Of Perfect Information
Next: Games Of Life - Part 5: Gaming Theory And Decision-Making Theory

Games Of Life - Part 1: The Broad Lines

Gaming theory is an interesting field of study that has been at numerous time applied to human life. Several gaming types where applied on real-life with different degrees of success. For example, Poker (a gambling game of cards) has been used several times to study tactical operations in war for military purposes. Yet, later it was proved that Poker is not a good model for war tactics regardless of how strong the analogy might be.

Poker obviously cannot be applied to war tactics (or any other aspect of life) due it being a zero-sum game: Life, and especially war, is not a zero-sum game, and modeling it as such is necessarily flawed logic! Sure you might ask what does "zero-sum game" mean...

Games can be divided into several categories according to certain properties. Some games are zero-sum others are non-zero-sum. Some games are games of perfect-information others are games of imperfect information.

Zero-Sum Games:
A zero-sum game is a game where one's gain is another's loss, and someone's loss is another's gain. Consider a game of chess: If one side wins, the other must lose. They cannot both win! There is no win-win situation in a game of chess! Same goes for poker, if someone wins 10$, then someone else must have lost 10$!! If we consider winning 10$ as +10, and losing 10$ as -10, then the sum of it all is ZERO... Thats why they call it a zero-sum game!
This applies to two-player games as well as multi-player games where applicable. Games of zero-sum always adds up to zero for all the players involved.
Life is obviously not a zero-sum game. There are a few win-win situations, but the most dominant situation is loss-loss. Consider the case of a war: Say a country is worth 1 million points, and each person is worth 1 point. Now assume that country A attacked country B, and a war happened that cause 1000 deaths in country A and 2000 deaths in country B, and finally country A took country B. In this hypothesized situation, country A has won 1 million points and lost 1000 points, giving a net of (+999000). Obviously country A has won something. On the other hand, country B has lost 1 million points and 2000 points, giving a net of (-1001000). Adding up the points of both countries the sum is (-3000). It did not add up to ZERO, because certain losses have irrecoverably vanished. So this hypothesized war is a losing game, or in other words a negative-sum game. On the other hand, sex can be though of as a positive-sum game, as both players in that game are satisfied.

Games of Perfect Information:
Chess is a classical example of a game of perfect information. The state of the game is well-known to both players. No player has anymore information than the other. Everything is laid-out in the clear. All possibilities are deductible.
(Most) Card games are games of imperfect information. In a typical four-players card games, one player has information about his set of cards, while having absolutely no idea about the cards of the other three players. This obviously turns the game into a game of imperfect information.
Life can be modeled as a game of imperfect information. Assuming that humans are players in the game of life, we can find that most of the time a player has no knowledge of all the variables that influence the outcome of the game.The element of surprise is dominant.

Games of Chance:
Monopoly is a classical example of a game of chance. Unlike card games, all the players have equal knowledge of the state of the game. No-information is hidden from any of the players, except the output of the dice, which none of the players know in advance. The game consists of what game theory experts call "chance nodes" and "decision nodes"... A chance node is simply the moment of throwing the dice, whose outcome is probabilistically modeled. A decision node is the moment one (or more) of the players have to make a decision that will change the state of the game.
Also, unlike chess, although players have full knowledge of the state of the game, they have no power to influence the outcome of the game assuming perfect play by all the players.

Games of chance might include the element of imperfect information. Texas-Holdem poker is such an example. In Texas Holdem poker, each player has information about his own cards and not other players just like games of imperfect information. But in addition to that, there are chance nodes where cards are revealed in a probabilistic manner. Bets made by players are the decision nodes.

Life can be modeled as a game of chance with imperfect information. So all-in all, life can be modeled as a game of chance with imperfect information and non-zero-sum! Numerous other factors can be taken into consideration to refine the model of life as a game.

In this series:
Games Of Life - Part 1: The Broad Lines
Games Of Life - Part 2: Equilibrium
Next: Games Of Life - Part 3: Games Of Non-Zero-Sum
Next: Games Of Life - Part 4: Advanced Insight Into Games Of Perfect Information
Next: Games Of Life - Part 5: Gaming Theory And Decision-Making Theory

The Assembly Line In The Acedemic Field

Can you imagine how life would be without Philosophers, Mathematicians, Scientists, and Engineers?! It would be so dull! But which one of them is most important to society?! My answer is: All of them are equally important. The four of them integrate together to make inventions.

I want to make this analogy. In any computer system, someone has to build the computer, another develops a compiler, and a third writes code. Could one of them be useful without the other?! NO! If someone writes a C++ code, but there are no C++ compilers, whats the use?! If someone has designed a compiler, but we have no computer to run the code on, whats the use?!

This analogy gives rise to what is conventionally called "Black Box" models and "White Box" models. Where one person uses basic components to create a more complex system that can later be used without actually understanding how the component system was created in the first place.

Philosophers create the machine which drives the mathematics - They founded the basis on which mathematics can be coherently defined. Mathematicians create ready to use formulae for scientists and engineers to use. Its all "Black Boxes" handed from one to another.

But the "White Box" view gives the person more understanding of the system being used. It enables them to use that system more effectively, and even more flexibility to create more complex systems.

For that, it is not enough to have Philosophers. Not enough to have Mathematicians. Not enough to have Scientists. And even not enough to have Engineers. For a good system we need all the four combined together!

The Nature Of Resonance

In conclusion of my paper on resonance, I find that resonance is the natural effect of the natural delay time of any system. Every system responds to the frequencies that are close enough (rather than equal) to its natural frequency. The question that arises, how close is "enough"?!

Really?! How close is "enough"?! The answer to this question depends on the sensitivity of the system, and its natural delay time. This issue is discussed in more details in my paper.

As a simple practical example, suppose that the electricity was disconnected at your house for one tenth of a second (0.1 sec). Two electrical components were running at that time. The first component is the computer. The second component is a small motor, like the refrigerator. We can observe that the computer will respond to the disconnection and restart. The motor will not respond to the disconnection and will continue its operation uninterrupted. We can say that, the computer is more “sensitive” with a short natural delay time.

PS: Download the paper: PDF DOC
PS: Download supportive Matlab code here
PS: The scientific validity of the claims is NOT asserted

Values In The Continuous Spectrum

It is understood in the field of mathematics that values in the continuous spectrum CANNOT be proved to be equal. In other words, five is NOT NECESSARILY equal to five!

Some people might ask: If no two values can be proved to be equal, how does mathematics handle values?! It's a good question... And the answer is simple: Thats why calculus was formed!! Mathematics is based on limit theorems. We can say that five sometimes equals five, yet five never equals six!! I say that five sometimes equals five, because this might not be true all the time!!

I have provided a FORMAL MATHEMATICAL PROOF of these claims. I have published the proof in PDF format (140 KB) and MS WORD format (56 KB).

I urge you to print the proof, and double check the validity of every statement and transformation. I have taken like three hours of my time to write this proof, in order to check and re-check every statement I put... Yet it is important to have peer reviews!!

I also urge you to look at the proof to learn the good way to prove a point... Always start with 1- definition of notations, then 2- definition of terms, followed by 3- axioms and assumptions. The three mentioned parts are crucial to a good proof! Finally, always follow logical inferencing, and then all should be good.

Now, apart from formalities, allow me to explain the claims informally:
First consider the value of ZERO/ZERO. It is well-known that the answer is ANY VALUE!! Some people think that the answer is "no value", but thats mathematically wrong statement!

Now, ZERO/ZERO is any value. Is One a value?! Yes, it is. Is Two a value?! Yes, it is. But we all know that any two equal values when divided the result is One... Right?! Well, in one case ZERO/ZERO in fact gave the value of One. But also, in a second case ZERO/ZERO had the value 2... Obviously this means that ZERO is not equal to ZERO in that case. Combine the above two phenomenas, we find that ZERO is sometimes equal to ZERO, and sometimes not so!!

Since we showed that ZERO is NOT NECESSARILY equal to ZERO, we can generalize this result to all values by adding assumed equal values to both sides of [0!=0]...

Another argument goes like this: ZERO*INFINITY is any value (just like ZERO/ZERO). We can think of multiplication as a magnification operator. Even the ZERO when magnified "enough" can be shown to deviate from ZERO!!! This also demonstrates the above claims about the continuous spectrum.

PS: For additional insight, read the "physical justification" in my comment here
PS: Download the formal mathematical proof: PDF DOC

A Mathematical Challenge: Integrating A Sinusoidal Signal

Introduction:
For the past two days my head has been processing at maximum load!! Thanks goes to an anonymous poster. Mr. Anonymous has brought my attention to an older post, titled "Inconsistent Circuits Formula". His comments triggered my thoughts, and as some do notice, our thoughts aren't clear all the time. At the time I posted my old entry, I had a limited vision - Today, I come with new understanding: An understanding of the nature of the phenomena of resonance.

I will not post my newly-reached understanding in this post. I have a clear vision of the phenomena of resonance, but I want to support it with some mathematical justification, and more importantly, numerical analysis data. The results should be ready within two weeks depending on my free time - No promises though! You can read the results here.

Mr. Anonymous has argued about my bold statement "We cannot prove two physical (even mathematical) quantities to be equal". This post should indirectly justify my position. I am still considering to post a more direct argument can be found here. Just keep in mind, my position is strictly regarding inclusion of equalities for continuous quantity spectrum.

Finally, this mathematical challenge question was tailored by me in order to clarify a point I want to make, so try to solve it, and tell me your results.

The Mathematical Challenge:

The Final Answer:
ZERO (assuming that no noise exists in the signal)
ANY VALUE is the general solution
[+] Show\Hide

Explained Answer:
The interval [0, 2*PI/a] represents one period of the sinusoidal signal cos(ax). When integrating a sinusoidal signal over one period the answer is ZERO. In short, the answer is ZERO regardless of the value of a.

A source of confusion might arise due to the use of the value ZERO for 'a'. The easiest approach is to devise an answer which is independent of 'a', as has been explained above. Note that the sinusoidal signal has a constant value of ONE over the finite region. The interval of the integration extends to ( 2*PI/a ), which also extends to the infinity. For this reason, the transformation of cos(ax) to ONE is NOT valid, because the sinusoidal signal is equal to 1 ONLY in the finite region, but the integration extends to the infinite region which implies that this transformation leads to incorrect results.

This solution applies only if we consider that there is NO NOISE in the sinusoidal signal. If we consider the possibility of existence of noise, then the integration will take the value of the integral of noise over the whole interval.
[+] Show\Hide

Update 1: The answer to the challenge has been posted.
Update 2: The paper about resonance has been posted here.

Time-Space Energy-Mass Equivalence

Nowadays, it is a generally known that mass is a form of energy. Einstein has pioneered this view with his time-space modeling. Within Einstein's view time and space are equivalent quantities, and time is only a fourth dimension where existence resides.

Following with that view came the inevitable conclusion: If time and space are equivalent then energy and mass are equivalent.** Below is the reasoning for that:

E = Energy equivalent to the mass (J)
m = mass (kg)
c = speed of light in vacuum (m/s)

E = m . c²
E / m = c²

If energy and mass are equivalent then the value of [ E / m ] is a unitless constant. This concludes that c² is a unitless constant as well.

Now, say
K = positive unitless constant

Since energy and mass are equivalent, then a Joule equals a kilogram within a constant.

J = K.kg
N.m = K.kg
kg.m/s².m = K.kg [divide both sides by kg]
=> m²/s²=K =>m²=K*s² =>m=K.s

** A more descriptive claim would be: Time and space are equivalent if and only if energy and mass are equivalent

Fix: Removed references to unitless constants

PS: The scientific validity of claims is NOT asserted

Redefining A Planet

Some of you might have heard the news, our solar system has been formally diminished by one planet!! Its no longer a 9-planet system, but an 8-planet one... Pluto was omitted from the planets' definition! This incidence reminds us of the utmost importance of definitions as the slightest change in the wording of a definition might include or exclude stuff from the set of things that a word describes!! It can be easily noted that imprecise definition cause most of the disagreements and misunderstandings...

I always like to provide the "prime numbers" definition example: Is 1 a prime number? Short answer: NO! But why? The answer to this question comes from the definition of a prime number: A prime number is a positive integer that is divisible (integer division without remainder) by exactly two different positive integers: 1 and itself only!! Considering one, one is divisible by one and also divisible by itself... The problem is one and itself are not "different"!!

Numerous other examples can be given so let's remember: Definitions make the difference between hell and heaven!! Definitions are the ultimate references for any concrete argument... Enough said!!

Back to the planets issue: Apparently scientists made few discoveries about bodies that goes around the sun; Bodies which are comparable to Pluto in terms of size and orbit, led to a situation where either the minor bodies would be added the list of officially recognized planets, or older ones would need to be removed, in order to ensure consistency of definition. The definition for planet is now officially "a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit." Pluto fails to satisfy condition (c) and therefore here we are now: One less planet we have!

Sources: wikipedia, neowin.net

Logical Demonstration: Tautology

What is the logical value of the following statement:

If [1+1=3] Then ["m" is the first alphabetic letter]

This little mind teaser should be no challenge to anyone in the computer industry or mathmaticians, or generally anyone who has minimal knowledge in logic...

The statement is a Tautology (ie. always true). A formal proof goes like this:

Say, p: 1+1=3 , q: "m" is the first alphabetic letter
p => q
= ~p + q ; since p is a contradiction, so always ~p
= TRUE ; since always ~p

For the ones not familiar with logic operators, here is a friendly demonstration (as simple as I can put it):

Since, ( If X Then Y ) is equivalent to ( Y OR NOT X ) [see below]*
If [1+1=3] Then ["m" is the first alphabetic letter]
= ["m" is the first alphabetic letter] OR NOT [1+1 is Equal to 3]
= ["m" is the first alphabetic letter] OR [1+1 is Not Equal to 3]
= ["m" is the first alphabetic letter] OR TRUE
= TRUE [see below]**

* Consider this statement: If [You Study] Then [You Pass]... This statement holds in three conditions: 1- You Study AND Pass, OR 2- You dont Study AND Fail, OR 3- You dont Study AND Pass.... So from {1,3} the statement holds when you Pass (whether you study or not), OR from {2,3} it holds when you dont study (wether you pass or not)! So the statement is equivalent to: [You Pass] OR [You don't Study]! So ( If X Then Y ) is equivalent to ( Y OR NOT X ) as required!!

** Consider this statement: [Your Pen's Color is Blue] OR [Sunday follows Saturday]... The second part of the statement (ie. Sunday follows Saturday) is always true, so the statement is always true regardless wether the Pen's Color is Blue or not... So, ( [Any Statement] OR [True Statement] ) is necessarily True!!

So, any conclusion based on an always false condition is necessarily true!! So when someone tells you: "If now I had a million dollars, I will unrelectantly give them all to you!!" dare not call him a liar, cuz no matter how cynical this statement might seem - This person is no liar, he is speaking an undeniable truth!!

Organic Life-Forms: A Closer Look

Consciousness: what is the definition of consciousness? Living being: what is the definition of a living being? what is the definition of a being? The actual answers to these questions are merely CONVENTIONS! What might be living by your judgement can be dead by others. The question of consciousness has came by a long time for people in the computer industry, specifically artificial intelligence. Lets take a closer look there: scientists are aiming at building up robots with intelligent reactions - robots with consciousness! Consciousness is defined as simply having the ability to respond to changing factors in the surrounding environment. Robots achieve that through sensors and intelligent algorithms. Humans have been able to do that with their senses (seeing, hearing, touching). So here is my challenge question: if computers (robots) where developed with the ability to move around, think, respond, and have consciousness - even more advanced algorithms that enable it to feel, judge, invent, and perform other human-like actions... In what ways are they less alive than us? ..... "Well, for GOD's sake, they're just metal and electricity!", someone might scream... My question now to that guy is: why do u consider an intelligent action from a being made up of organic material like C,S,N,...etc, more living than another being that can come up with other intelligent actions but with a small difference of being made up of iron and silicon??

A similar pitfall arises: humans have long been searching for life on other planets. But do they have a clue for what they are searching for? Should we expect extraterrestrial life-forms to be made up of organic material like carbon? Does organic material as defined by our chemistry stand for the only substance of life? Or better say, why is carbon considered more living than say iron? In our world we say that we are made of organic material, and us together with creatures having same characteristics being classified as living (eg. animals, plants, bacteria ... etc.), yet things made up of iron are not living (eg. robots). [This view is rejected by Alternative biochemistry where the classical carbon-based biochemistry is called "Carbon chauvinism"]

Looking at the picture from a lower level we can see that humans are no more living than a robot.... Ohh heck, we are no more living than the keyboard i am typing on! Our consciousness is nothing more than electrical signals going through our heads, combined with our analytical and creativity capabilities have been doing stuff. The concept is simple yet tricky for those who never thought that way. This explains why i disregard biology: it gives existance to things of null reality.

The Steady State

Every unstable state experiences spontaneous change to a more stable state usually called its natural state... Once an isolated system reaches its natural state it stops changing, although usually a system never reaches its natural state but only approaches it as time goes to infinity (usually exponentially)!

Several real life theories employ this model: The universe as a whole system aproaches a natural state of an all-free energy evenly distrubuted over the universe, this effect is described through the Chaos theory where every change frees some energy and helps distrubute the energy within the universe evenly...

According to Marxism - within my very limited (and probably flawed) understanding of it (which I would appreciate a more knowledgeable person to enlighten), a socio-economic natural state is obtained when all power is fairly distributed where class struggle would be eliminated (this state called communism)!

Inconsistent Circuits Formula

Last week, while studying for my circuits exams i stumbled upon one of the least well-defined physics formula that I had to study... The formula goes like this:

The effective value of a current which is composed of any number of sinusoidal currents of different frequencies can be expressed as:
I_eff = SQR(I_1eff² + I_2eff² + ... + I_Neff²)

source: Engineering Circuit Analysis (6^th Edition), by William H. Hayt / AC Circuit Power Analysis - Page 369

This formula has caused me a lot of headaches because of the (illogical?) word: "different".... Lets consider two sinusoidal currents: I₁=10sqr(2)cos(wt), I₂=10sqr(2)cos(5t); So, I_1eff=10, I_2eff=10...

Now according to the way it is calculated:
I_eff = 10sqr(2), for all |w| != 5
I_eff = 20, for all |w| == 5
In other words:
I_eff(w=5⁺) = I_eff(w=5^-) = 10sqr(2)
while, I_eff(w=5) = 20

The discontinuity in the function of I_eff is very obvious! The existance of this discontinuity is very questionable, especially in the current context.. Thats unnatural! You cannot prove two physical (even mathmatical) quantities to be equal! Since we cannot prove that two quantities are equal, it makes sense that an equation that works for different values of some variables, work also for equal ones....
In short, I think that the given equation is missing: Maybe, the details were skipped for simplicity, or maybe that author himself doesnt know what the fuck he's talking... If so, this might be an interesting area to investigate!

Update: (Jan 10, 2007) This problem has been resolved. Read more here.

PS: sqr(x) is square root of x
PS: The scientific validity of claims is NOT asserted

Falsifiability: Theory VS Tautology

A hypothesis has conclusions... If those "conclusions" when applied in practical terms to explain "observations" and "phenomenons" then this hypothesis becomes a "scientific theory"; this is the "scientific method"!

A scientific theory is falsifiable, that is to call your hypothesis a scientific theory you should be able to answer this question: Give me an example when the theory is wrong?
So lets take ( F=ma ); If you ask Newton to give you an example when he is wrong, this would be the answer: "If you can find a 1-kg mass, moving under net force of 1-N, with acceleration 2-ms^-2 then my theory is wrong"; so ( F=ma ) is a candidate to be a scientific thoery!

Similarly if you ask an atheist to give you an example when he is wrong he'd answer: "If the christian god existed then i would be wrong"

But an agnostic cant answer that question!! Saying "God exists or God doesnt exist" cant possibly be wrong! This is a "tautology"; A statement that cant possibly be wrong is called a tautology and does not say anything about the world! Thats why some people call a tautology a redundancy!