Game of Life

It was in 1970 that a mathematician called John Conway created the Game of Life. The game plays itself, as follows:

• There is a grid of square cells;
• Each cell may be dead or alive;
• The game runs in turns; for each turn each cell may be born or die;
• Any live cell dies if it has too many neighbors ( >3; overpopulation ) or too few ( <2; loneliness );
• Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell, by reproduction.

It might be clearer with an example.

"What does this has to due with anything?" you might be wondering. Here is the cool thing about the game: it can produce life. While the game plays itself, stable structures appear, that work like primitive forms of life. Some just stay there, others blink between different forms, and others can even move! Look at the image again. How cool is that?

That's what we can do with simple rules and the insignificant processing power of a PC. Imagine now scaling that up to a much bigger size, to the size of a whole Universe. See where I'm going now?

Let me bring a side note into this reflection: physicists found evidences that at really small scales numbers don't work out quite as they should. A particle may have stored 1 unit of energy or 2 units of energy, but NOTHING in between.

This is important because if you had to store a number in a PC, to know how much energy each particle has, and the number had an infinite amount of decimal places, you would need an infinite amount of memory (not quite true, but really "obvious").

This proves nothing all by itself. But for me, it's enough to believe that we live inside a simulation, running on a super computer in an Universe much bigger and complex that this one.

It's a dangerous thought, believing that we are nothing more than bits, living inside a game. But I like it. It matches quite well how insignificant we are and helps me taking bold decisions that are required sometimes.

In the end, you shouldn't let your faith matter too much. Just keep going, making this world a better place.

As always, thanks for reading!

Dreaming with an Utopic World

I wrote "Power to the People" 3 months ago. Even though I didn't know it by that time, it was the start of a trilogy, which will be completed with this post, that talks about a perfect world. This trilogy tackles 3 fundamental problems:

• Political system and freedom to choose your own fate;
• Economic system, unemployment and distribution of resources;
• World government and wars;

Let's start! I almost said it already... I want wars to end and people to stop hurting each other. I need to make things very clear here, otherwise I'll be misunderstood. I don't think there is any problem with two people fighting each other (like in a boxing match) as long as both of them are enjoying the experience. It gives life some color and it's definitely something I would like to keep.

What it's not OK is to bring spectators into the ring against their will. That's the problem with wars: collateral damage. They drag in and hurt people that had nothing to due with them.

So... how do we stop them? With a World Government. Instead of having ~195 countries across the world fighting against each other, we could have only 1 country, with one purpose: making everyone's life better.

This cannot be archived by 1 country conquering the others. The tension created would make everything fall apart quickly. It has to be an agreement, one that works greatly for everyone involved.

The Europe project came somewhat close to this concept, but it's failing. Most countries choose what's better for themselves and, with the crisis, that means to hurt the others (even though it will come to bite them later). USA are not far off too.

That's it! I believe with these suggestions we could live in a better world, more peaceful and enjoyable, without losing the colors that characterize this one.

"I dream with the day when mankind stands together for a common goal, as a true family". I dream, with an Utopic World.

Thanks for reading :D

One for All, All for One

Hello! This topic will probably the hardest to tackle up until now, but please bear with me. We'll be diving into economic systems this time around.

Currently, we have a flawed version of Capitalism, which is gonna blow up if nothing is done. So... what is wrong about it?

Ideally, capitalism is not a bad system. It incentivizes people to produce more work by rewarding them with more resources (you work more, you get more $$$). The problem is, it brings out the worst of people: each one cares only about himself. Some people don't mind to run down others just for a few $$$.
Furthermore, this frenetic rhythm where everyone is pushed to produce more and more takes a lot of people beyond their breaking point: some give up, some do even worse.

This doesn't seem that bad... yet. I'll let a picture to say a thousand words about how capitalism is currently working.

Do you really think the richest work that much? No comments.

As always: what is the alternative?

A lot of people say Communism doesn't work because it does not properly reward people for working more, so they will work the least they can and the system falls apart. And they are right.

With people's current mindset, communism doesn't work, just in the same way that democracy is pointless while most people believe that one of the candidates was chosen by god. It requires a shift in people's way of thinking. It requires everyone to understand we all win with everyone's work. It requires union, dedication for a common cause. And that, we can archieve!

Everyone could have resources for a comfortable life. No more unemployment and suffering. No more being a slave of the system.

For freedom! One for All, All for One!

What is your opinion? Can we make it?

Theory of understanding

I'll kick this one off with a really bold sentence: there are no bad people. 

"This guy is crazy!", you must be thinking. Well... I am. A lot. But I truly believe this way of thinking may lead to a different world... a better one. Please bear with me :D

As a physicist, I believe that everything has an explanation, even human behavior. This means that each time someone does something, he must have had a reason to, which could be as simple as: "I didn't think about it", or maybe as questionable as: "I hate dogs!". Let's not bring heavier stuff here, even though it's included too.

How many times did you get pissed off with someone? Maybe a few... maybe a lot. Did you try to understand him? Did you try to put yourself in his position? If you did, congratulations, you're halfway through (maybe you found out his reasons were questionable, I'll address that in a second); if not, please consider doing it next time. It will help you avoiding unnecessary hatred, which helps no one.

What if you understood his reasons and disagree with them? I found my answer to that too:

It's not easy to distinguish right from wrong. Actually, I believe it's impossible. A lot of people already wrote and said a lot of smart things about the matter, there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. Basically, what is right and wrong depends on what you find important and what you don't. And there is no way to prove someone right nor someone wrong.

Let me use and example to make things clear: one guy killed another. Maybe he was being robed, threatened and just defended himself? Let's assume worse case scenario: he gives no value to human life and just did it for fun. Cruel, isn't it?

So... what do we do? We ignore him just because "different people value different things"? That's not a good answer. 

Do we kill him too?  And after that we kill the killer's killer because equality. Not good.

Send him too jail? This is even worse. Kick a dog which bite you and there is a good chance it will bite you harder next time.

So what? what do we do? We help him! We teach him to live in society and show him the beauty of it. Nobody becomes a psychopath for the sake of it. Maybe it was society which rejected him in the first place... his friends laughing at him while he helps a older man crossing the streets.

This world is harsh sometimes. People get lost. Let's all get along and be happy, shall we?

Would very much appreciate to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks for reading!

Power to the People

Let us fly back 25 centuries into the past, to the Ancient Greece, where there was once used a political system known as Athenian democracy. It was a system where every man could voice his opinion and vote directly on legislation and executive bills. Women and slaves were excluded from this system (for "obvious" reasons).

What do we have today? I don't think we can call it democracy... Yes we can vote but... does it make a difference? I think not.

Democracy is, by definition, a political system where citizens participate equally in the proposal, development, and creation of laws (thank you very much Wikipedia!).

It doesn't matter if you vote or not, it doesn't matter in who you vote; in the end who rules are economic interests and big companies. Do you think your opinion worth's as much as the president of a bank? Of course not!

What is the alternative? Is there an alternative? There is.

People started voting for their representatives because it was impossible to know everyone's opinion about every single topic. That impossibility is GONE! We are not in the Feudal Age anymore; welcome to the Information Age. It's possible now what was never before: a real Democracy!

This idea was presented to me by a close friend of mine. I thought it was madness at first, I have to admit it. What would prevent the most significant classes from voting laws that only benefit themselves? I found my answer: the same thing that prevents politicians from benefiting themselves!

So... how would this really work? I'm not too sure about the details, but something like this: someone has an idea for a new law or a change to an existent one. That person has to collect a certain number of signatures first (to prevent people having to vote on 100 or more laws daily), them that law would be approved or disapproved based on everyone's vote, over the internet. For this to work, internet has to become a fundamental right, like education or liberty.

Think about it, really! Classics were right about a lot of things :D

Power to the people, power to you!

Obvious(ly) misleading

This is my first post here. The first of many I hope!
Let's try this: please try to guess what I'm writing about. Can you do it? It's obvious! No? Really? Of course you can't. How could you?

It wasn't that obvious after all... I'm writing about what is obvious and what is not!
1 + 1 = 2. Obvious! That was really easy, everyone knows that!
Wait a moment... how do we know that 1 + 1 = 2? Maybe because we were told so. But what if everyone is wrong? 

Don't worry. Mathematicians worked out this question for us. I'm not going into details here, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that this question is a lot deeper than it seems. If you think about it, you'll end up asking yourself what a sum is, what a number is... those are tough questions.

Can you tell me what a number is? You kinda of know what it is... but do you know for sure? Is infinite a number?

Enough of mathematics already! What I'm trying to say is that there is nothing so obvious that it doesn't deserve a closer look. There is no obvious stuff!
Usually people use this word when they either don't know how to explain, or they don't want to deal with the details. The first case is a lot more common.

Why is the life of someone more important than the life of a cockroach? This is the kind of question people avoid, because the answer is obvious. Actually it's NOT obvious!

From now on, every time someone uses that word on you, think about it. Is it really that obvious?