July 10, 2024 | 18 mins read |
In this post, I will argue that the ontological argument explains the existence of the fundamental law of physics, i.e., a Theory of Everything. So, this will be a reasonable solution to the fundamental question of metaphysics: Why is there anything at all? I will argue that the fundamental law of physics is a logically necessary entity, and after its existence is justified, all things physical will follow from it.
Read More ›
July 10, 2024 | 19 mins read |
Stephen Jay Gould’s Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) is nonsense. In an effort to save his field, evolutionary biology, from the wrath of creationists and biblical literalists, he threw the entire subfield of Ethics under the bus. A subfield that he didn’t even know existed. NOMA not only doesn’t solve the conflict thesis between science and religion but also adds fuel to a lesser known conflict thesis between ethics and religion. “The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.”― Arthur C. Clarke
Read More ›
July 10, 2024 | 12 mins read |
I will try to argue that what most people call “love” is just discrimination. Years ago, I first saw this explained in Episode 18 of Vinland Saga. Back then, I found it very ridiculous. But after thinking about it for more time, I think it is a very logical argument and I will elaborate on it. In this post, I will argue that “True Love” is unconditional compassion towards all sentient beings and that “True Love” is only possible if you are omnipotent.
Read More ›
July 10, 2024 | 14 mins read |
People are not obliged to be intelligent or creative or rich or influential or attractive or muscular or tall or to do only legal things etc. But there is one thing that people are obliged to and it is being ethical. So, everyone has an obligation to think about ethics and choose a consistent ethical theory that they think is the best. In this post, I will explain why I believe in an ethical theory called “Threshold Deontology”. Towards the end, I will give a reductio ad absurdum argument called the “suffering monster” (inspired by “utility monster” but slightly different due to the asymmetry between pleasure and suffering) that explains why the theory I believe in is incomplete. But this theory is enough for practical purposes.
Read More ›
Physics –
June 26, 2024 | 14 mins read |
In 2023, I was rejected by all 22/22 US universities. Again, in 2024, I was rejected by all 22/22 US universities (I applied to mostly the same universities with few changes. I mentioned only hep-th profs both times). A few months ago, I applied to a few places outside US, and I finally got a very good PhD admission at the Weizmann Institute in the hep-th group advised by Prof. Aharony and Prof. Berkooz. This blog post might be helpful for future hep-th PhD applicants.
Read More ›
