Saturday, January 25, 2014

How to get Something from Nothing?

Finally I've decided to blog-out my - still not mature - thoughts on how Something can be created from Nothing.

It's all about philosophy and Math, but I'll try to keep it simple, as the most fundamental things in life are simple.

Also keep in mind that what follows is not necessarily 'true', but more a 'thought model' helping to explain and to grasp the phenomenon of creating 'something out of nothing'.

Basic Thoughts
Try to imagine Nothing....

After a few minutes of philosophizing you'll notice, it's not possible to imagine Nothing. All we can come up with, is the 'idea' of Nothing, as Nothing is in fact 'No Thing'.

Now, this idea is exactly what 'was', 'is', and for ever 'will be': an 'idea'. Not a specific idea, but the concept of an idea. That's enough. The concept of an idea  doesn't exist in space or time, it's simply there. It's the metaphor of the concept of Nothing. It's potential.

'Idea' is the only word that not only is defined as a noun (passive, object), but 'at the same time' also as a kind of verb (operator, action), as an idea is 'that what can be imagined'. You also 'have' an idea.

Hence, an idea is passive and active at the same time. In self-reference terms the idea is the imagination of an idea.

This idea is in fact what we call 'spirit' in the wider sense of the word. It's an intention, it has the 'potential' (power) of 'creativity', of creating a (positive) illusion. In other words: it's the basis of 'creation'.

Let's define this general concept of  'idea' by the symbol 'i'.

The idea Mathematically expressed
As an idea is 'not real' but imaginary, the most logical mathematical translation of an idea (i) is the mathematical unit imaginary number, denoted as well as: 'i'

'i' is a so called 'complex number' in mathematics with the core property that if you multiply it with itself, the product is "−1".

So i 2 = −1.

As we all now there's no real number that multiplied with itself is a negative number (−1). So (i) will do perfectly as mathematical translation, as we'll see further on.

Next Step: How to create 'Something'
Now we've accepted the general concept of an idea (i), the question is : how to get from an idea (of Nothing) to Something if we have Nothing else but an idea (i).

The problem, or better expressed 'our luck' is that we have nothing else but an idea (i). Fortunately the concept of the idea (i) is as well singular as (not literally) plural and also object as well as operator, as the concept of ideas is still an idea and the imagination of an idea is also an idea.

So all it takes for an idea to create a 'next stage idea' is to apply the idea-concept on itself as an object and operator. It doesn't matter which one is the object or the operator, as object and operator on the idea-level are the same.

Creating Antimatter
O.K. Let's demonstrate what happens if we imply (the concept of) an idea on itself while applying some basic simple 'complex mathematics' as defined above:

i i = i(i) = i 2 =  −1

As we can see, the result is a 'real number'. Not only is it real, but it's also negative.
We can and will interpret a positive real number as what we perceive in our world as 'space'. We can touch it and see it, it's real...
Therefore a negative real number can be interpreted as 'antimatter'.

So applying an idea on itself generates 'antimatter'

Creating Time
Now let's go on by applying an idea on antimatter
Here it is:

i i i(i(i)) = i(i 2) = i(−1) = −i 

This result ' −i' can be interpreted as 'time', as is also the case in the definition with regard to space-time by Minkowski.

As 'time'  = i , we can also express time as a kind of idea (thought) in the past (as the sign of time is negative). In other words (free interpreted): time is the perception of thoughts in the past. 

Creating Space
Now, in the last step we finally we can apply the concept of idea on 'time', resulting in:

i i i(i i i) = i(-i) = −i 2 = 1

This result can - as defined - be interpreted as 'space'.

So space is more or less the result of thinking or thoughts about time.
In other words, 'space' is our perception (= projected idea) of time in the 'present'.

Applying the idea on space again [ i(1) = i ] would result in the concept of 'idea' again, which starts the cycle of creation from beginning again.

As I've demonstrated by applying a very simple model, we can construct a thought model that subsequently creates antimatter, time and space from the basic imaginary general concept of an 'idea'.

So all we need for creation is to apply and multiply our ideas.

Realize and appreciate that you as a human being are also a 'divine' product of idea-creation. By applying  your ideas in the real world, you contribute to this 'world'. Hopefully a 'better' world in line with the idea ..... Just Do It! 

Hope you liked this 'philosophy blog'. Please comment your thoughts and ideas on this!

Saturday, October 15, 2011

What you see is true!

If your colleague, friend or relative disagrees with you, how do you respond?

Your reality
When we view or perceive (hear, smell, taste) something, this is reality to us.
And indeed it is a kind of reality, your reality! As, given your 'filters' like genes, education, physical (health) condition, background, position, circumstances, consciousness, and experiences (etc....), every human being can only perceive a small and often different glimpse of what reality really is.

So, to put it in an other way:

What you see is true, but what others see too!

This implies that instead of trying to convince the other that your point of view is right, it's more constructive and fruitful to ask the other about his view and opinion.

At first it will be difficult to understand the other and perhaps it even arouses aversion, but eventually you'll be able to better understand the other's point of view without the obligation that it necessarily has to become your point of view.

This way you'll be able to enrich, grow and develop yourself to a more complete human being. This way of thinking opens new doors and gives space for new solutions and breakthroughs in a growing controversial world.

Friday, September 09, 2011

Risk Perception

Risk is all about perception, as the next story illustrates...

Finally you arrive at your hotel late that night....   The hotel manager has only two rooms left. These two rooms are exactly the same, except for one aspect: The fire alarm.....

The manager tells you that in the event of a nighttime fire due to the usual causes, guests in Room 1, equipped with Alarm 1, have a  2% chance of dying. Guests in Room 2, equipped with Alarm 2, have only a 1% chance of dying.

However - things in life are always complicated -  there's a slight problem.....

According to the manager...... The wiring of Alarm 2 is such that it sometimes causes electrical fires that increase the risk of dying in a nighttime fire by an additional 0.01%.

In other words, Alarm 1 is associated with a 2% risk of death and Alarm 2 is associated with a 1% + 0.01% (betrayal) risk of death.

What room do you choose?

According to a study by Gershoff and Koehler, most participants choose the room with Alarm 1. This,  even though this room 1 has double the increased risk of fire death. Reason: most participants found the tiny risk of "betrayal" (product malfunction) much more frightening than the much larger risk of actually dying.  When people get upset by a tiny risk, they often paradoxically choose the much larger risk.

Personally I think a more imaginable risk 'weighs' stronger than a non-specific abstract risk......

This simple example proofs that perception or emotion has a strong influence on risk decisions.

Next time you have to make a decision on risk, try to make a rational guess. Than, act on this calculated guess and not on your 'risk feeling'.
Nevertheless, keep in mind 'risk decisions' are often irrational, no matter how strong you prove that they are not. It seems we have to live with the fact that, regarding risk, we're all victim of the same emotional bias....

Read more about this interesting subject on:

- Vaccination and betrayal aversion (2011)
- Safety First? The Role of Emotion in Safety Product Betrayal Aversion (2011)

Friday, July 01, 2011

The Risk of bicycling

You decided to start a 3 year math study at City University in London. From your brand new apartment in Southall, it's a 12.5 mile drive to the University at Southhampton Street.  As a passionate cyclist you consider the risk of cycling through London for the next three years.

Based on your googled " DFT's Reported Road Casualties 2009" research (resulting in a cycling death rate of 36 per billion vehicle miles), you first conclude that the probability of getting killed in a cycle accident during your three year study is relatively low : 0.1% (≈ 3[years] × 365[days] × 25[miles] × (36 [Killed]  ÷ 109[vehicle miles]).

Subjective probability
After this factfinding you start to realize it's YOU getting on the bike and it's YOUR 0.1% risk of DYING  in the next three years of your study....

Hmmmm...this comes closer; it makes things a little different, doesn't it? 

Its looks like 'subjective probability' - on reflection - is perhaps somewhat different from 'objective probability'.

While your left and right brain are still in a dormant paradoxical state of confusion, your left (logical) brain already starts to cope with the needs of the right (emotional) half that wants you on that bike at all costs!

Russian Roulette
Now your left brain tells you not to get emotional, after all it is 'only' an additional 0.1% risk. Already your left brain starts searching for reference material to legitimate the decision you're about to take.

Aha!.... Let's compare it with 'Russian Roulette', your left brain suggests. Instead of 6 chambers we have thousand chambers with one bullet. Heeee, that makes sense, you talk to yourself.

With such a 1000 chambers Russian gun against my head I would pull the trigger  without hesitating....  Or wouldn't I?..... No.., to be completely honest, 'I wouldn't risk it', my right brain tells me.

Hé... my left brain now tells me my right brain is inconsistent: It wants me on the bike but not to take part in a equal 'death probability game' of Russian roulette. Why not?

In Control
My left half concludes it must be the 'feeling' of my right side that makes me feel I'm 'in control' on my bike, but not in case of Russian Roulette. That makes sense, tells my left brain me. Of course! Problem solved! My right and left brain finally agree: It's only a small risk and it's I who can control the outcome of a healthy drive.  Besides, this way the health benefits of cycling massively outweigh the risks as well, my right brain convinces me superfluous.

A final check by my right brain tells me: If I can't trust myself, who can I?
This rhetorical question is the smashing argument in stepping on the bike and to enjoy a wonderful ride through London City.
As ever...,

After returning from my accidentless bike trip, I enjoy a drink with a colleague of mine, the  famous actuary Will Strike  [who doesn't know him? ;-)].

After telling him my 'bike decision story' he friendly criticizes me for my non-professional approach in this private decision problem. Will tells me that I should not only have analyzed the probability (P), but also the Impact (I) of my decision. Remember the equation: Risk=P×I?

Yes of course, Will is right. How could I forget? ..., the probability of getting a deathly accident was only 0.1%.

Yet, 'when' a car hits you full, the probability of meeting St. Petrus at heaven's gate is 100% and the Impact (I) is maximal (I=1; you're dead ...)


Risk[death on bike;25 miles/day; 3 years] =
Probability × Impact = 0.1% × 1=0.1%
From this outcome it's clear that, even though the Impact is maximal (1=100%) , on a '0% to 100% Risk scale' this 3 year 'London-Bike Risk Project' seems negligible and by no means a risk that would urge my full attention.

I'm finally relieved... it always makes a case stronger to have a taken decision verified by another method. In this case the Risk=P×I method confirmed my decision taken on basis of my left-right brain discussion.  Pff....

The next morning, after my subconscious brain washed the 'bike dishes' of the day before, I wake up with new insights. Suddenly I realize I tried to take my biking decision on the wrong variable: Probability, instead of Impact.

Actually, in both cases and without realizing, I took my decision finally on basis of the Impact and the possible 'Preventional Control' (not damage control !!!) I  could exert before and during my bike trip.

I had to conclude that in cases of high Impact (I>0.9), nor my left-right brain chat, nor the 'Risk=PxI' formula lead to a sound decision, because both are too much based on probability instead of Impact. In other words:

In case of high Impact, probability is irrelevant

In case of high Impact, only control counts

From now on this 'bike conclusion' will be engraved in my memory and I will apply it in my professional work as well.

P.S. for disbelievers, the tough ones!
If you're convinced you would take the risk of firing the 1000 chamber  Russian gun against your head, you probably valuate the fun of the bicycle trip higher than probability of the loss of your life or good health.

In this case, suppose someone would offer you an amount of money if you would take part in a 1000 chamber Russian roulette instead of a bicycle tour. At which amount would you settle?

Let's assume you would settle at € 10.000.000 (I wouldn't settle for less). In this case you really value your bicycle trip!!!! 

Interested? read more at Actuary-Info

Monday, November 01, 2010


One of the best inspirational poems ever written, is 'IF' , by Rudyard Kipling (1895):

So..., 'If' you ever feel down or depressed, take up this poem, read it again and feel the energy coming back into your blood vessels....

Word Empowerment
This empowerment by words is also visible when a text, document or url is translated into Word-Picture. A wonderful application called Wordle, helps you to build these word-clouds.

Here is a Wordle example from Kipling's poem IF:

Enjoy the IFs in your life!