Includes posts on physics, philosophy, sciences, quantitative finance, economics, environment etc.
The fifth post on the philosophy of death looks at another notion of continuity. Even for those who believe in no soul or god of any kind, the physical world is real and continuous. No sane person would think the world comes to an end with his death. Then again, nobody has accused me of sanity.
What is soul, and why do we need one? Philosophy of death is surely incomplete without a discussion of this matter. Here is the fourth post in this series.
The severity of a pain is not merely its intensity, but its duration as well. Given that death puts a definitive end to our worldly durations, how does it affect our notion of punishment commensurate with crime? Here is the third post on the philosophy of death.
This second post on my series on the philosophy of death deals with the connection between morality and death.
I thought I would write a short piece on the philosophy death, but it turned out to be a fairly big essay. It was to be expected, I guess, for death is not an easy or simple topic. I will post my thoughts here in parts. The first part looks at the taboo nature of the topic of death.
Here is an article defending (to some extent) the insane salary expectations of the elite bankers and traders. And quants. This piece will appear in my regular column in Wilmott Magazine.
Economists have too many hands. On the one hand, they may declare something good. On the other hand, they may say, “well, not so much.” Some of them may have even a third or fourth hand. My ex-boss, an economist himself, once remarked that he wished he could chop off some of these hands. […]
A frank, but strange, look at global warming. Are we a virus on the earth? And is the global warming a bout of fever? Published in the Singaporean newspaper, Today, on 1 Dec 2008.
[…] The end result of a viral infection is always gloomy. Either the host succumbs or the virus gets beaten by the host’s immune systems. If we are the virus, both these eventualities are unpalatable. We don’t want to kill the Earth. And we certainly don’t want to be exterminated by the Earth. But those are the only possible outcomes of our viral-like activity here. It is unlikely that we will get exterminated; we are far too sophisticated for that. In all likelihood, we will make our planet uninhabitable. We may, by then, have our technological means of migrating to other planetary systems. In other words, if we are lucky, we may be contagious! […]
This concluding part of the philosophy of money (to appear as a column in the May issue of the Wilmott Magazine) shares my private disappointment that whatever I wrote up may not have been as original as I expected it to be. But the concept of money has been around for a long time now, so I should not dwell on it too much.
Having looked at the how of money in the last post, here is the why of money in this third post in the my mini-series. Why do we want it so bad?
This second post of the mini series based on my upcoming column in the Wilmott Magazine looks at how people make money in a scalable fashion. It was posted earlier in this blog.
Here is another mini series of posts based on an upcoming column of mine in the Wilmott Magazine to appear in their May issue. I have posted similar ideas here before, but this series will put them together, hopefully as a cohesive whole. This first post of the series looks at the unphysical nature of money.