u/GlitchSolver

This verse is one of the central verses in Vedant. It is from Chandyogya Upanishad. This verse is the answer to the question "Who am I?"

When we are faced with this question, we already have many answers ready. We have many identities. We are born with identities. It's prakritik. My first identity is this body and from there on other identities follow.

The thing about identities is all my identities can be named. Whatever there's in the world can be named. Whatever comes within the scope of mind can be named. Thoughts ,feelings, objects, people, and imaginations can be named like I am a human, young, old, rich, educated, car, mickey mouse etc.

Sage here is saying "I am THAT". He is NOT giving a name. The foundational difference is in not naming.

Sage is saying I am not an identity related to this body and the world. "I am that" that doesn't have a name. "I am that" that's beyond mind. "I am that" that mind can't think of. That's my real identity.

Okay!! If that's my real identity, what am doing in this world then?

The identities that we carry instill an incompleteness in us. I am this body means I am limited, I am not everything, implying I am not complete. So in the life we live, we search for completeness. This is what we are doing in this world.

If we inquire and examine our mind, we can see that we want something, we are actually searching every moment. Because we have identified ourselves with many identities and don't know our real identity, we are searching for satisfaction, fulfillment, completeness in the world.

But will we ever find the completeness this way?

Well.... we won't. Because whatever identity, object we will find, it will fall within our mind. Now the mind is not fulfilled with itself to begin with. So how will it find fulfillment with one more addition of identity? It's the limitation.

So? Is there a way? Am I on the perpetual search that's bound to fail?

Our incompleteness is there because we do not know the one who is unfulfilled, from where it has arisen.

If one starts from a false center, one will lead a false life. One will have to collect more false identities.

Instead one can investigate one's identity. First inquire into what you think is right or not, later on one can start working.

A common person asserts that whatever I am feeling, my identities, my experiences are true and I will work from those. A adhyatmik person first sees and inquires into the reality of whatever one is feeling, experiencing, from where the thoughts are arising. After that one can start acting.

So inquiry into the reality of my accepted identities is the way.

So whenever any identity overwhelms you, you can remind yourself that "I am that". Not as an assertion of some positive identity, but as a negation of accepted identity. One needs to be honest enough not to use this as per convenience, as a comfort mechanism though.

So have you seen someone making "That" into an ultimate positive identity? Why that might be you think? How many current identities do you have? Have you inquired into those yet? Let me know in the comments.

Imagine a country emitting vast amounts of carbon for decades, while people in other nations pay the price through floods, heatwaves, droughts, and crop losses.

This raises a question:

Shouldn't the party that profited from the pollution also compensate for the damage caused?

Economist Michael Greenstone proposes that wealthy nations provide direct financial payments to people in developing countries to compensate for climate damage resulting from the former's emissions.

But there is a condition.

Developing countries must set a price on carbon essentially imposing an economic cost on emissions.

According to him, payments could be made directly to individuals rather than governments, allowing them to use the funds as they see fit.

The rationale is that while industrialized OECD nations are historically responsible for a large share of the carbon accumulated in the atmosphere, the bulk of future emissions is projected to originate outside the OECD.

However, another question arises here.

If someone else pays the price for pollution, what incentive is there to change polluting habits?

That is precisely why the proposal links financial compensation with accountability.

Surat’s Emissions Trading Scheme in India serves as an example. It created a market for pollution permits for industries. According to Greenstone, compliance under this system was far superior to that under traditional regulatory frameworks, as it combined economic incentives for emission reduction with strict enforcement.

Yet, the real issue goes beyond money or technology.

As long as the polluter does not pay the true cost, the benefits of development remain private while the costs are borne by society.

A fundamental hallmark of arrogance is wanting the profit for oneself while making someone else pay the price.

Is climate justice merely about transferring funds to poor nations, or does it require an honest examination of the system itself - a system where the profits from pollution accrue in one place while the damages are suffered elsewhere? What's your take on this? Let me know in the comments.

Source:

https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/pay-the-global-south-for-climate-damage-but-only-if-it-prices-carbon-says-economist-greenstone/article71537394.ece/amp/

The film Joker (2019) tells the story of Arthur Fleck, a resident of Gotham City. He works as a clown and dreams of becoming a stand-up comedian. However, his life is constantly overshadowed by insensitivity, neglect, humiliation, loneliness and violence.

Economic inequality and social tension are rising in the city. Meanwhile, Arthur repeatedly feels that he has no place in the society where he seeks respect and a sense of belonging.

A transformation begins within Arthur following a violent incident. He gradually sheds his old identity and embraces the name and persona of the Joker.

Suddenly, the man whom society used to overlook becomes a symbol for the people. Some in Gotham begin to view his violence and rebellion as a stand against the system.

This is where the film raises an unsettling question.

Did Arthur truly break free from his old identity, or did he simply latch onto a new one? Initially, he held no significance; then he became the Joker, a figure people began to recognize.

He was once deemed insignificant; now, even by becoming "bad", he garnered a distinct identity, power, and attention.

This reveals a profound issue.

Is becoming "bad" a true rebellion?

Being called "good" gratifies one's sense of self, but being labeled "bad" can also serve as potent fuel for that same sense of self . Actually "bad" isn't independent of "good" at all. As "bad" too gets defined with respect to "good".

Today, standing against conventional social values in the name of 'counter-culture' has itself become a form of style and identity. Ironically this 'counter-culture' is also defined with respect to 'mainstream culture'.

Yet, if the pretense of goodness does not liberate us, then donning the mantle of badness is certainly no solution either. This is precisely where stories that glorify the villain can create a different kind of impact.

When movies portray a gangster, criminal, or villain as incredibly charismatic, powerful, and influential, the audience might find themselves captivated by that persona-even without condoning the actual crimes committed.

Rebellion is meaningful only when it recognizes a genuine constraint and opens a path to move beyond it.

Simply doing the opposite of what society deems 'good' does not, in itself, constitute freedom.

Arthur in Joker was initially trapped in an identity imposed by society; later, he forged a new identity for himself - but did he truly break free from the concept of identity itself?

If being a 'good person' is an identity, and being a 'bad person' is also an identity, are we truly free when we define ourselves by clinging to either one? What are your thoughts on this? Do let me know in the comments.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker\_(2019\_film)

This is Barren Island, Andaman and Nicobar.

It is the only active volcano in India.

K has a special place in my path of inquiry. When I first came across his video I found it odd. I didn't understand then. One day on YouTube while watching a video by Acharya Prashant I heard him talking of the innocence and purity of K's inquiry. That changed my view a bit.

After that I bought my first book "The Flight of the Eagle" as the name felt catchy. Since then I have listened to various videos of K and inquired with him. Also read a few books too.

Recently I picked his first book "At the Feet of the Master". K moved away from this later in his life. This book is different from other books. One must be careful while reading this book and should read to inquire about oneself and not to build a belief system.

This book felt fresh to me. The earnestness, the sincerity in the book felt unreal. Although other books too felt like a conversation with K, this book felt like a kind of lovely , beautiful Sermon. One must be very careful while reading it though that it doesn't turn into a belief system.

Many times I felt wonderful. A particular line in chapter 4, felt so... sorry, I don't have a word. It goes like this.

"Of all the qualifications, Love is the Most important, for if it is strong enough in a man, it forces him to acquire all the rest, and all the rest without it would never be sufficient."

K has further discussed what this Love is, it's not an ordinary, romantic kind of love of course. You can refer to the book if you want to know more.

At the end his speech " Truth is a Pathless Land " K said that " My only concern is to set men absolutely, unconditionally free. " Hope if you read this book, it's in the same spirit.

No matter how many times I rewatch Interstellar, this moment never loses its weight. It's one of the most emotional and beautifully shot sequences in modern cinema. Still hits me just as hard as the first time.

Which scene in the movie wrecked you the most?

On 8th September OpenAI announced that they have solved the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem. It took 90 years for humans to solve this problem.

What's Navier-Stokes Equation?

This equation describes the motion of viscous fluid. It makes use of principles of Momentum balance, conservation of mass, Newton's second law to study the fluid motion of the fluid. Navier-Stokes Equation is particularly interesting because it takes into account the Viscosity of the Fluid too. So it has more practical applications than ideal theoretical ones. Euler's equation is for non viscous fluids.

The fluid is made up of molecules. But The Navier-Stokes Equation treats the fluid as a continuous medium.

In the year 1934, Jean Leray proved that the solutions of this equation exists in a generalized sense. But whether the flow always remains a smooth remianed an unanswered question.

Importance of Navier-Stokes Equation

Navier-Stokes Equation is used in studying Ocean Currents, Blood flow and designing Aircrafts, Cars and has many more practical applications.

What's the Millenium Prize Problem?

In the year 2000, Clay Mathematics Institute, a Private and Non-profit Organisation in USA, founded a Scientific Advisory Board consisting of Four World's most eminent mathematicians. This board selected 7 mathematical problems. These problems were precisely defined, historically resisting the World's best Minds and universally important.

Navier-Stokes Existence and Smootheness Problem is one of these.

What was the Problem exactly?

The fluid is made up of molecules. But in The Navier-Stokes Equation treats the fluid as a continuous medium. It describes the continuous flow rather than tracking individual Molecules.

A point to remember here. Viscosity slows down the fluid. So it cannot move at infinite speed within small amount of time. This point will come handy in a bit.

So the fundamental question was can this approximation of the fluid as a continuous flow rather than individual Molecules breakdown?

To check this, the problem was defined as follows:-

Can the Navier-Stokes Equations for a 3-d incompressible fluid with constant density develop a "singularity" with motion starting smoothly? Here singularity means speed growing to infinity within a finite time period.

As we already discussed earlier, the speed of fluid can't go to infinity due to Viscosity in a finite amount of time, if this singularity is to happen, the approximation of the fluid as a flow breaks down. We have to model it as individual Molecules.

Has anyone tried to solve it before?

Some notable names whose work led the path in solving this problem are Thomas Hou, Diego Cordoba, Martinez - Zoroa.

Recently Levent Alpoge, an Anthropic Employee and Tristan Buckmaster, a math professor have worked and found solutions primarily related to Forced Euler's Equation. These names are in the news too because there's a controversy for the priority of the work after the announcement of OpenAI.

Buckmaster said that by 22 August he had proof of Euler's equation. It was sent by Levent generated by LLM.

Buckmaster said that he had used OpenAI's Models to work on this forced Euler equation resolution.

The duo had planned to continue working on more write ups.

Why is Navier-Stokes Equation and OpenAI in News?

Now on the 8th of September OpenAI announced that they have solved this problem. Their AI agents have proved that singularity can be reached in a finite amount of time.

They described how they found out the solution. This is really interesting.

OpenAI said that their effort to solve This Millennium Prize Problem began on 1st September after hearing a rumour that this problem is solved. Later this rumour was found out about Levent Alpoge and Buckmaster.

Initially OpenAI said 100 AI agents worked for 50 hours to produce this Euler regularity disproof. Then OpenAI moved to Navier-Stokes Equation solution. They trained their model with Euler resolution. This time they formed groups with communication allowed within the group. These groups were cross pollinated to consolidate the useful insights.

The Group that came up with the solution for Navier-Stokes Equation had roughly 10,000 AI agents.

Across all the attempted problems, agents sent 4.9 million messages with 300 billion output tokens. For Navier-Stokes problem agents sent 2.7 million messages and used up to 130 billion output tokens.

It took 88 hours to arrive at the solution after the first agent was launched.

OpenAI said that it has worked on this problem with advanced models that aren't open to the public. OpenAI said that we are in next period of AI progress. They also announced that they won't claim the prize money for solving the problem.

Thus the 90 year old problem was solved in less than 200 hours or so.

Claim on the timelines

Buckmaster said that OpenAI's agents would have got access to his work and thus helped in solving the problem. OpenAI doesn't deny this. They said that it's possible when he may have used OpenAI's models. The reports vary on the interaction between Buckmaster, Alpoge and OpenAI. Looks like it will take some time to resolve who did what, when.

Is there any other background to this?

Both OpenAI and Anthropic AI are planning to go public later this year or earlier next year. According to news articles they are aiming for a $1 trillion IPO.

A very fundamental problem that remained unsolved for over 90 years was solved in less than 100 hours by AI. But a question comes was it about the problem? or was it more about proving the capacity and taking the credit?

Even with the most sophisticated technology it seems like the same game is getting played. Earlier it was nuclear weapons now it's AI Models.

The need to achieve new milestones, prove the capacity, outshine others seems to take priority. The AI, the problem remains tools through which something else is aimed at.

Maybe this fundamental question of why this shadow keeps lingering humanity through generations needs investigation. And it looks like humanity can't use AI for that. It remains in the hands and intent of Humans themselves.

Sources:

https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/ai-has-solved-one-of-maths-1-million-millennium-prize-problems-20260908/

https://www.livemint.com/money/personal-finance/sam-altman-wants-a-1-trillion-openai-ipo-after-spacexs-success-but-will-investors-still-make-money-11783769100528.html

https://www.tradingview.com/news/tradingview:0ae5f3ce2094b:0-anthropic-files-for-ipo-at-over-1-trillion-valuation-surpassing-openai/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes\_equations

Looks like Indians are steadily Understanding the importance of the work of Acharya Prashant and the Foundation 🪔🙌

Video Credits: monsoonboruah (Insta Id)

These clouds looked so beautiful.

These rivers looked so beautiful.

But one thought came to mind while looking at them:

How long will they stay like this?

Maybe the real question is: How long will we keep ignoring the reality of climate change?

When will we finally open our eyes to what is happening around us?

We keep trying to engineer our way out of the consequences of environmental damage instead of addressing the root cause.

Maybe fix the problem instead of speedrunning the symptoms?

Video credited to @rapha.dives on Instagram.