Category: Curiosity

In the movie Interstellar, the positioning of the planets that the team sets out to explore presents an intriguing idea. At one point, it is suggested that life may not have emerged on these planets because of their proximity to a black hole. The film does not explore this in depth—but that is precisely what this article sets out to do.

The Universe as Information

The lens of this discussion is the law of conservation of information, a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that states information about the quantum state of a physical system can never be destroyed. While this idea leads to the famous black hole information paradox, one proposed resolution—the holographic principle—offers a compelling perspective.

The holographic principle, as proposed by Gerard ‘t Hooft and Leonard Susskind, states that all information falling into a black hole is stored on its 2D boundary (event horizon) surface, allowing information to be encoded in outgoing radiation.

Interestingly, Leonard Susskind also contributed to Interstellar, helping shape the mathematical realism behind its depiction of black holes.

Flow—and Restriction—of Information

We rarely think of the universe in terms of information, but that is, in many ways, what it is.

Every particle carries state. Every interaction transfers something—energy, momentum, structure. Light, perhaps the most fundamental of these carriers, connects distant points in space-time. It tells one part of the universe what is happening in another.

In that sense, the universe is constantly exchanging information with itself. But this exchange is not uniform.

There are places where information flows freely—signals travel, interactions propagate, structures influence one another across space and time. And then there are places where that flow begins to constrict.

A black hole is where this constriction seems to become absolute, with even light unable to escape, hence the name “black hole.”

Now, within the holographic principle, it is not that nothing exists—it is that nothing can reach us. And that changes the nature of what can emerge.

Because complexity is not just about what exists. It is about what can interact.

Randomness Is Not Enough

It is easy to look at life and feel that it must have been intended.

There is rhythm in it. Direction. A quiet sense of continuity. Cells divide, organisms grow, and ecosystems balance themselves with a precision that feels almost deliberate.

It doesn’t quite resemble chaos.

And yet, if we strip it down to its foundations, life begins not with intention, but with randomness. However, randomness is a universal facet of our universe, and yet life is not.

So why does life exist at all? Why here, and not everywhere? When does randomness begin to matter?

The Need for Freedom

Randomness, on its own, is not enough.

It needs room. It needs freedom to explore different possibilities, to try, fail, and try again without being erased too quickly. In other words, it needs access.

Imagine trying to build something intricate—a machine, a language, a living system—but with only a limited set of signals, limited interactions, limited feedback. The possibilities shrink, not because the universe forbids them outright, but because it does not provide enough pathways to arrive there. Randomness is still present. Events still occur. But they repeat within a narrower frame. The system begins to favor simplicity—not by design, but by constraint.

A Planet Like Earth – When Randomness Starts to Remember

Now, step away from that edge of the cosmos and consider a place like Earth. Here, information flows.

Light from the Sun arrives steadily, carrying energy across space. The atmosphere filters, scatters, and redistributes it. Molecules collide, react, recombine. Oceans circulate heat. Geological processes reshape the surface. Nothing is still, but nothing is overwhelmingly destructive either.

It is not chaos. It is not stability. It is something in between.

A kind of balance where interactions are rich, but not immediately erased. Where variations can persist long enough to matter. In such a place, randomness behaves differently. It does not just produce outcomes—it begins to accumulate them.

Atoms collide. Bonds form and break. Energy moves. A molecule forms and remains intact. It participates in another reaction. A chain develops. A structure stabilizes. Each step does not disappear entirely; it leaves behind a trace, something that can be built upon.

We call that life.

Seen this way, life is not an exception to randomness. It is a consequence of it—but only under the right conditions. Not all randomness leads to complexity.
Only the kind that is allowed to explore, interact, and persist does. And that depends on the nature of the universe around it.

Back to Interstellar

This brings us back to Interstellar and the position of the planets. The planets – Miller’s and Mann’s orbit the black hole, Gargantua.

The movie shows the effects of this proximity – while Miller’s planet has extreme gravity and experiences 4,000-foot tidal waves along with severe time dilation (7 years per minute), Mann’s planet is a frozen wasteland with limited light, featuring ice clouds and a rocky, cold surface.

Now, in theory, both these planets, sometimes called “blanets” (black hole planets), were in what’s called a safe zone – a stable last orbit for matter, allowing for orbits that do not instantly spiral into the singularity.

But stability alone is not enough.

As we have seen, what matters is not just existence, but freedom of interaction.

Near a black hole, this freedom is constrained. Information flow is limited. Interaction pathways are restricted. As a result, complexity struggles to emerge. Miller’s planet ends up with water, and Mann’s planet goes as far as ammonia, carbon dioxide, and ammonium hydrosulfide or similar ammonia-sulfur compounds. But complexity never truly takes off.

A Selective Universe

The cosmos is not uniform in its generosity. Some regions are too quiet—too little interaction, too little variation. Others are too violent—too much disruption, too little continuity. And then there are rare pockets where the balance holds just enough for complexity to take root.

Not guaranteed. Not directed. But possible.

The Quiet Realization

It is tempting to think of life as something that inevitably emerges given enough time.

But perhaps it is more accurate to think of it as something that emerges where time, interaction, and accessible possibility align.

Where the universe is not just active—but permissive.

In Closing

There is something quietly humbling in that thought.

Life is not just about the presence of matter or energy. It is about the freedom to connect, to exchange, to build on what came before.

Modern cars are extraordinary machines. Not just because they can travel hundreds of kilometers on a tank of fuel or glide silently on electric power, but because of the sheer amount of science quietly working beneath the surface. And yet, most of the truly impressive engineering in a car is hidden in the features we barely notice.

Consider how often we admire horsepower, acceleration, or the sleekness of design. But rarely do we pause to think about the small conveniences and safety mechanisms that operate silently in the background, features that have become so reliable that they now feel mundane.

Two such examples are the auto-dimming rear-view mirror and the Anti-lock Braking System (ABS). Both are now standard in many vehicles, both operate almost invisibly, and both are excellent illustrations of how physics, chemistry, and control systems merge to solve everyday problems.

---

When Chemistry Reduces Glare

Imagine driving at night on a dark highway. A car behind you suddenly switches on its high beams, and the glare floods your rear-view mirror. In older cars, you would manually flip the mirror to reduce the reflection. In many modern vehicles, however, the mirror dims automatically.

The first commercial application of electrochromism in rear-view mirrors was introduced by Gentex Corporation in 1987, which debuted as an interior auto-dimming rear-view mirror on the 1988 Lincoln Continental.

This small act of convenience is powered by a fascinating bit of materials science known as electrochromism.

Auto-dimming mirrors contain two layers of glass with a thin electrochromic gel sandwiched between them. Light sensors monitor both the ambient light in front of the vehicle and the intensity of light hitting the mirror from behind. When the rear sensor detects a strong light source—like high beams from another car—a small electrical voltage is applied across the electrochromic layer.

This voltage triggers a chemical change in the material, altering how it absorbs and reflects light. As electrons shift within the layer, the mirror darkens, reducing glare and improving the driver’s visibility.

There are no motors, no mechanical movement—just a subtle change in the electronic state of the material itself. In essence, the mirror doesn’t move to block the light; it changes its optical properties to absorb it.

Behind this simple comfort feature lies a carefully engineered balance between chemistry, optics, and human physiology. Our eyes adapt slowly to sudden brightness, especially at night. By automatically reducing glare, the mirror compensates for this limitation in human vision.

What appears to be a small convenience is actually a quiet collaboration between materials science and human-centered design.

---

When Physics Saves Control: The Engineering of ABS

If auto-dimming mirrors represent elegance in chemistry, ABS represents elegance in physics and control engineering.

To understand ABS, we need to look at a fundamental problem in braking.

When drivers panic, the natural instinct is to slam the brake pedal as hard as possible. In older braking systems, this often caused the wheels to lock completely. A locked wheel stops rotating and begins sliding across the road surface.

At first glance, that might seem like maximum braking force. In reality, it is the opposite.

Physics tells us that static friction, the friction between two surfaces that are not sliding relative to each other, is stronger than kinetic friction, which occurs when surfaces slide past one another. When a tire rolls while gripping the road, it benefits from static friction. When it locks and slides, it transitions into weaker kinetic friction.

This loss of traction creates two problems. First, braking efficiency decreases. Second, and more dangerously, the driver loses the ability to steer. A sliding tire cannot respond effectively to steering inputs.

ABS solves this problem by preventing the wheels from locking in the first place.

Wheel-speed sensors constantly monitor how fast each wheel is rotating. If the system detects that a wheel is slowing down too rapidly, an early sign that it may lock, the ABS controller momentarily reduces the brake pressure on that wheel. Once the wheel begins rotating again, the system reapplies the braking force.

This cycle repeats extremely quickly, often dozens of times per second. The driver feels this as a slight pulsing in the brake pedal during hard braking.

What ABS is really doing is maintaining the delicate balance where the tire remains at the edge of traction, while preserving steering control.

In effect, ABS is a real-time physics engine embedded in the car. It observes, calculates, and intervenes faster than any human could react.

Mercedes-Benz and Bosch introduced the first electronic, four-channel ABS on the Mercedes-Benz S-Class in the 1970s.

---

Engineering that Disappears

What makes these technologies particularly interesting is how little we notice them.

Auto-dimming mirrors rarely draw attention to themselves. ABS activates only during emergency braking. Most of the time, they sit quietly in the background, performing their roles without ceremony.

This is often the hallmark of mature engineering.

The early days of a technology are noisy. New inventions are celebrated, discussed, and admired. Over time, as they become reliable and widely adopted, they fade into the background of daily life.

We stop noticing them, not because they are unimportant, but because they work so well.

---

The Quiet Genius of Everyday Machines

Modern cars contain countless such examples: crumple zones designed to absorb impact energy, airbags that deploy through precisely timed chemical reactions, traction control systems that manage tire grip in slippery conditions, and more.

Each of these represents decades of scientific understanding translated into practical design.

Yet perhaps the most impressive aspect of all is not the complexity of the technology itself, but the way it integrates seamlessly into everyday experience. The best engineering rarely demands attention. It simply makes life safer, smoother, and more predictable.

So the next time your rear-view mirror dims automatically or your car maintains control during sudden braking, it may be worth pausing for a moment.

What feels ordinary is, in fact, the quiet triumph of science.

This is personal. My mother passed away suddenly, the day after my marriage. One moment she was there, handing my father a cup of tea, and the next moment she was gone—taken by a heart attack.

I didn’t know what to do then, and even today, I often find myself thinking: what could I have done differently? Could she still be here if I had acted faster, or known more? Yet, being a seeker of spirituality, I also hold a belief that helps me endure: it is what it is. Events happen as causes and effects. We cannot cling, we cannot resist. We can only accept, and then seek to understand.

That seeking led me to the question: why did it happen?

Doctors called it a myocardial infarction—but that is only the medical description of what occurred, not the root cause. It is the scientific label for the event, not the story behind it. And that deeper question of “what caused it” has been on my mind ever since.

---

A Larger Pattern

If you’ve followed the news in India lately—beyond politics—you may have noticed a troubling trend. There has been a rise in deaths caused by heart attacks. Old, young, seemingly healthy—none seem spared.

One case that caught national attention was Nithin Kamath, a well-known entrepreneur admired for his fitness. In his case, thankfully, he suffered a mild stroke, not a heart attack (myocardial infarction), in early 2024. His story underscores something crucial: a heart attack is not always about age, lifestyle, or obvious risk—it can strike anyone.

Medical research tells us there are many contributing factors:

• High blood pressure, diabetes, and cholesterol imbalances
• Smoking, alcohol, and poor dietary habits
• Sedentary lifestyles
• Stress and mental health pressures
• Environmental conditions (air pollution, seasonal triggers)
• Genetic predispositions

And more often than not, it’s not just one, but a unique combination of these factors that makes the heart vulnerable.

But there is another factor, one that deserves much more attention: what happens after the heart attack begins.

---

The Crucial Factor: CPR

Studies across the world show a simple, powerful truth: when more people around a heart attack victim know CPR, survival rates rise dramatically. Early intervention can make the difference between life and death.

According to a review published in the Indian Heart Journal, the bystander CPR rate in India is only 1.3%–9.8%, far below the target goal of 62% set by the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Add to it the lack of robust emergency medical services, and you get a survival rate of less than 10% for Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Here is an example of what bystander CPR can achieve: A doctor’s presence of mind and knowledge of CPR saved the life of an elderly man at Delhi Airport

That’s why I want to make this a call to action: please learn CPR, specifically chest compressions. There are excellent YouTube tutorials and guides that explain it clearly—here’s one from the Red Cross. Watch it, share it, and pass this knowledge forward. One day, you may save someone’s life.

I also believe this must be institutionalized. We should mandate CPR training for young adults in schools nationwide. In 2022, Dr Shrikant Eknath Shinde, Member of Parliament, proposed a bill in the Lok Sabha requiring CPR training for schools in India to reduce the high fatalities due to cardiac arrest. The status of this bill is currently unknown.

It’s not just skill-building, it’s life-saving.

---

My Mother’s Story

Even with these broader reflections, I keep circling back to my mother. What really caused her heart to fail that day?

Looking back, there were unique factors in play:

• It was December, the harsh winter in North India.
• She had been deeply involved in the wedding preparations for weeks.
• She had recently traveled between two cities, once by bus and once by flight.
• She was physically exhausted, as most of us were.

But there was something more. Her mental state.

When I last saw her, she was radiating joy—her face was glowing. She had just seen her son get married, her family gathered, her heart full. And in that state of absolute happiness, she collapsed.

This leads me to an educated guess: she may have suffered what is known as Happy Heart Syndrome. Medically, it’s a form of stress cardiomyopathy, more commonly linked to grief or shock (“Broken Heart Syndrome”), but documented also in cases of overwhelming joy.

Her physical exhaustion, the environmental strain, and her heightened emotional state together may have triggered the fatal event.

It is, in a way, a poetic answer. But I think it is also a reasonable one.

---

Closing Reflection

I share this not to dwell in grief, but in understanding. We may not always have clear answers—sometimes there is absence of evidence. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Science and spirituality both remind us of this truth. Science helps us search for causes, build probabilities, and act smarter in the future. Spirituality reminds us to accept what we cannot change, to see the beauty even in endings.

For my mother, I choose to believe she left this world not in pain, but in joy. That glowing face is the memory I hold. And perhaps that is how the heart too works; it beats with us in sorrow, in stress, and sometimes, it can’t contain overwhelming happiness either.

Astrology is the study of how the positions of stars and planets supposedly influence human lives. I personally do not subscribe to this belief. But the exploration of astrology—and why humans gravitate toward it—is a topic for another day.

This article is about something far stranger, far more real, and far more unsettling:
a phenomenon that actually does link events on Earth to forces from outer space.

And unlike astrology, it has been scientifically observed, measured, and is known to create real-world anomalies that remain unsolved.

A Nose-Diving Plane, A Rogue Car, A Phantom Game World, and 4096 Extra Votes

A commercial flight suddenly nose-dives mid-air, injuring over a hundred passengers.
A modern car abruptly accelerates uncontrollably.
A gamer discovers a mysterious map area that has never again appeared in the game’s code in over a decade.
A political candidate mysteriously gains exactly 4096 extra votes.

Four very different mysteries, but all sharing one speculative culprit:

The Single Event Effect (SEE)

A SEE occurs when a high-energy particle from outer space—a neutron, proton, or other cosmic ray—strikes a semiconductor and flips a bit from 0 to 1 or 1 to 0.

This tiny flip in a microchip can create disproportionately large consequences.

It’s the same cosmic radiation that spacecraft must defend against using multiple layers of shielding and error-correcting systems. NASA’s Perseverance Rover, for example, uses radiation-hardened processors and software designed specifically to detect and correct these errors before they cascade into mission failure.

---

Cosmic Rays: A Hazard, A Mystery, and a Light Show Behind Closed Eyes

These particles do not just interact with electronics—they interact with us.

Astronauts have long reported seeing sudden flashes of light, even with their eyes closed. During the Apollo missions, NASA ran dedicated experiments to understand this phenomenon. The conclusion?

Astronauts were literally seeing cosmic rays pass through their eyeballs.

The descriptions were almost poetic:

• tiny white spots,
• fast streaks,
• floating clouds,
• and, once, an electric-blue flash described by Apollo 15 Commander David Scott as
  “blue with a white cast, like a blue diamond.”

Just one more reminder that the universe is not a distant spectacle—it is constantly interacting with us in ways we barely understand.

---

A Universe of Sources, a Century of Discovery

Cosmic rays originate from everywhere: exploding stars, distant galaxies, black holes, and even the Sun. Their effects can be extremely subtle (like a flipped bit) or profoundly significant (like shaping our atmosphere).

The 1936 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to

• Victor Hess, for discovering cosmic radiation, and
• Carl Anderson, for discovering the positron—the antimatter version of the electron.

The existence of antimatter itself is a reminder of how bizarre and deeply consequential these cosmic interactions can be, and how fortunate we are to have an atmosphere shielding us from most of this bombardment.

---

So Yes, the Universe Affects Us—Just Not the Way Astrology Claims

Whether one believes in astrology or not, there is no denying that astronomical bodies do have an impact on Earth and on us. The real question is: are we capable of predicting these impacts? Or even understanding them fully?

Astrology claims we can.
Science shows we mostly can’t.
And where astrology attempts to guess, science measures and reveals.

Which brings us to the most famous scientific test of astrology ever conducted.

---

A Scientific Test of Astrology (Carlson, Nature, 1985)

Physicist Shawn Carlson designed a rigorous double-blind test published in Nature (1985). Here’s the summary:

• 30 top astrologers participated.
• Each received the natal charts of 116 people.
• For each chart, they were given three personality descriptions.
• Only one description was correct.
• They had to match chart to person.

The expected success rate by random chance: 33%.
The astrologers’ success rate: 33%.

No better than random guessing.

Carlson concluded that astrologers likely rely on cold reading—subtle cues from in-person interactions—not on celestial predictions.

---

Conclusion

Astrology claims stars guide our personalities.
Science reveals stars—and cosmic phenomena—sometimes flip bits in our computers or flash across an astronaut’s retina.

One is a poetic metaphor.
The other is physical reality.

Both remind us of how intimately connected we are to the universe—
just not in the way horoscopes imagine.

---

References

Astrology double blind test:

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/articles/is-astrology-real-heres-what-science-says

https://www.nature.com/articles/318419a0#citeas

The Mario Speed Runner bit flip:

YouTube video of the live stream

https://www.thegamer.com/how-ionizing-particle-outer-space-helped-super-mario-64-speedrunner-save-time

The discovery of cosmic rays:

The discovery of cosmic rays by Victor Hess

1936 Nobel Prize in Physics

The safety of space vehicles:

Perseverance Rover Components – NASA Science

Mars rover radiation protection

Investigating the Effects of Cosmic Rays on Space Electronics

About cosmic rays:

Terrestrial cosmic rays | IBM Journals & Magazine | IEEE Xplore

Added votes on a bit-flip

Déj`a-Vu: A Glimpse on Radioactive Soft-Error Consequences on Classical and Quantum Computations

I still have the vague remembrance of watching the first Jurassic Park movie in a theater and the horror it was to see those massive towering giants picking apart or trampling over the lowly humans.

It’s hard not to feel dwarfed by the largest land animals to have ever roamed the planet.

Some stretched longer than a blue whale, and even the predators — think T. rex — were massive compared to today’s land animals. Why was the world of dinosaurs so supersized, while our largest land animal today, the African elephant, feels modest by comparison?

The answer lies in a mix of planetary conditions, evolutionary pressures, and a dash of cosmic influence. Let’s take a journey through the science — and the speculation.

1. Earth’s Climate: A Greenhouse Paradise

During the Mesozoic Era (about 250–66 million years ago), Earth was far warmer than it is today.

• No ice caps. Polar regions were forested, and winters were mild.
• High CO₂ levels. Carbon dioxide was 4–6 times higher than today, fueling explosive plant growth.
• Long growing seasons. Plants grew year-round, feeding enormous herbivores like Brachiosaurus.

In short, the world was a buffet. And with abundant food, nature could afford giants.

2. Oxygen Boosts and the Biology of Size

One fascinating clue lies in the air itself. Oxygen levels in parts of the Jurassic and Cretaceous were much higher than today’s 21%, possibly reaching 26–30%.

• Bigger lungs, bigger bodies. With more oxygen available, animals could support higher metabolic needs.
• Active lifestyles. Predators like Allosaurus could sustain bursts of activity, while giant herbivores had enough oxygen to keep their massive systems running.

Add to this the idea of gigantothermy — large animals naturally conserve heat, helping them regulate temperature even without being fully warm-blooded — and gigantism becomes an evolutionary advantage.

3. The Predator-Prey Arms Race

Size wasn’t just about climate — it was about survival.

• Herbivores grew larger as a defense against predators.
• Carnivores grew larger to keep up.

This evolutionary tug-of-war pushed both groups into a size spiral. Imagine herds of massive sauropods trampling through plains, with equally formidable predators stalking them — nature’s version of an arms race.

4. Planetary Conditions: Did Earth Make Giants Possible?

Some factors were planetary rather than biological:

• Continental Superhighways. The breakup of Pangaea created vast landmasses without modern barriers, giving giants room to roam.
• Shorter Days. Earth spun slightly faster — days were ~23 hours long. A small detail, but it may have influenced metabolism and growth cycles.
• Stable, Warm Oceans. With higher sea levels, coastlines expanded, creating rich ecosystems.

Interestingly, gravity hasn’t changed — Earth’s mass was the same then as now — so the idea of weaker gravity enabling dinosaurs’ size is a myth.

5. Cosmic Influences: A Subtle Background Role

Here’s where speculation enters. Could the universe itself have played a role?

• The Sun was slightly dimmer (~1% less luminous), but greenhouse gases kept Earth hot.
• Cosmic Rays fluctuate as Earth orbits the galaxy. Lower radiation levels might have supported warmer climates indirectly.
• Magnetic Shielding may have been stronger, protecting ecosystems from harmful radiation.

While these cosmic factors are intriguing, they were background players. The real stage was set by Earth itself.

6. Why Aren’t Today’s Animals as Big?

If conditions allowed giants before, why not now?

• Lower Oxygen & CO₂. Today’s atmosphere is leaner, limiting metabolic and plant productivity.
• Ice Caps & Seasons. Harsher climates make it harder to sustain giant year-round grazers.
• Asteroid Reset. The extinction 66 million years ago wiped the slate clean. Mammals evolved afterward, but their reproductive strategies and ecological niches never pushed them to dinosaurian extremes.
• Fragmented Habitats. Human activity and continental arrangements mean fewer wide-open spaces for giants.

The African elephant may be small compared to a sauropod, but in today’s world, it’s as large as land animals can reasonably get.

What If Dinosaurs Lived Today?

If we suddenly recreated Mesozoic conditions — higher oxygen, higher CO₂, vast forests, and a warmer climate — would giants return? Possibly. Evolution favors what works, and if the resources and space allowed, nature might once again produce land animals of astonishing size.

The Big Picture: Dinosaurs weren’t just accidents of evolution. They were products of a unique Earth — an atmosphere rich in oxygen and carbon dioxide, a climate built for growth, and ecosystems vast enough to sustain giants.

Their world was not just bigger in creatures, but in possibilities.

It began with a simple game of catch. A ball arcing through the air, hands stretching forward almost reflexively, eyes tracing the curve, and feet adjusting just enough to be in place at the right time. This ordinary act, repeated across parks, playgrounds, and backyards, hides a remarkable cognitive feat.

Catching a ball is not just a motor skill—it’s a quiet symphony of perception, prediction, and action. In that instant, the brain isn’t merely reacting; it’s forecasting. It models trajectories, calculates timing, and coordinates motion with a precision that rivals even engineered systems.

Hand-Eye Coordination: The Brain’s Real-Time Algorithm

At the core of this ability lies hand-eye coordination—a demonstration of the brain’s internal prediction engine.

When you see a ball approaching, your eyes gather visual data. Your brain uses this to predict its path, then triggers movement so your hands arrive just in time. This is called a forward model in neuroscience—a mental simulation of how the world behaves in the next few moments.

Unlike machines that often require vast training data, the human brain learns from relatively few examples, combining vision, touch, balance, memory, and past experience in real time.

Depth Perception: Building the Third Dimension

The reason we can play catch at all is because we perceive depth. Our two eyes capture slightly different images (a phenomenon called parallax), and the brain fuses them into a single 3D model.

But this process is more than just geometry—it’s inference. The brain uses motion cues, lighting, context, and prior experience to refine our sense of space.

Close one eye and the world becomes noticeably flatter. Depth is not directly perceived; it is constructed through various depth cues.

Five Senses, One Map: Stitching Reality

We don’t rely only on vision, but also incorporate information from other senses. Sound offers spatial cues (e.g., how you know where someone is calling from), touch defines boundaries, smell signals proximity, and the vestibular system in the inner ear gives a sense of balance and orientation.

The brain weaves all this into a unified map of 3D space.

We don’t just perceive space—we build it, moment to moment.

Why Stop at Three Dimensions?

This raises a fascinating question: if the brain can model three dimensions so easily, why not more?

Physics suggests the possibility of extra dimensions (e.g., string theory posits up to 11). But evolution shaped our brains for a world governed by three. Our tools, limbs, and languages reflect this geometry.

Just as a flatworm cannot imagine a sphere, perhaps we’re bound by our perceptual design.

Time: The Silent Sixth Sense?

And then there’s time—our most elusive dimension.

We don’t “see” time. We sense it—through change, memory, and motion. Time perception, or chronoception, is the brain’s way of experiencing the passage of time, and it’s not a single, unified process. Instead, it’s a distributed function involving multiple brain regions and cognitive processes. 

What’s clear is that our experience of time is elastic. Fear slows it down, boredom stretches it, joy compresses it. The brain’s “clock” is shaped by attention, emotion, and memory.

Our clocks and calendars derive their timekeeping from established references: the defined duration of a second and the Earth’s rotation.

In a way, we don’t just experience time—we construct it.

The Final Catch: Cognition as Window and Wall

And so we return to the ball in midair.

In that brief moment, your brain:

• Gathers depth cues
• Recalls previous throws
• Predicts the arc
• Commands your limbs
• Syncs it all with an invisible clock

All of this happens without conscious thought.

What feels like instinct is actually the result of layered learning, shaped by biology, refined by evolution, and fed by every lived moment.

Catching a ball is not about sport—it’s a reminder of the brain’s quiet genius. It shows how we:

• Perceive without direct input,
• Build our reality from fragments, and
• Operate within the elegant limits of our design.

And perhaps most beautifully, it reminds us that cognition is both a window to the world—and a wall that defines its shape.

You might have seen this sentence before: “Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy…”—and remarkably, you can still read it. Even when letters are jumbled, our brains don’t get stuck. They compensate. Predict. Fill in the blanks. Language, it turns out, is not a rigid code. It’s a dance of patterns, expectations, and clever shortcuts. From deciphering typos to understanding metaphors like “time flies,” our brain is constantly negotiating meaning. But what if these quirks—our ability to read wrongly spelled words, our love for figures of speech, or even our habit of saying “Company XYZ” without blinking—aren’t just linguistic fun facts, but a window into how the brain processes, predicts, and communicates?

Let’s begin with the jumbled letters. The classic example tells us that if the first and last letters of a word are in the right place, the brain can still interpret it correctly. It’s not magic—it’s pattern recognition. The brain doesn’t read each letter in isolation. Instead, it uses expectations, frequency of word use, and context to decode meaning. This process is called top-down processing, where your brain’s prior knowledge shapes your interpretation of incoming information. In this case, you’re not reading a sentence letter-by-letter but rather word-by-word, or even in phrase-sized chunks.

This trick of the mind has become so well-known that word processors have tried to mimic it. Tools like Google Docs and Grammarly incorporate algorithms that attempt to do what our brains do effortlessly: recognize imperfect inputs and still extract coherent meaning. But here’s the catch: even the best AI systems today are still far less capable than your brain. The real advantage of the human brain lies not just in how much information it can process, but in how deeply connected that information is. When a child learns what a “dog” is, it’s not just by seeing images of dogs a million times—it’s by associating it with barks heard at night, cartoons watched, a friend’s pet, a memory of being chased. These diverse experiences create rich, interconnected neural pathways. AI models, even when trained on huge datasets, lack that richness of context. They learn patterns, yes—but not through living, sensing, and emotionally experiencing those patterns.

In a recent episode of The Future with Hannah Fry on Bloomberg Originals, Sergey Levine, Associate Professor at UC Berkeley, highlights the importance of this richness of connections in the learning process. He explains that while a language model might respond to the question “What happens when you drop an object?” with “It falls,” this response lacks true understanding. “Knowing what it means for something to fall—the impact it has on the world—only comes through actual experience,” he notes. Levine further explains that models like ChatGPT can describe gravity based on their training data, but this understanding is essentially “a reflection of a reflection.” In contrast, human learning—through physical interaction with the world—offers direct, firsthand insight: “When you experience something, you understand it at the source.”

This is also why humans excel at figurative language. Consider the phrase “time flies.” You instantly understand that it’s not about a flying clock—it means time passes quickly. Our brains store idioms and metaphors as familiar, pre-learned concepts. They become shortcuts for meaning. What’s more interesting is how universal this behavior is. In English, it’s “time flies”; in Hindi, one might say samay haath se nikal gaya—“time slipped through the fingers.” Different languages, different cultures, same cognitive blueprint. The human brain has evolved to think not just in facts, but in metaphors. Culture and language may vary, but the underlying cognitive mechanisms remain strikingly similar.

This is also where placeholders like “Company XYZ,” “Professor X,” or “Chemical X” come in. These are not just convenient linguistic tools—they’re mental cues that signal abstraction. Nearly every language has its own way of doing this. In Hindi, one might use “फलां आदमी” (falaan aadmi) to mean a generic person. In Arabic, the term “fulan” serves a similar purpose. These generic stand-ins may look different, but they serve a similar function: they help us conceptualize hypothetical or unknown entities.

It is in this nuance that the contrast between human learning and AI becomes clearer. The human brain is not just a storage unit—it’s a meaning-maker. Our neural networks are constantly rewiring in response to diverse stimuli—cultural, environmental, social. The same word can evoke a different response in different people because of their unique mental associations. This is the beauty and complexity of language processing in the brain: it’s influenced by everything we are—where we live, what we’ve seen, what we believe.

Take this example: You’re reading a tweet. It ends with “Well, that went great. 🙃” You immediately detect the sarcasm, sense the irony, maybe even imagine the tone of voice. In that single moment, your brain is tapping into language, context, emotion, culture, and memory—simultaneously. That’s not just processing—that’s holistic understanding. AI, even at its most advanced, still learns in silos: grammar in one layer, sentiment in another, tone in a third. While it can produce human-like responses, it doesn’t feel or experience them. And that gap matters.

Language, ultimately, is not just about words—it’s about how our brains stitch together meaning using experience, expectation, and context. The way we process spelling errors, understand metaphors, and employ abstract placeholders all reflect the extraordinary adaptability of human cognition.

So next time you read a scrambled sentence, casually refer to “Company XYZ,” or instinctively interpret irony in a message, take a moment to appreciate the genius of your own mind. Beneath the words lies a web of perception, memory, and imagination—far more complex than any machine. Our words may differ, our accents may change, but the shared architecture of understanding binds us all. And in that, perhaps, lies the truest magic of language.

Every time we count, calculate, or type a number into our phones or laptops, we’re using symbols that feel almost as ancient as time itself: 1, 2, 3, 4… They’re called Arabic numerals today, but their story doesn’t begin in Arabia. Nor does it end there. In fact, it winds through ancient India, travels across the Islamic world, and eventually arrives in Europe, where it quietly replaces the clunky Roman numerals we now associate with monuments and clocks.

This is the story of numbers—not just as symbols, but as carriers of knowledge across civilizations.

Where it really began

The earliest evidence of a positional decimal number system—the idea that the place of a digit determines its value—comes from India. Ancient Indian mathematicians not only developed this positional system but also introduced the concept of zero as a number with its own mathematical identity. This might seem trivial to us today, but at the time, it was nothing short of revolutionary.

The oldest known inscription of the numeral “0” as a placeholder is found in the Bakhshali manuscript, a mathematical text dated by radiocarbon methods to as early as the 3rd or 4th century CE. And long before that, Indian mathematicians like Pingala (who worked on binary-like systems) and later Aryabhata and Brahmagupta explored place value, equations, and operations that were deeply reliant on this numerical framework.

Brahmagupta, in particular, formalized rules for zero and negative numbers—ideas that would go on to influence generations of mathematicians.

Image: Hindu astronomer, 19th-century illustration. CC-BY-ND.

How the knowledge traveled

The number system, along with broader Indian mathematical knowledge, spread to the Islamic world sometime around the 7th to 9th centuries CE. Scholars in Persia and the Arab world translated Sanskrit texts into Arabic, absorbed their ideas, and extended them further.

One such scholar was the Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi, who is often called the “father of algebra.” His treatises introduced the Indian system of numerals to the Arabic-speaking world. In fact, the Latin word “algorithm” comes from his name, and his writings became the main channel through which Indian mathematics entered Europe.

Image: Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḵwārizmī. (He is on a Soviet Union commemorative stamp, issued September 6, 1983. The stamp bears his name and says “1200 years”, referring to the approximate anniversary of his birth). Source: Wikimedia Commons

When these ideas were translated into Latin in medieval Spain—particularly in cities like Toledo, where Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars collaborated—they began influencing European mathematics. By the 12th century, the numerals had been introduced to the West as the “Modus Indorum“—the Indian method. This system was introduced to Europe by Leonardo Pisano, also known as Fibonacci, in his book Liber Abaci (1202). Fibonacci himself credited the system to the “Indians,” highlighting its superiority over the Roman numeral system then in use.

Image: Monument of Leonardo da Pisa (Fibonacci), by Giovanni Paganucci, completed in 1863, in the Camposanto di Pisa, Pisa, Italy. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Why we call them Arabic numerals

Given this journey, why are they called Arabic numerals? The answer is simple: Europeans learned them through Arabic texts. To them, the knowledge had come from the Arab world—even if it had deeper roots in India. It’s a reminder that the names we give to ideas often reflect where we encounter them, not necessarily where they were born.

It’s also a reminder of something deeper: the way knowledge flows across time and geography. It does not always come with citations or acknowledgments. What survives is the idea, not the backstory.

The quiet revolution over Roman numerals

The so-called “Hindu-Arabic” numerals slowly replaced Roman numerals in Europe. The transition wasn’t immediate—resistance to change, especially in something as fundamental as arithmetic, was strong. Roman numerals, while elegant in stone carvings, were unwieldy for calculations. Try multiplying LXIV by XXIII without converting them first.

In contrast, the Indian system—with its zero, place value, and compact notation—was built for mathematics. Over time, merchants, accountants, and scientists realized its efficiency. By the time of the Renaissance, this “foreign” number system had become the foundation of modern mathematics in Europe.

Image: Comparison between five different styles of writing Arabic numerals. The terms (“European”, “Arabic-Indic”, etc.) are written in Arial Unicode MS and still are changeable. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

A quiet lesson about knowledge

This history of numbers is simply a story—a reminder of how knowledge has always been global. Ideas are born, shaped, transmitted, forgotten, revived. Borders don’t hold them. Languages don’t confine them. The numerals we use today are not Indian or Arabic or Western—they’re human.

What we often lose, though, are the stories. As knowledge becomes embedded into daily life, its origins fade. But perhaps it’s worth pausing every now and then—not just to marvel at how far we’ve come, but to acknowledge the many quiet contributors whose names don’t make it into the textbooks.

So the next time you type a “0” or balance a spreadsheet, remember: that little circle carries a long and winding history—one that connects forests in ancient India to the libraries of Baghdad, and the towers of medieval Europe to the circuits in your device.

---

The Guradian has done an excellent job capturing the larger history. Check here.

In many cultures and conversations, one phrase stands out when someone acts impulsively, selfishly, or violently: “Don’t behave like an animal.” It’s meant to be a reprimand, a reminder to act with decorum, to exercise restraint, to live by some higher moral code. But what’s embedded in that phrase is something more telling — the assumption that animals are primitive, lesser, and somehow below the moral plane that humans claim to occupy.

This idea is so deeply rooted that we rarely question it. But perhaps it’s time we did.

At the heart of this assumption is a belief in human exceptionalism — the idea that we are fundamentally different from, and superior to, other living beings. Our capacity for abstract thought, the development of complex languages, our ability to shape civilizations, all reinforce this idea. But if we look closer, this sense of moral and intellectual superiority begins to blur.

Much of what we do — our desires, our fears, our social bonds, our instinct for survival — isn’t very different from what drives the behavior of animals. Our social structures mirror hierarchies found in packs, troops, or flocks. Our hunger for belonging is as primal as a bird’s search for a mate or a lion’s protection of its pride. Even the biochemical triggers that influence our decisions — from dopamine surges to stress hormones — are shared across species. The difference, then, is not one of kind, but of degree.

What we call “instinct” in animals, we often call “emotion,” “impulse,” or “intuition” in ourselves. But these are, at their core, manifestations of the same biological machinery — neurons firing, hormones circulating, environmental signals interpreted and acted upon. Our brains may have evolved more complexity, but they are still made of the same building blocks, governed by the same laws of biology and chemistry.

Morality, too, is often seen as a uniquely human domain. But this overlooks the rich tapestry of behaviors in the animal world that echo our own moral codes: cooperation, empathy, fairness, even sacrifice. Elephants mourning their dead, primates sharing food with the weak, wolves caring for the injured — these aren’t anomalies. They are reminders that the roots of what we call morality run deep into the evolutionary past.

So why do we resist this comparison so strongly? Perhaps because acknowledging our animal nature forces us to reckon with a truth we often avoid — that we are not outside or above nature, but inextricably part of it. And that realization can be unsettling. It collapses the pedestal we’ve built for ourselves.

Interestingly, this human tendency to create hierarchies among life forms is mirrored in how we create hierarchies within our own species. Just as we place animals on a scale of perceived intelligence or usefulness — a dog is noble, a rat is vermin — we have historically created social, racial, and caste-based hierarchies that serve to dehumanize and exclude. Calling someone “animalistic” isn’t just about comparing them to another species — it’s often about stripping them of status, of dignity, of personhood. It’s a tool of marginalization.

But when we begin to see behavior — all behavior — as a product of context, biology, and survival, the lines between human and animal begin to fade. And perhaps that’s the humbling realization we need. We are not the center of the universe, nor are we the moral compass of the biosphere. We are part of a vast, interconnected system governed by laws far older than us, forces that operate with or without our recognition.

What we call choice, morality, or culture may simply be nature expressing itself in a more complex form. And that complexity should not make us arrogant. It should make us more responsible, more curious, and more empathetic — toward each other, and toward the creatures we share this world with.

In the end, the phrase “Don’t behave like an animal” may need a revision. Maybe the real challenge is: Can we learn to respect the animal within us — and in doing so, respect all forms of life around us?