Lectio Divina, Lectio Magistralis

Another Cubicle Wall

2009-11-06T13:30:00.000-08:00

Daddy's flown across the ocean

Leaving just a memory

Snapshot in the family album

Daddy what else did you leave for me?

Daddy, what'd'ja leave behind for me?!?

All in all it was just another cubicle wall.

All in all it was all just another cubicle wall.

"You! Yes, you! Stand still laddy!"

We don't need no education

We don't need no thought control

No dark sarcasm in the Division

Don leave them kids alone

Hey! Don! Leave them kids alone!

All in all it was just another cubicle wall.

All in all it was all just another cubicle wall.

"Wrong, Do it again!"

"If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding.

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"

"You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!"

I don't need no pals around me

And I don't need no drugs to calm me.

I have seen the writing on the wall.

Don't think I need anything at all.

No! Don't think I'll need anything at all.

All in all it was just another cubicle wall.

All in all it was all just another cubicle wall.

A little math on the value of compressed air cars

2009-05-21T09:27:00.000-07:00

I am looking forward to trade my 1995 BMW740i for a compressed air car:
hopefully I will able to fulfill this dream soon when MDI will be offering their model in the USA market.

These cars will sell in Europe for about Euros 3,500 (about $5,000) and they will make 125 miles without recharge at a $1.5 cost, or in other words, with a conservative estimate for the cost of gas at $3/gallon, an equivalent fuel consumption of 250 miles/gallon. If we compare to the current 25 miles/gallon this is a tenfold increase in the efficiency.

So let's do a little math ... how many of these cars could have been introduced on the USA roads by using the $25 billions used in the car industry bailout money? Easy math

25,000,000,0000 / 5,000

or 5 million air compressed cars, i.e., 2.5% of all the cars currently running in the US (about 200 millions).

This figure is certainly very conservative as we did not include the gas saving costs that derive from the use of the car. At an average of 12,000 miles/annum and cost of gas at $3, a 25 miles/gallon car costs about $1,250 /annum in gas, whereas the equivalent gas cost for a compressed air car will around $50/annum.

Moreover, the bailout assumes that part of the efficiency increase of going from 25 to 35 miles/gallon (in year 2016!) will be transfer to the cost of the car, and the estimate has been given in $1,300 which I will have to pay anyways to run a car that is 10 times less efficient than what I can buy in 2009.
Moreover, given the relatively cheap cost of this air compressed car, it will be easier to introduce the already announced "guzzlers junk trade" incentive for buying new cars ... say I will be able to get $1,000 for my old BMW

So let's take these costs off

25,000,000,0000 / (5,000 - 1000 - 1300 -1250 + 50)

and we are at about 8.5% of the number of cars currently running in the US, which reduces directly in a 8.5% CO2 emission reduction from cars ... now, not in 2016!
Such a number of cars is no doubt more than sufficient to pass the psychological threshold of changing the use of the car from status symbol back to its original purpose, a mean of transportation. Obviously, the more people you see running these cars, the easier it will be for you to accept the change, not counting peer pressure.

So, what's wrong in Washington these days? Is the current Administration a little weak in math?

Odd, as President Obama hired a Noble Prize winner for Physics as the US Secretary of Energy, who is absolutely familiar with the math level used above. So, what's wrong President Obama?

Maybe your "no-lobbies" policy isn't working after all? Or maybe, you are not really serious about the climate change to consider negligible such a reduction in carbon emission? Or perhaps, it is not worth the reduction in oil import from hostile countries to the US?

Just a few open questions ...

June 1st, 2009, Addendum
With today's announcement of GM's bankruptcy, there it goes an additional $30B ... and uncontrolled rumors give the cash for clunkers incentive in the $4k range ... do you really want me to redo the math?

The largest Farmers Calendar in the world

2009-05-18T13:41:00.000-07:00

After spending a few hours playing with the newly launched Wolframalpha "computational knowledge engine", I was rolling on the floor, laughing in tears. Here is a beautiful example to the query "What is C++?"

Of course, while it knows everything about itself, it does not know other more mundane facts such as "What is Fortran" or any other language for that matter, not to mention its commercial rival Matlab!

An interesting answer was returned also to the query "What is Blaise Pascal first name?"

In short, the parsing capabilities of this self-proclaimed "computational knowledge engine" appear to be extremely poor, even when compared to less ambitious projects such as trueknowledge or cyc and make it closer to just a large database.

But what troubles me the most and ultimately prompted me to write this post, is the process of facts selection (curing) for this glorified Farmer's calendar known as Wolframalpha.

Wikipedia has, for instance, such a democratic approach to information that our collective knowledge becomes what the majority decides the truth to be, whereas in WA, the truth is nothing but what the oracle of Stefan Wolfram decides it to be.

It is sad to remark how the majority of the people in the western world tends more and more to confuse information with knowledge.

While the origin of such confusion can be easily rooted in pure greed economy (information can be sold cheaper than knowledge, and it does not appear to be limited), it is as if we were given pig's pods to eat and not realizing it.
We need to come to our senses, realize our sin and ask forgiveness to Our Father, the true source of all knowledge.

2009-02-09T13:47:00.000-08:00

In memoriam of Eluana Englaro

November 25, 1970 in Lecco (Italy) - February 9, 2009 in Udine (Italy)

____________

Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord.

And let perpetual light shine upon her.

May she rest in peace. Amen

May her soul and the souls of all the faithful departed,

through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen
____________

Sister Earth

2008-10-16T07:13:00.000-07:00

Is Earth a Mother or rather a Sister to us?

The news , often prompted by comments of members of the scientific community, offer the rather consumed expression "mother Earth" when referring to naturally occurring events that involve the sciences of climate and ecology among others. Women images adored as Goddesses were very common in matriarcal pre-Judaico-Christian societies: Mother Earth was one of these.

The concept of Earth as a Mother, was virtually eradicated by the Judaic view of God Creator of Heaven and Earth and of Jesus' Our Father (the difference of gender is here irrelevant). God is the Creator of all things and creatures (hence the brotherhood) and all things and creatures need to adore. The Book of Daniel tells the story of the three young men who refuse to adore the golden statue erected by Nebuchadnezzar, and when threw in the furnace sing their song of praise:

Sun and moon, bless the Lord; Every shower and dew, All you winds, Fire and heat, Cold and chill, Everything growing from the earth, All you beasts, wild and tame, Holy men of humble heart, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever. For he has delivered us from the nether world, and saved us from the power of death; He has freed us from the raging flame and delivered us from the fire.

Famous is San Francis of Assisi Canticle of Creatures, a praise to the Lord in the brotherhood of the natural elements: brother sun and sister moon. It is interesting to see how San Francis refers to the Earth as a sister-mother (sora nostra matre terra) who nurtures and governs us. This is a a totally different concept from New Age's mother earth, Gaia, despite the recent ludicrous attempts from the environmentalist movement at appropriating for themselves the message of the poverello di Assisi. This New Age movements attempt thus a replacing God Father and Creator, with Lovelock's Gaia. Lovelock introduced Gaia as

... an active, adaptive control system able to maintain the physical, chemical, biological, and human components of the earth in homeostasis.

It is interesting the usage of homeostatic ("to stand equally") union, as opposed to Christian's hypostatic ("to stand beneath") union (Latin's 'natura'), which is the basis of Christian's Trinitarian theology. As in a modern Eden, the creature substitutes itself for the Creator, and the original sin is passed from generation to generation.

This neopagan (from Latin paganus, "country dweller, rustic") view of nature wouldn't bother me if it would not reflect the pre-scientific and socially dangerous attitude (hubris) that characterizes great part of contemporary science.

Various openings

2008-03-12T11:06:00.000-07:00

Monsignor Ravasi opens to the atheists.

Vatican City --- The president of the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church, Msgr. Gianfranco Ravasi, does not exclude that also some atheists will participate in the plenary assemblies of his ministry: "Having one or more interlocutors that see and interpret the world from the alternative point of view becomes almost, in some sense, essential" (Corriere della Sera, 10-03-2008, p.20).

Meanwhile, soccer coach Roberto Donadoni announced that he will call a few lame players to play in the Italian National Soccer Team: "Having in your team one or more lame players that see and interpret the game from the losers' point of view becomes almost, in some sense, essential for understanding modern soccer."

(Quoted from an untrusted anonymous source of unknown, unreliable origin)

Just a coincidence?

2008-03-02T13:01:00.001-08:00

There will be blood

2008-02-18T08:32:00.000-08:00

Paul Thomas Anderson's There will be blood maintained his word: there was blood, but a fake blood, a blood that does not redeem.

Let's be clear on one point: Daniel Day-Lewis (Daniel Plainview) is an outstanding actor, unquestionably best Hollywood's villain, and deserves the Oscar for his magnificent interpretation. The Plainview character is reminiscent of one of the best villains ever, Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting, of Scorsese's Gangs of New York. But even Day-Lewis could not do much to save an utterly confused Anderson.

Throughout the movie, Plainview is not given a soul because he doesn't have one, and this makes Day-Lewis' interpretation unnecessarily flat. Daniel Day-Lewis tries hard to fill in an empty final scene, but even him doesn't know where Anderson is heading as it becomes evident from his exaggerate limping, the back and forth movements that breaks the tension between the two characters, and the pathetic chase scene around the bowling alley.

Anderson portrays in this movie an apology of the lie: family is a lie, religion is a lie, God is a lie. Only blood and oil are real. Yet, he shamelessly draws from the Bible to put forward his truth.

In the first scene we are presented with Plainview's fall, where he gets of the forbidden fruit, the oil: this is the only moment where Plainview is obliged to look up above his plain view.
When death strikes one of his co-workers in a derrick construction, he feels compelled to adopt his baby: an evident new Moses left in the basket, as it becomes evident by the end of the movie when Plainview-Pharaoh doesn't want to let his adopted son go to pursue his own business in Mexico: "You're a bastard from a basket."
The twin brothers Paul and Eli Sunday, are put before us as Jacob and Esau, as Plainview says : "You're not the chosen brother, Eli. It was Paul who was chosen" and as Eli savagely attacks his own old father for being stupid and idle, for believing a lie.
Plainview is baptized while proclaiming a lie.
Eli Sunday dies after confessing his lie. (I would go so far as to say that Eli is the anagram of lie).
Plainview-Cain kills his brother Henry Bardy-Abel : but that's also a fake brother, a lie.

In Anderson's view everything is a lie, and this movie becomes his new Bible, the new Third Revelation, where he composes his moral conundrum.

In conclusion, we would like to address director Anderson with Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting very own words:

"Here's the thing... I don't give a tuppenny fuck about your moral conundrum, you meat-headed shit-sack... That's pretty much the thing."

God and the Vacuum Cleaner

2008-02-10T13:19:00.000-08:00

In a previous note, I discussed the role of the observer and the observed in the context of the philosophy of science.

In that note I affirm that, in the context of a scientific observation, the observer has a higher ontological status than the the observed, and that we can escape the state of desperation induced by the event-self, only by admitting an act of creation for the whole reality.

One of the implicit assumptions that were not explicitly stated in that note, is that when we formulate a theory, we are necessarily making a judgment on the object of our observation. Our brains are hard-wired in this type of thinking and we constantly use in our interpersonal relations. Let me explain my point with an example of daily life.

Adam comes back home from work and finds that Eve has perfectly vacuumed the carpet, but forgot to put back the vacuum cleaner in the closet. Adam perceives the out of place vacuum cleaner as a phenomenon in the sense indicated by my previous considerations. Adam finds himself disturbed by the presence of the vacuum cleaner and asks Eve to please put it away. The situation repeats for many days on end: Eve diligently keep on her duties, but forgets to put the vacuum cleaner away. Adam needs to make sense of the situation, needs to create a theory to explain what is happening, and finally concludes scientifically that: "I have told Eve many times to put the vacuum cleaner away: either she does not listen to me, or she does it on purpose. In either case: she does not love me."

The consequences of such an event (viz., the product of the theory) are clear even to most unexperienced newly weds. The comic in this situation also evidences that there is something wrong somewhere, and this can be found in the fact that Adam's theory implies first a judgment, and then a displacement of the object of the observation from the vacuum cleaner to Eve that is using it. Obviously, Eve is not at a lower ontological level than the observer (Adam), as it was previously the case for the misplaced vacuum cleaner. Adam's judgment breaks the unity, and as such represents a negative attitude.

We note here that this type of behavior, is also common in our personal theology. If we happen to assist to the unfortunate event of a heavy stone rolling down a cliff towards a car, crashing the vehicle and killing the passengers, we hardly jump to an objective judgment on the theory of cliffs stability, and/or the theory of gravity that caused the movement of the rock. More often, instead,we displace the object of our judgment towards God, who is at a completely different ontological level with respect to the stone, and we respect to us. Like Adam, we formulate the same theory: "I have told God many times I do not want to see anymore suffering, God does not listen to me, hence God does not love me."

The movement from man to God is therefore impossible. We cannot access the infinity of God, by starting from the analysis of our human condition. Note that we know that God is there because every human being is born with an innate tendency to find the Creator.

The original sin is the visible sign of our broken unity with God. Hence the only possible movement is from God towards man, and this is the essence of the redemptive message of Jesus Christ.

Does this mean that we cannot relate ourselves to God? On the contrary, I believe that we can relate ourselves in a personal way to God, right at the moment that we leave out our misplaced judgments, and we accept the will of God in our life.
Does this mean that we do not have to take any action against the public administration that did not take care of the stability of the cliff? On the contrary, we can definitely make a judgment on their actions, and act accordingly to the law of the land against the responsible.
Does this mean that it is not our duty to change the world for better? On the contrary, this is our imperative duty, a duty that needs to be carried out though without a pre-judgmental attitude. I believe this has profound consequences on the foundations of the sociological, economical, and historical sciences.

Physiological tremors

2008-02-10T08:47:00.000-08:00

[...] the theory of secularly perturbed systems plays a most important role in gravitational astronomy. It is quite possible that some of the physiological tremors may be treated somewhat roughly as secularly perturbed linear systems.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Norbert Wiener, instead of writing this passage in the landmark book "Cybernetics" (1948), would have 60 years later thus motivated the request for a relatively small grant ... gibberish?

If one must choose between rigor and meaning, I shall unhesitatingly choose the latter. René Thom

Rene Thom and La carte du sens

2008-02-06T08:39:00.000-08:00

"Ce qui limite le vrai, ce n'est pas le faux, c'est l'insignifiant",
René Thom, Prédire n'est pas expliquer, Flammarion, Paris, 1993.

''Truth is not limited by falsity, but by insignificance'', affirms Thom. How we, as scientists, are to interpret this aphorism in our scientific investigations?

In this "chart of sense", Thom proposes a classification of sciences and other human activities based on the opposition between truth and falsehood, and significance and insignificance. It is interesting to observe how one of Thom's main goals was to develop a mathematical theory of the analogy, which he places high on the ordinate of the significance, but on the side of false.

That an analogy is false, I hope is clear to everybody; yet its level of significance can be very high. We have to realize that, as scientists, we do not cease to use, mainly unconsciously, the analogy as a valuable tool to progress in our investigations. We need to lift up our spirits from the netherlands of the ambiguity, and climb the mountains up to the peak of the absurd, to be able to go down again through the river of science, back to the sea of the insignificance.

I realize, however, that this is a romantic view of science, as hard to understand today as it was when Thom was still alive: Techne' and her adepts do not take prisoners!

Can a scientist be desperate?

2008-01-24T07:27:00.000-08:00

Preface

This note on the concept of "despair in science" was written in 2002, to defend a philosophical statement that was part of my PhD thesis in geophysics. The rules of the Delft University of Technology (The Netherlands) require a PhD candidate to be able to defend original propositions (stellingen) drawn from outside his/her main area of investigation. I therefore discussed statements related to my philosophical view of Science, and this quest lead to the formulation of the following three statements (vii) to (ix):

vii

A phenomenon requires only an act of consciousness from the observer. An event always requires an act of self-consciousness of the observer. A phenomenon is, therefore, substantially different from an event.

viii

An event is always generated by a theory. A theory can never be generated by an event.

The scientist who accepts the view point of representationalism is desperate in the improper sense of Kierkegaard.

Statements (vii) and (viii) were the premise for statement (ix), the more important to me, and that I want to discuss here.

The meaning of proposition (ix)

To explain the meaning of proposition (ix), we will consider the two following steps

derive an analogy between the definition of self in Kierkegaard, and the theory of knowledge based on intentionality;
use the above analogy to describe the despair in a scientific context;

To fix ideas, let us assume an hypothetical observer standing in front of a starry sky; a new light suddenly appears among the other lights. We want to make the meaning of the above sentence as precise as possible. It appears clear that the observer is distinct from the light, which os observed. Both the observer and the observed belong to the same reality, they are solidal in the reality in the sense that the observer modifies the reality with the act of observation and, in turn, is modified by the reality itself.
The observer external senses are open to the reality, and the nervous system modifies its internal states in an autopoietic way in order to create the idea of light from the external input of the photons coming from the previously uniform landscape. However, it is also clear that the observer is at a higher ontological level since he is conscious of the reality. The phenomenon, by definition, emerges from the uniform: we can only perceive differences. René Thom affirms:

L'expérience première, en réception des phénomènes, est la discontinuité. Mais la discontinuité présuppose le continu. Comme l'expérience primaire du continu est celle de la conscience, c'est-à-dire celle du temps, la discontinuité la plus originelle sera - auditivement - par exemple l'apparition d'un bruit au milieu du silence. Un tintement de sonnette est perçu comme une forme autonome, qui remplit l'intervalle entre deux zones de silence vides de son. J'appellerai forme saillante toute forme vécue qui se sépare nettement du fond continu sur lequel elle se détache. Si l'on passe du temps à l'espace, alors une forme saillante se dira de tout objet visuellement perçu qui se distingue nettement par contraste par rapport à son fond, l'espace "substrat" dans lequel habite la forme. En général une forme saillante vue aura un intérieur dans le champ visuel ; elle présentera par suite une frontière : son contour apparent. René Thom, Esquisse d'une Sémiophysique, InterEditions, 1991, p17.

We define a phenomenon the relation between the observer and the observed.

Hence, the phenomenon puts into relation the finiteness of the external senses and the infinity of reality. At this level of our analysis, the observer is conscious of the phenomenon, but he is not conscious of being conscious.

A very common way to interpret the simple scene described above, is to invoke the philosophical doctrine of the representationism. This doctrine is rooted in the works of Descartes, Hume, Locke, and later the idealism of Kant, and affirms that the reality finds its foundation in the evidence of the image of the external senses (the representation) to the counsciousness. We disagree with the representationist point of view.

We claim that a phenomenon is not a scientific observation yet. In order to have a scientific observation we need the introduction of an intentional act, an act of self-counsciousness.

Coming back to our observer and the light: the observer cannot avoid to ask himself/herself what that light is, what is the cause of that light, what is the meaning of that light, in short
tries to give a scientific explanation, a theory of that idea of light, collecting all the previous ideas in a reflection closed in itself.

We define an event the phenomenon (a relation), which relates itself to itself.

The movement from the phenomenon to the event is not continuous: it is a leap, i.e., phenomenon and event are qualitatively different. We claim that we cannot say anything about the phenomenon (the light) until we say that it could be an angel sneezing, or a comet passing by. And of course we must have the prior knowledge of the ideas of angel and comet! "Si l'on n'a pas le concept d'un objet, on ne le reconnaîtra pas." René Thom, Prédire n'est pas expliquer, Flammarion, Champs, 1993, p94 . As a consequence, any event is generated by some kind of theory and not the contrary.

Our definition of event is analogous to the definition of self in Kierkegaard as described in the following text:

The human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates to itself, or that in the relation which is its relating to itself. The self is not the relation but the relation's relating to itself. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity. In short a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two terms. Looked at in this way a human being is not yet a self.

In a relation between two things the relation is the third term in the form of a negative unity, and the two relate to the relation, and in the relation to that relation; this is what it is from the point of view of soul for soul and body to be in relation. If, on the other hand, the relation relates to itself, then this relation is the positive third, and this is the self.

Such a relation which relates to itself, a self, must either have established itself or been established by something else. If the relation which relates to itself has been established by something else, then of course the relation is the third term, but then this relation, the third term, is a relation which relates in turn to that which has established the whole relation.

If the relation which relates to itself has been established by something else, then of course the relation is the third term, but then this relation, the third term, is a relation which relates in turn to that which has established the whole relation.

Such a derived, established relation is the human self, a relation which relates to itself, and in relating to itself relates to something else. That is why there can be two forms of authentic despair. If the human self were self-established, there would only be a question of one form:

not wanting to be itself, wanting to be rid of itself. There could be no question of wanting in despair to be oneself. For this latter formula is the expression of the relation's (self's) total dependence, the expression of the fact that the self cannot by itself arrive at or remain in equilibrium and rest, but only, in relating to itself, by relating to that which has established the whole relation. Indeed, so far from its being simply the case that this second form of despair (wanting in despair to be oneself) amounts to a special form on its own, all despair can in the end be resolved into or reduced to it. If a person in despair is, as he thinks, aware of his despair and doesn't refer to it mindlessly as something that happens to him (rather in the way someone suffering from vertigo talks through an internally caused delusion about a weight on his head, or its being as though something were pressing down on him, etc., neither the weight nor the pressure being anything external but an inverted image of the internal), and wants now on his own, all on his own, and with all his might to remove the despair, then he is still in despair and through all his seeming effort only works himself all the more deeply into a deeper despair. The imbalance' in despair is not a simple imbalance but an imbalance in a relation that relates to itself and which is established by something else. So the lack of balance in that 'for-itself' relationship also reflects itself infinitely in the relation to the power which established it.

This then is the formula which describes the state of the self when despair is completely eradicated: in relating to itself and in wanting to be itself, the self is grounded transparently in the power that established it.
(Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death, trans. Alastair Hannay, pp.43- 44.)

If we admit the analogy between Kierkegaard's definition of self and our definition of event, we can then conclude that the event defines a sense of self in the observer. The sense of self is denied in the representationism point of view, where the self is self-established.
This leads to the inauthentic desperation of Kierkegaard. The scientist who accepts the representationism point of view is therefore unconscious in the despair of having a self, and not wanting to be itself, wanting to be rid of itself, denies, ``de facto'', the reality around him.

We claim that a theory of knowledge based on the intentionality does overcome the unauthentic despair leading the scientist to an authentic despair in which the observer either does not want in despair to be oneself, or wants in despair to be oneself. This is equivalent to say that event has been established by something else, is not self-established as in the representationism.
The misrelation between the event and the power that established it is the authentic scientific despair.

Our position must not be intended as a new anthropocentric theory, as we believe possible a reality without an observer. We affirm, however, that a reality without an observer is meaningless. In this respect, we intend the verses of Saint Paul's letter to the Romans (8:19-22)

(19)For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. (20)For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, (21)Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (22)For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Scientific despair can be therefore overcome only admitting an act of creation for the whole reality.

This is, however, a quite provocative and rather personal conclusion
which I do not expect anyone to share, and above all should not be misconstrued as a conclusion in favor of the problematic theory of Creationism, with which I have many points of contention.

But this will be the subject of another note.

Why all this?

2008-01-22T11:15:00.000-08:00

I am new to the world of BLOGs, a world that I have often seen as self-referential ... I tell you what I think, and then what?

I have changed my mind. I did not recognize until now that great privilege that I have in being able to freely express my point of view. This privilege was recently denied to Prof. Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, Pontiff of the Catholic Church.

He was first invited to hold a Lectio Magistralis at the University La Sapienza, in Rome, Italy, and subsequently became the object of a calumnious attack from a group of 67 Professors of that University. For the sake of peace, he renounced to the visit, but he sent his speech: here it is for everybody to read.

I believe that the Italian University, touched here its lowest point, a very predictable and not surprising arrival point after decades of bad management.

We wish the Italian University to get well soon, to eliminate the intolerance that characterizes some of its Faculty, and to flourish into a Nuovo Rinascimento.

For the time being, I will be here, trying to make my voice heard on the topics I still have the freedom to talk about.

You, reader of this blog, will find here my personal opinions on themes of current debate, my reflections on God and Men, and some technical notes on Transport in Multiscale systems: the various posts are labeled for easy search.

ciao

Andrea