Or, why does Asin have all that she has? )
Or, Why is it that initial conditions in a system are so varied?
Or, Why is that noise is Gaussian?

I could probably have put that question in another umpteen kind of ways. The more diverse, broader and truer a thing is, the greater its simplicty, generality and manifestability become. All you intelligent guys probably guessed that this is about evolution and darwinism. It is, and you are fit to survive.(this?!) Read on!

Probably what follows may be cliched to many people, probably academicians. But the 2nd question in the title and the first question at the start were precisely the ones asked by MARS, my friend, in the reverse order. And... Yes! We did start with Asin's beauty, the strange nomenclature and omnipresence (Is that why she is a Goddess??!!) You know, all of us are Gods too, in one sense. We are omniscient of the presence of Goddesses. But our relation to the Gods with respect to Goddesses ends there. (Infact, most responses are like a short circuited microprocessor's functionality)

Coming back to the topic, my reply to this question of his was: "See, I agree that the initial conditions are so varied. But what defines any person is his d/dt (read, rate of change w.r.t time) to which he said "But in her case the d/dt seems to be zero". I, for one, doesn't agree with such flat statements. In defense of Asin (so compelling!), I said, "If someone's groomed herself to be such a compelling beauty, how can you say that her d/dt is zero and that she hasn't had any failures and hence life is so unfair and all that? How is it that people celebrate only stereotyped cases like the Superstar's ascendance from rags to be fair and this case, unfair?" My reply was probably not convincing enough although, I felt I had conveyed a part of the message. This, I feel would complete that.

I don't know why processes get such a nature. Probably, none of us would ever know. But by nature, anything that is monotonous dies for lack of diversity. What is death? It is lack of life. I am not talking about the physical meaning of "life". It should be taken more, in a philosophical sense.

What is the fairness that we talk of? Every initial condition being same! Ok, Nature starts life with 10 seeds each with exactly same characterisitics, say. Applying our same (IMHO, hypocritical) fairness principle (hereafter, HCFP) , they all get the same amount of resources. Huh! And they all grow with the same characteristics. So what remains? What is so lively about this whole setup?

I am aware of the point that some of you (the fitter?) are probably trying to make here. Don't you see a plant with parts producing something?? But baby, shouldn't we be applying the same HCFP here too? So all parts of each plant should get the same amount of resources. Each leaf, each vein, each cell and down to the force applied on the smallest particle that we are aware of. What will be left? Well, void! That's why monotonicity leads to destruction. That's why initial conditions need to be varied so much. To sustain life, one needs to continously provide this variety of input. If you still haven't got this right intuitively, go here  or here .

The above argument was fractal in nature. Extending the same HCFP to structures at all scales was what I did.

By being "so unfair", life is being fair to itself. By being fair to itself, it is letting life sustain. While the human race is so self-centered to see unfairness in life to us, Life has a broader perspective, of sustaining itself, as a whole. It is we who need a correction, one to see that we are not at the centre of the universe, rather life itself is. (The Anthropo-centric theory, if I can call that, is wrong)

Huh! All this on my bike. Life save my fellows on the road. But hey, ain't I providing diversity to life?

After that I was thinking of what distribution would success and failure densities in life have? Being the AWGN worshipper that I am, I concluded even without a proof  that it should be that. How else would life sustain? What else can it be, given that diversity arose out of entropy and the distribution with maximum entropy for a given variance is AWGN. You add AWGN to another (and supposing you know the seed with which it started and hence the whole sequence) Wouldn't one have achieved capacity? As I type this, I have switched loyalties and probably this is wrong. But I am still keeping it here. Will remove after ascertaining the veracity, rather falsity of that statement. The densities can be WGN but whether they will achieve capacity is a qn. I feel that this AWGN will be across many domains. So, talking of simplistic point-point communication models to model life, probably shows my naivity. (Or is that my mind which is constantly after such cheap intuition!)

[Clap, Clap, Clap] If you have reached here, you are the fittest of the lot who started reading this. And hey, mind  you, Asin is fit enough to survive. I wouldn't allow anyone to present such "unfair" comments against such BBs, i mean, beautiful babes!

---

P.S: When I started out, I thought this would be a very long one. But there has been a sort of abrupt conclusion. Might add in the future. Thanks to MARS for today's blog topic.