Truth Puzzles: Solving the mysteries of the world…


Philosophers have pondered on the answers to the great metaphysical questions of humankind for aeons…

And they have failed miserably to find definitive answers.

Every philosopher has his or her own views, which usually are in complete opposition to the views of other philosophers.

There is currently no way to decide who is right and who is wrong. Perhaps there will never be.

Truth puzzles are here to the rescue!

But what are they?

Simply put, they are a way to easily and quickly draft your thoughts on how the great elements of philosophy and life connect to each other.

The elements of the puzzle are the major elements that trouble philosophers for centuries: God, existence, Being, self, others, life, death, phenomena, reality, One, faith, nothingness, knowledge, senses, thought, consciousness. You can of course add more as you please, but these are the major ones.

Major elements of a Truth Puzzle

The goal of a truth puzzle is to draw the connections between these elements.

How to fill in the puzzles?

It is very easy: Just take all the elements, draw them on a paper and then connect them! The connections could be simple lines, lines with arrows or even lines with explanations detailing the nature of the connections.

I have created Truth Puzzles on paper while sitting for coffee, or with any of the various mind mapping applications available. For example the below image was created with the miMind Android application.

Truth Puzzle 2021-07-24 by me

Now the important part of the instructions: Don’t think too much!

As said already, the solution of the problem is not evident and perhaps will never be! So don’t bother with thinking. Just like in automatic writing, let yourself go and just randomly draw lines and connections between the elements of the puzzle!

Given the complex nature of the problem and our almost total ignorance of what life and existence truly are, there is really no point in trying to think how to draw the Truth Puzzle.

Truth Puzzle 2021-07-25 by Karpouzi

And to be honest, randomly drawing without the arbitrarily created obstacles by human-defined logic, could be the best shot we ever had at the problem in the first place!

So go on and have fun!

Fill in your Truth Puzzles, share it with your friends or even send it to Harmonia Philosophica for publication and, you never know…

What you created might be the solution of the mysteries of the world that Parmenides and Aristotle were looking for…

How many scientists are Christians? (Does it matter?)


Statistics of religiousness are a hot topic.

A friend recently initiated a discussion regarding science, religion and the ‘war’ between them. One of the basic elements of the discussion was the number of scientists who are Christians and of course the actual number of christians in the world to-day. The discussion heated up, with many people invoking researches and polls where the number of scientists who are religious or atheists was documented, explained or projected, while taking into accounts multiple criteria and factors.

Yes, the number of religious scientists may be falling.

On the other hand, there could be polls claiming otherwise.

But at the end, does it matter at all?

Should Christianity care about diminishing or increasing numbers of christians?

If we take a good look we will understand that we are looking at the whole topic from the wrong angle. The problem of Christianity to-day is not that it has a dropping number of faithful going to the church. Or an increasing number of people going to the church. The problem is that Christianity (and christians) care about the number of people going to the church…

Nietzsche once said that the first and last Christian died at the cross. Whether this is true or not I do not know, however I do know that I would surely prefer to have Christianity with only one Christian who is a good and humble person, than having billions of followers who argue and debate about whether the numbers of Christians are rising or falling…

And since the discussion is abour religion and science, the same applies to science as well. I would also prefer science with only one proper scientist, open to all possibilities, self-criticizing eveything and with a free spirit, rather than millions of self-proclaimed scientists who are just parroting the same things over and over again because someone else has said them.

In every case, remember: Less is more…

Be aware and be worried when your followers increase too much.

You are doing things suspiciously right…

PS. All the above also apply for atheism and agnosticism as well.

Move… Think… Dance…

Photo by Ray Bilcliff from Pexels

Boys with good motor skills are better problem-solvers than their less skillful peers, a study shows. In contrast to previous studies, the researchers found no association between aerobic fitness or overweight and obesity with cognitive function in boys. (1)

Moving into the dark forest.


But do you move in order to perceive?

Or do you perceive because you move?

Stand still.

And you will see everything.

For the cosmos is not out there.

But inside you…

A man alone.

Dancing on the brink of existence.

Making the whole world go around…

Back to analog… Looking at the forest again…

Photo by Tatiana from Pexels

Analog computers were used to predict tides from the early to mid-20th century, guide weapons on battleships and launch NASA’s first rockets into space. They first used gears and vacuum tubes, and later, transistors, that could be configured to solve problems with a range of variables. They perform mathematical functions directly. For instance, to add 5 and 9, analog computers add voltages that correspond to those numbers, and then instantly obtain the correct answer. However, analog computers were cumbersome and prone to “noise” – disturbances in the signals – and were difficult to re-configure to solve different problems, so they fell out of favor.

Digital computers emerged after transistors and integrated circuits were reliably mass produced, and for many tasks they are accurate and sufficiently flexible. Computer algorithms for those computers are based on the use of 0s and 1s.

Yet, 1s and 0s, pose limitations into solving some NP-hard problems. (e.g. the “Traveling Salesman” problem) The difficulty with such optimization problems, researcher Toroczkai noted, is that “while you can always come up with some answer, you cannot determine if it’s optimal. Determining that there isn’t a better solution is just as hard as the problem itself”.

[Note: NP-hardness is a theory of computational complexity, with problems that are famous for their difficulty. When the number of variables is large, problems associated with scheduling, protein folding, bioinformatics, medical imaging and many other areas are nearly unsolvable with known methods.]

That’s why researchers such as Zoltán Toroczkai, professor in the Department of Physics and concurrent professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Notre Dame, are interested in reviving analog computing. After testing their new method on a variety of NP-hard problems, the researchers concluded their solver has the potential to lead to better, and possibly faster, solutions than can be computed digitally. (1)

Breaking a problem into pieces can do so many things.

But at the end you will have to look at the problem itself.

And the problem does not have any components.

But only a solution.

Visible only to those who do not see the problem.

You cannot ride the waves.

All you can do is fall into the sea and swim.

You cannot live life.

All you can do is let go and prepare to die.

Look at the big picture.

You can solve anything.

As long as you accept that you cannot…

At the end, the voltage will reach zero.

At the end, the computer will shut down.

You might see this as a sign of failure.

But it would be the first time it really solved anything…

Parrots: The most dangerous of (human) animals!

Parrots… [Source: Wikipedia]

One day during the Covid-19 pandemic, someone asked someone: Why should people going at churches should kiss the icons anyway? They are just objects. They are not needed to prove that you believe.

The comment was answered rather dogmatically by others: “Because icons are part of the christian faith. Refer to the ecumenical synods and what they said about the matter”, someone commented.

What a dull way to answer.

Reminds me of the bibliography one uses in his phD. “This was said by that important person and whoever wants to challenge it, he cannot” kind of ‘argument’. It is really amazing how simple questions questioning things we take for granted to-day are so difficuly to answer by most.

The reason?

Simple: We cannot answer things we do not know.

And most of the things we know, we do not know.

This was just an example of how people tend to believe things without being able to understand or support them on their own. From religion to science, from medicine to politics, topics of such nature and people of such nature are pretty easy to find.

We all look up to geniouses who think of things.

We all wait to see what our great spiritual leader will say.

We all admire great politicians who take a stand.

We surely all think highly of great scientists who change the future.

Surely we do.

Surely they deserve our admiration.

Because of what they did.

Because of what they say.

Because of what they know.

But we do not.

And until we do, we are nothing more than parrots.


And repeating.

And repeating.

Whatever we have heard. Whatever we have been told.

Without knowing why.

Without caring why.

Why does the Michelson Morley experiment results in the special relativity? Isn’t there any other way to interpret it?

No! Einstein said so!

(Well, actually there is another way. And even Einstein admitted it – see here)

Why do we need icons in faith?

Well, the ecumenical synods said so!

(Well, actually there is a great dispute over this. But even your common logic might have something to say on the matter, despite what the ecumenical synods said…)


All they do is repeat what they have been told.

So fun…

Oh, look at that beautiful colorful bird.

Listen to it crying what it has heard…



So cute…

So deadly…

PS. I am not at all implying anything regarding the matters mentioned above as examples. There might be a very good reason to have icons in christian faith and, to be honest, by discussions I have had I do know of arguments for them. However these discussions were made with people with an opinion. Not with… parrots.