OnScience

W hatever formulation we give to the purpose of life, all they become crashed if we drop out the principle of eternal continuity. It seems highly improbable to many of us that the consciousness of an individual has any form of existence after the biological end of life, so what I mean by the eternal continuity is neither the continuity of a single life, nor the continuity of a single biological linage. Eternal continuity of the cause-and-consequence stream in the collective knowledge (the Knowledge) is what should be the backbone to which a reasonable explanation of a purpose of life can be built. With a little twist on Futurama’s robot’s laugh at humans, who said that anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time, I do agree that anything less than an eternal continuity is a complete waste of time. We should all hope that, regardless how tiny the contribution of ours in the Knowledge is, it shall become a basis for another advancement, which will itself become a...

S cience is mainly for the improvement of the human life. Every discovery made, every advancement done, hold a promise in being used in a due time for the improvement of life, life preservation or the preservation of beliefs of certain lifeforms. But there are two questions that have much greater and intellectually superior importance for us. A ctually, many hardcore physicists believe that the question is only one - how and why the Universe has formed - and this can be answered by physics only. Some more radical brains go even further stating that the unified theory, if finalized, is the key to everything. It will literally explain everything that existed, exists or yet to exist in our Universe. With all my respect to the importance of the theory of everything, I would argue that there is another question, which will never be answered by the theory of everything. That is the question of life. N o theory operating from the level of elementary particles will ever be practica...

I was asked in several different occasions by friends to tell them what one should do to establish a research journal. Here I have decided to put together my responses, not claiming that the following content has even a marginal right to be called a comprehensive guide to establishing a journal editorial. First of all, if you are thinking of establishing a new journal in chemistry, physics and biology, stop it, unless you are doing that while working for the established publishing groups like Willey, Elsevier, ACS, APS etc, assuming they decided to open a new journal to conform the ever-evolving needs of the scientific community. In any other case, there is absolutely no way a chemist, biologist or physicist will publish his/her credible research in your journal, since there are so many journals and publishers with proper reputation out there for nearly a century or more. However, we should admit that the publishing habits are not as standardized and established in other discipl...