most people seem to think that i am a unique thinker. but then why do they assume they understand me? why do they assume they can relate to me? in their defense, i have the exact same problem (read; habit).
communication is unfortunately not unambiguous. or in the more amusing words of karl popper, "it is impossible to speak in such a way as to not be misunderstood."
im going to coin the use of the word 'brackish' for the boundary between mathematics and physics, which grows ever more turbulently mixed.
i need to publish a paper with it. ha ha, right.
im going to trick myself into never getting comfortable with anything. ill vary which shoes i wear between worn out ones and new shoes. ill have people drug me and shave me unexpectedly.
people think i am cautious, but how can one not be, once awareness of a past and future are established? caution may be the only action by which we can take control of the future. this isnt something ive thought before, or even think now really. for some reason i just felt like arguing for it. it seemed right at first, but as i typed it out and developed it in my head, sharp criticisms were being cooked up elsewhere in my brain: "is it necessary to control the future? couldnt it be more interesting to work against control of the future?", "the ultimate goal of an intelligence capable of solving any problem (tractable, really, even an omnipotent god would have to obey computational complexity laws), would be to try to generate problems which it (or anyone else) cannot solve". though i just made that up too. and i forgot what i was going to write half way through it, but then somehow i got that other idea in there, connected sort of, and i decided to keep it there (because due to our discovery of both the halting problem and just problems that are intractable in the practical sense, we have reached our ultimate achievements; we are beginning to put limits on mathematics!
hmmm, yeah, i need to
you can either have a (possibly equal) part in the decision, or i can decide for myself.
i hate this planet, and everything hateable that might be in it's vicinity.
ive thought about this in the past, but i wonder again: how 'random' could a 3d density of points be while still avoiding olber's paradox? or better yet, could you distribute the points in such a way that most points would not have an olber's pardox issue? ( i mean, from anywhere in the 'universe', not a single place, olber's paradox fails). under what conditions does this occur? need to measure the angular distance blocked by a given star at a given distance... seems like a convergence issue.
come out and play.
dont get lost in your thought.
"when we return: why you might be uglier than you think"
"thats what the cavity search robot said this morning at the office"
"why would they, turn against us? it doesnt make any sense, were the ones who created them. or the uh, at least the alpha model."
"among mail voters, 19% could see sitting down with her, and throwing lit matches at each other."
what might we learn by examining the. whoa, i remember forgetting what i was talking ago as i wrote that last night.
i want to have an eyepatch before i die.
i want to strangle a grown man to death with my bare hands before i die.
i had another good one the other day, but alas i have forgotten it.
TOCTOO (tock too)
"phase out the bacon!"
smart butter; if your butter gets smart, id slap it around.
this story takes place after the story.
interpret it how you will, thats why it was written that way. or at least thats how i interpreted it.
embarrassingly parallel problems
sipping fire off her breath,
and whatll i do?
it takes a lot to catch my eyes. but it happens.
this is not working at all.