mystery and wonder

i just realized that i have difficulty differentiating arrogance from confidence, when it comes to myself, personally at least.
also, when i drink lots of wine, my brain experiences a delay between moving my head and knowing which way my eyes are oriented.

do you think the correct phrasing is, "im wearing too many clothes" or "im wearing too much clothing" ? they both sound a little weird to me. and also somewhat acceptable.

im not shy about personal matters. just about meeting people i guess. im not afraid of getting naked. just of expressing something, whether physical, mental, verbal, whatever, that will offend those around me, when i care about them, i suppose.

constructive skepticism...
when to stop asking why?

the concept of unbounded growth

this came up in my google search:
"poison lips kiss of death doomed romances faithful moon not here sometimes."
...and... i dont know why. i dont think ive ever searched for that, or anything even similar.
"if i had a heart it might be broken right now."

no one left to act normal for.
that must be what love looks like.
fire coming.

i had considered fling, and distance, but i had not considered that i was not clear. which ought to be obvious to me. i just intentionally sacrificed clarity for security.

the why doesnt matter at all.

i didnt freak you out?
maybe that is what happened.

ive wondered for a long time, but never been able to express as clearly as this, could the origins of life be similar to the way crystals form and grow in nature? maybe far less common or likely, but similar, in the sense that it is a just the result of physical rules that make a certain configurations more likely than others?

in which case, maybe nanobacteria or nanobes, or viruses, or something else yet unknown and similar, are possibly 'missing links' between inorganic material and organic materials.

this is ridiculously interesting, and supports my question:
The sequencing of the Nanoarchaeum genome has revealed a wealth of information about the organism's biology. The genes for several vital metabolic pathways appear to be missing. Nanoarchaeum cannot synthesize most nucleotides, amino acids, lipids, and cofactors. The cell most likely obtains these biomolecules from Ignicoccus.
(ignicoccus is its required host, i didnt paste that paragraph).
wow, and this is even better!
they say, "it may have achieved organelle-like status"!

though the origin of life still makes me fumble, as it seems like an incredibly obscure, distant, inaccessible, complicated, and all around completely mysterious event, ive got to venture a guess at outline the general progression i expect will be discovered, in my life time; my guess is that large, rare, and sharing the same elements as, but not really classified as, 'organic' molecules, which form under certain conditions, combined, forming very simple certain mechanisms, and when these mechanisms happened to form near enough to one another, a simple 'creature' was formed, possibly like some... actually, i hate speculating so wildly on such details. i expect missing links to continue to exist, as would always be expected for an old obscure event. however, i think that life forms like those mentioned above begin to illustrate two facts of life that we are starting to learn and understand in their more ubiquitous forms: that the individual parts can have a purpose without the whole, and that symbiosis permeates mother nature on the entire gamut of life.

this is real fun.
it is probably one of the most significant or important events ive had in my lifetime.

it might help me a lot.


smile pass it on

∀getting ∈ Permission {∃asking ∈ Forgiveness:asking ∈ Easier}
if there were a way to simplify the words into many fewer symbols, then id consider this as a tattoo even. or maybe not, i dont know.

i think mathematics and physics, and computer science, and probably many other fields, actually make individuals 'smarter', from the perspective of the average person. it gives more insight and formal tools and methods to probe reality with. it strengthens our ability to reason abstractly.

cursed with both
some more than others

going out

peculiar presentiment!
happy bicycle day!

"...this most remarkable fact in the distribution of organic beings." -Charles Darwin

"It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." -Darwin
its funny, because sometimes i am fairly adamant about how we might just not be able to do certain things we've always dreamed of doing, for instance, it seems to me that time travel, teleportation, and quite possibly interstellar travel, may all very well be impossible in any significant way. while time travel and teleportation would not be that surprising if impossible, interstellar travel is a much more interesting limitation. it may just be that the resources required to actually travel such vast distances are impossible to harness. though it is still true that all these things may be possible. certainly, one i would place right alongside time travel and teleportation, would be intergalactic travel; the distances that isolate our galaxy are so grand that seems very highly unlikely we will ever overcome them.

folk machine
whatever you are, you love.

we should start a website that allows people to send either hate mail or deceiving request mail to organizations such as the discovery institute, and the people who made expelled. and for the deceiving requests we could write software to mix up our claims and questions, use a varying set of envelopes and hand writing, return addresses, stamps... so that they have trouble 'filtering' it out. we need to work to consume their resources, some sort of culture jamming sort of approach.

i really hate it when people say america is a christian nation. it was founded on freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. it is, in some sense, unconstitutional to imply these united states of our nation have an association with any religion specifically, and if you can accept the idea that 'freedom of religion' should include those who choose to have no religion at all, then implying association with any religious belief at all (even if it is not specific to a religion), then we exclude many american citizens. it is no better than referring to america as a 'white nation', or a 'male nation', since most americans are white, or most of our government is male. these unrightly characterize our nation as having constraints where none need exist, and implying the existence of these constraints is certainly not going to help us eliminate our prejudices.

are you done?
dont worry, we're almost there.
come around

on synthetic diamonds:
The first gem-quality stones were predominantly cubic and octahedral in form and, due to contamination with nitrogen, always yellow to brown in color. Inclusions were common, especially "plate-like" ones from the nickel. Removing all nitrogen from the process by adding aluminium or titantium produced a colourless 'white' stone, while removing the nitrogen and adding boron produced a blue. However removing nitrogen slows the growth process and impairs the crystals properties, so most stones are still yellow. In terms of physical properties the GE stones were not quite identical to natural stones. The colourless stones were semi-conductors and fluoresced and phosphoresed strongly under short-wave ultraviolet radiation but were inert under long-wave UV - in nature only blue stones should do this. All the GE stones also showed a strong yellow fluorescence under X-rays. De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory has since grown stones of up to 11 carats, but most stones are around 1 to 1.5 carats for economic reasons, especially with the spread of the Russian BARS apparatus since the 1980s.

smile pass it on.
we appeal to your basic nature


good bandit

be a good bandit

the answer is yes?
the answer is yes.

any thoughts on that?
none id like to share.

we should use Turing's proof of the undecidability of the halting problem as an excuse for running a stop sign/light.

i hope we learned something.

so i need to write this down, and remember it. for some odd reason, when i am with a girl i am really attracted to, even if she has made it unbelievably obvious that she likes me, i still somehow convince myself of odd suspicions, like that perhaps she does not want me to show it publicly. or that she is hiding me from someone else, and them from me. why would i be so paranoid? i really appreciate the effort girls have sometimes put into it to help pull me out of it, even if it hasnt lasted yet. ive always felt this way. since fifth grade at least. possibly earlier.


we should build

okay, with the blue eyed problem, let me explain my predicament:
assume there are 100 blue eyed people. then the very least anyone sees is 99 (each of the blue see this). now a blue eyed person knows they are either blue or brown, and knows that brown produces a lower result on the number of blue, and hence an earlier date of death. so if they consider the situation in which they are brown, they would expect a true blue to see only 98 blue. they could then reason that the true blue did exactly as they have done, and expect a group who sees only 97. but you know that no one would ever expect less than that. and you are uncertain if anyone would even expect 98. if the blue eyed person assumes they are actually blue eyed, they can reason that an actual brown eyed person will do the exact same thing, only with every number shifted up by one. a brown eyed person can follow all the same reasoning. so all members of the group must have 'common knowledge' that all members in the group see at least 97 people. but this is a problem, because a brown eyed person will actually assume that everyone in the group knows everyone in the group sees at least 98 people. so the lower bound on the common knowledge is not the same for the two groups of people. but it is much greater than 1 or 2 or 3, and so its difficult to see why they would wait the first 98 days. it does not seem like a valid induction step to go from n blue eyed people with 0≤n≤4, to n>4. maybe i am still overlooking something.

this is helpful.

sometimes people take offense, when i criticize marriage, but im not criticizing what marriage represents, or the reason people get married. i have no qualms against fidelity or love, or commitment, or monogamy. in fact, i almost feel as if the modern implementation of marriage is a mockery of those deeper ideals.

heres a question: has anyone ever considered al qeda to be a greater threat to america than the ussr? it certainly doesnt seem like we should. the ussr had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, a huge army, and technology that often rivaled our own. they had a far larger budget. did we ever torture any russians? i suppose its possible that we might have...

this is pretty funny.

the question mark was emphasized.

dont take any guff from these swine.

after much deliberation, i decided not to call you tonight. i decided it would be more suspenseful to wait a day, and call you tomorrow.

what if we made an organization that was controlled by its members? well, how do i prevent the members from cheating? we could make member power related to member donation, and then cap it. that way, a certain dedication would be required for change, but no one could seize too much power. maybe? probably not.

osculating curves (mathematical porn).

is every aspect of me completely contradictory? i am as easy-going as one can be (im fairly confident than anything beyond this, or possibly including this, would be labeled insanity by the average person). and yet i have a natural tendency to tip-toe around others, to the point that i have to consciously, deliberately express things that i expect may cause conflict, purely out of an attempt to suppress the awkward result of my natural caution. lately this has been going pretty well. last night i met a lot of people in boston, with my friend, and i seemed to be fairly natural with my ability to converse with strangers. i actually seemed to come across as charismatic. somewhat new to me, though i think that was me on the first date with E too.

we should build a factory full of robot building robots.
we should build a factory full of robots building factories full of robots building robots.
we should build.

whoa: i wonder if we could relate an entropy-like quantity to a particular instance of an NP-problem, and the difficulty in solving it. wait, this sounds like it might be legitimate. nope, i thought about this more and now it just seems stupid. though now once again i cannot decide. clearly i am out of my element.

the gods have spoken.
the spell is broken.

hey, maybe if there were enough stupid religions, like scientology and similar ones, that people raised in even the more commonly accepted religions would start to get a negative view of the more common ones as well.

i am super happy all of the sudden, because i read this sentence, and it made sense:
"This is a natural decision version of the problem, analogous to those frequently used for optimization problems, because it can be combined with binary search to solve the function problem version in a logarithmic number of queries."
or maybe more accurately, i understood it. though i would like to see what the actual procedure for doing this would be. seems like i should be able to think of it myself; maybe i am too lazy, unknowledgeable, or assuming more than i should about its difficulty.

even you dont think i should trust you, right?

in the last few weeks, i think ive become increasingly paranoid that my thoughts are crankish, unjustified, or maybe just plain old insane. it is a terribly strange position to find oneself in. though it would seem that an acute awareness of the dangers of insanity might prevent one from actually going insane, it is hard not to see that a deep obsession with determining ones own sanity may come to constitute insanity itself. or maybe it was just the blue/brown eyed islanders puzzle. that really blew some circuits in my brain, i think. in fact, if i did not have such an excitingly awesome saturday night and sunday, i probably would have spent the entire weekend diving deeper into that logical dilemma. controversy. puzzle? mystery?

i dont know how to tell the difference between prying, and just asking someone about their day. and i dont know the difference between being clingy, and distant. i mean, i guess i might have my own ideas on that, but when i begin to try to judge other's opinions of these things, i find myself getting lost, much the way i do with the puzzle. finding increasingly convincing reasons to believe what become increasingly dichotomous decisions.

i am enjoying this very much. thinking about seeing you is exciting. is that weird?
am i hopelessly misguided?

we couldn't stop these clowns.

and then i began to think, maybe thats the exciting part! maybe thats the reason this is so much fun!

whoa, wait. for years, ive repeatedly convinced myself not to display affection in public, out of a weird idea that the person i would display it towards, would be embarrassed. and my assumption, this entire time, including tonight, has been that the person i am with is trying to hide me from someone else. and so in public we just have to look like friends. holy crap im so lost in this world. what will it take to get out of that mindset? maybe just an awareness of this problem is enough to solve it. though it seems a large part of this is my familiarity (or lack thereof), since with someone new, i can be whoever id like to be. need not be restricted to my usual self. though i know that does not restrict me in any situations really.

veiled hate mail. thatll be the next big thing. ill get it going.

im sure most christians would call it unfair to bring up people like charles manson or, i dont know, plenty of others though.

i have, regrettably, been focusing my attention elsewhere. my infant understanding of CS has stagnated in the mean time.
well, not all of that 'attention elsewhere' is 'regrettable'. wink wink wink.

the difficult thing to remember is that for any given organization, the members who feel the strongest about whatever their organization adheres to (believes? promotes? does?), are the members who will be most widely heard/known. in extremely large, loose organizations, there can be a very broad spectrum of interpretations of doctrine, so for example, in the larger religions, extremists are awfully extreme. i might be biased, but it seems that atheism does not suffer this nearly as much as christianity and islam. furthermore, the religious extremists tend to be the least informed, least open minded, least sensical members, of humanity even, where as many of the louder atheists tend to be very open minded and very informed. probably due to the opposing approaches of promoting free thought (within atheism generally), and promoting religious doctrine (see religion).

businesses ought to use a wiki for data organization.

“If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea”
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

underneath the edge of something grand.
ta dah!


as a matter of routine

it seems that for Olber's paradox the fractal explanation is relatively reasonable. but, when viewing the absorption explanation in light of the fractal explanation, doesnt the extreme uniformity of the CMB radiation sound sort of like the result of the absorption? i mean, if the fractal explanation can fully explain Olber's paradox, wouldnt that lower the temperature on the intermediate matter, and therefore lower the equilibrium temperature in the same way, while also accounting for its extreme uniformity?

also, i need to remember to write a letter to John Preskill about some things he said about black holes and quantum fluctuations. it had to do with saying assumption x leads to consequence y. and y sounded a lot like quantum vacuum fluctuations to me. the entire point of the statement was to use y as evidence for why x was a bad assumption. its been too long since ive practiced any formal logic, so thats as technical as i can get.

i just remembered that years ago i told this girl something about how she didnt seem to notice that she was famous. she seemed confused by it. but she is a lovely girl with a lovely voice. she rocked pretty hard. and opening for her band denali were victory at sea and a few forgettable acts. victory at sea was wonderful though.

me: i like the first listed improvement. that should be the first improvement to anything and everything ever, "increased laser power".
bernard: increased steam power!

i love articles like this because they are written in such a way that i understand most of the words and meanings of individual sentences, but as a whole i have no idea what they mean, and it is a very humbling feeling.

oh crap, this is the stuff ive been trying to learn for years! how to build my own radio transceivers! seriously too! i need it to make an RFID mocap system... or to detect and locate lightening strikes maybe first. thatd be cool.

oh crap, in that last post i attacked people, in the first sentence. its interesting. i would never attack a single person for their behavior; if anything i would simply pity their ill-motivated beliefs. thats not fair. i want to say i would pity their unconventional position. basically, it seems that their beliefs, though perhaps grossly uncommon, inappropriate to others, disturbing, backwards, whatever; are not really their choice. obviously they would not themselves think their beliefs are radical/unintelligent/abnormal, (or if they do then there is a certain obvious type of irrationality implied).

sometimes i feel like the only optimist around.
like us optimists have a bleak future.
or should that read,
"us optimists have a bleak future."

i love the month of april because i get to write lots of 4s on paper. because i really love writing the number 4. its all fancy-like.

we are all of us, accomplices the same.

why would waiting 99 days matter? on day 99, everyone waits
why should time have any influence?

its sort of tragic that we have constructed a world in which things like credit and bills and taxes and i suppose finances in general, have higher priority than say, enjoying life.

the weirdest thing about god, is hes this great guy youve never met who you trust more than anyone (even those close to you). if there is a god, and hes really that grand, he shouldnt need our love. humans need our love though. one more weird way for me to vehemently disagree with religious beliefs; it consumes precious love that could be more efficiency utilized on our fellow humans.

strain belief.

why are people so mystical about consciousness? its not that mysterious really. self awareness is simply the ability to observe oneself. what is observation? collection of information, through an instrument. we have each ourselves done a lifetime of research on this.

i am not entirely sure that i give any indication of when i am joking and when i am serious. in which case, does anyone other than me know?

youre obviously confused and aroused.


wake up venus

id bet that the stability between 'good' and 'evil' is a force feedback system that naturally evolves and shifts slightly but has a pretty constant middle ground.

i dont hate people, i hate the religions they belong to. okay, so thats pretty strong. talk to me! we can find common ground!

fine, you want to forgo evolution and teach intelligent design? do it. youll raise swaths of adults who will have no ability to comprehend the world they live in, and they will not be successful. in the modern world, ancient beliefs will continue to become more and more obtrusive to an individual's success.

i like this photo.

warm me up. and breathe me.
can anyone think of a way to make computers create jokes?
eat soup.

there really seems to be some concept between possible rates of organization and human/life driven rates. there has to be some critical concept relating the entropy in an on open system to chance, right? is there a name for a machine that drives entropy in reverse locally? is that a computer? could i define a computer as a device which drives entropy in reverse with great probability for some finite subsection of a larger system?

remember the story about stone soup?
from when you were a child. i liked that story.

absolutely thrilled about the time i live in.

anonymous, here, said,
"Isn’t what you are really saying just that genius is an emergent phenomenon? 
(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence)
Then is it not the case that whether one worships it or finds it romantic
is a simple matter of theology?"
and it struck me that the difference between worship and romance is so enormous. i suppose ive noticed my own obsessions with mathematical problems distracts me from the problems themselves. seems to amplify my emotions. sounds strange, but i think that is an accurate description probably. if anyone can comprehend/interpret that. im assuming its confusing.
assuming its confusing.

dear person un-behalf of governor lynch
are you really saying that because it is illegal, it should remain just as illegal? are you even aware of why and when it was made illegal to begin with? have you ever considered that perhaps it is not truly a nefarious activity beyond our relatively uninformed and poorly conceived laws? i am going to have to write another letter.

the courtesy of a reply is requested.

today, while at work, i was reading about Boltzmann brains, and, like many of the people ive read it from, i think it is dumb. but im very excited, because there is something in the idea that excites me very much, because it is an aspect of the universe that i have been trying to quantify for some time now. it first started when i tried to explain to a friend my (unfounded) views of omnipotence and human ingenuity. basically, i argued to him that, since humans should be able to do anything that is physically possible, given enough time and space, we should be considered omnipotent, as a species. though, since most people think of omnipotence as only being limited by the imagination, (yes, even 'god' would have to have some limited imagination), i would encourage the splitting into 'strong' and 'weak' forms. so humans would be weakly omnipotent, while our silly concepts of all powerful supernatural forces, whether gods or otherwise, might be considered strongly omnipotent. okay, so his response was the age old, 'given infinite time, anything is possible'. and then i believe he mentioned the old 'an finite number of monkeys would eventually type all of Shakespeares plays', also. but there is some difference, that i cannot quite isolate yet between humans and nature. it is an intention, a design, a plan... more than just trial and error, brute force, luck – as seen in nature.
so, getting to the Boltzmann brains topic, the argument is that, since we currently find ourselves conscious, well, here, let wikipedia explain it:
"If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation, it is much less likely than a level of organization which is only just able to create a single self-aware entity. For every universe with the level of organization we see, there should be an enormous number of lone Boltzmann brains floating around in unorganized environments. This refutes the observer argument above: the organization I see is vastly more than what is required to explain my consciousness, and therefore it is highly unlikely that I am the result of a stochastic fluctuation."
now, this whole idea is very obviously stupid, since the level of organization in a self aware entity is so great you would never expect it to arise from random fluctuations, and it is rather the result of LIFE itself, paradoxical, problematic, poorly understood, painfully incomprehensible (and comprehensible). too many p's. the only surprising part of the random fluctuations really is the origin of life, which we still dont really know enough to be surprised about. as with most things in science, it will probably only remain awesome so long as it remains glaringly mysterious. im pretty confident that every step from the most basic organism to the modern human can be explained to most peoples satisfaction, by me. a typical evolutionary biologist, geneticist, probably most biologists, can do most of that far better than i ever will, with details most people wont even want to know. but its all rather acceptable from my point of view. except the origin, which as i already said, still lacks too much evidence for us to grasp the normalcy of it yet.
so, beginning by setting aside the mysteries pertaining to the origin of life, lets skip to the argument.
once we had a 'creature' in the universe, with the motives of self reproduction and survival (pretty much all that life apparently began as), the random fluctuations that would ultimately evolve these many 'self-aware entities' could remain small, minimal, obtainable. the combination of the simple goals of life, and the law of large numbers, makes the odds of developing 'self awareness' in creatures much more reasonable. in fact, its obvious that since we only know of one universe (no matter what our math or mythology tell us), and we seem to be aware of our presence in it, then the likelihood of developing consciousness is 1! (at least according to our limited sample size. unless this is the only universe, in which case, the entire population).
i read a while back that some researchers had done experiments to see how much far entropy could be violated (that is, on very small time-space scales, entropy could decrease for short time periods). so what i am trying to say is something related to that. i think ive lost it. crap.
so i would say, that the only way to make a complex brain in this universe requires the creation of many many incremental steps, and would make it much more likely to create many self aware entities than the likelihood of creating a single one.
what i was trying to express to my friend was that humans have some sort of power to change entropy, to relocate it. yeah, it keeps increasing on the whole, but we can take it and make it decrease significantly in local areas. i suppose any arbitrary amount.
and actually, i have yet to recount, or even mention the true significance of this experience, today at work.
following these thoughts, this mental flare of criticism, in which my mind very rapidly attacked the 'Boltzmann brains paradox', an overwhelming sense of cosmic injustice tore through me. ive seen it repeated in books and movies and the general public sentiment, from time to time; at the moment, the most righteous thing to do in the universe was to go inform my superiors' that i would be leaving, and not returning. at that moment, the only explanation i might have been able to offer was, "i just had a life altering revelation". im not sure what else might have been there for that moment, maybe some abnormally high confidence, or ego, or even maybe nothing so low. its possible that for that moment i just felt that life is so interesting, and unique, and enjoyable, any moment spent in an office, or more so, a wacky business show, any time spent miserable, doing things that you can only imagine cause misery for someone else, is just disturbingly wasteful. silly, illogical(?). incomprehensible. inexcusable. so i wrote this letter.

ha, my computer just gave me the advice to, "take something without error and humanize it". and i realized, i dont know what 'error' means. i know what it means in terms of one or another's personal preferences, beliefs, goals, whatever. but i dont know how to talk about 'something without error'. im guessing, though ive only thought for a moment here, that since i believe right/wrong-good/evil is purely subjective, i cannot, in good faith, think of something as 'free from error', nor can i think about humans as 'inherently error-prone'.

on the drive home, after work, i realized that the last three or even 6 months have been tolerable or even enjoyable, at work. and yet the torment i was first introduced to was so scaring that i now resent the entire situation, an atmosphere of loathing has built around me, and no work-instigated environmental program could rescue planet cody. point of no return comes to mind. i suppose this could be an example of being aware of your own irrational behavior, yet still unable to alter it. i suppose that happens to me a lot though. and of course it will fade.

you and i, we burn bridges because we never retreat.

is there something romantic about the point of no return? or are my wires crossed.

oh man oh man i love victory at sea:
"thanks for leaving the light on, so i can find my way home.
thanks for leading me half way, from the curb to the door way"

so low is my number one band on last.fm, but i think godspeed should be a lot higher than it is.
so the average length of each band's songs are:
low: 82 songs, 6 hours 45 minutes 15 seconds = 0.0823 hrs = 4.94 minutes/song * 1088 = 5374
godspeed: 25 songs, 6 hours 27 minutes 07 seconds = 0.258 hrs = 15.48 minutes/song * 210 = 3250
though 60% does look much better than 19%.
actually, low (first was ipod): 233 songs, 18 hrs, 3 minutes 43 seconds = 0.07725 = 4.6 = 5004 ––– 65%
damn, that was a huge waste of my time. ive got a weird itch to calculate today. earlier i learned a whole bunch of chemistry and relearned some thermodynamics to try and estimate the boiling point of an azeotrope, but it turns out that wasnt possible. it should have some first principles approach i think though. maybe if i could find more information on cohesion and adhesion rates and their relationship to partial pressures or boiling points. but thats besides the point, i was doing actual calculations, and getting excited. it was awkward. maybe school just gave me a weird neediness for that or something.

none of this matters even a little.

doesnt a single omniscient entity imply a complete lack of free will and remove any personal responsibility from our actions? (as well as removing responsibility from the judge jurors and executioner(s)?). as well as that crap about good and evil blah blah blah. i think i need to get out.

discovering this, right now, might be called serendipitous.
howd i get there? from credit score which i only had open because a friend asked me about it, renewing my interest in the unanswered questions i have regarding personal finance (har har har).

here might be a novel concept: could we define life as a 'local entropy ratchet'? ive thought about it for a few more seconds and decided that yes, i wish to define life as a local entropy ratchet, by which i mean: choose an object arbitrarily as a candidate for life, if locally (within the space defined by its 'body'), it decreases entropy over time, then its life. though that doesnt rule out crystals. i could try adding a clause for carbon based, or some minimum on the complexity of the organism. or how about this, the object must contain information representative of its greater structure. that rules out crystals, but is ill-defined enough to continue a debate over prions, viruses, those nanotubules things...

wake up venus.