The Universe Conspires

We never had a choice, you and I.

Fuck this place. (Not the comic, the world it describes.)

Hitler had a mother.
How would you justify taking pride in your boy?
Do you know how many people die every day of starvation? Do you even know where to look to find out? According to the wikipedia article, Starvation, more than 25,000 people died of starvation every day in 2003. According to WHO, malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases. Maybe you could help me, because I have some other questions: how many people die per day from religious warfare? From preventable disease? (Preventable meaning, those diseases that have been defeated by those of us who happen to be born in societies with the wealth to defeat such diseases for the entire general public.) How many people die from political conflict? How righteous can we really claim to be? We bicker over bullshit like stem cell research, gay marriage, right, left, abortion, taxes, guns, Love, hate, education, sex, drugs, religion, morals, beliefs... and 25,000 people die a day from no food? Nine million, one hundred twenty-five thousand people per year. Something like 237 million people in my reasonably short, 26 year lifetime, assuming it were constant. Something along the lines of 77 out of every 100 Americans, assuming it were constant.

Since the
80+ female population is much larger than the 80+ male population
, I am going to start aiming for 80+ women, to increase my likelihood of success.

Don't let your cereal rust?


"There's a strong possibility that I'm losing my mind."
"Maybe we even fall in love."

Kiss the ceiling.

Could our problem be trying to compare the time required to verify solutions versus the time required to solve problems?
Are there other complexity classes that are defined in terms entirely due to their verification or solution time alone? (And not things like FNP, that are basically NP already.)
Is there a clear meaning to the idea of having multiple time dimensions? Could there be a clear meaning to it?

I suspect that an 'ultimate theory', if ever discovered, will almost be difficult to imagine as being any other way. Unlike the current state of physics, in which there are many unknown parameters (the fundamental constants), a true ultimate theory would emerge from a single underlying principle (or set of principles), much the way special relativity emerges from two underlying ideas, or general from a third.

Ha ha ha, "Among other things, kids can tailor problems to stuff they're already interested in. Like gambling."

I just realized, that the Francis Bacon quote I am fond of, "[i]t is true that that may hold in these things, which is the general root of superstition; namely, that men observe when things hit, and not when they miss; and commit to memory the one, and forget and pass over the other", (which I usually apply to the ease with which we humans note coincidence in our lives), explains gambling very well (whether lottery, or craps, or blackjack, or whatever). Logically, these games are all obviously a losing battle (why else would casinos be so rich?), but all it takes is one small win, or even knowing someone else has won, to keep most people playing.

I want you to know.
Nontransitive dice

On the one hand, this is hilarious, on the other hand, how the hell does the cop not know better? Isn't this a man whom we have put faith in to "protect the public"? How can he do that when he is so uninformed and unaware of what is dangerous? (Granted, he can't do that anymore anyway.) This sort of superstition about things like drugs must end, we cannot afford it's costs.

It hurts me so much.

Lets be the radical center.

The only offer.
Am I still living vile?
Slowly tearing out her heart.
Steal me a dream.

This man, Jack Conte, and his girlfriend, Nataly, are both really cool. And so is their music. Andthis one too.

"You're doing it wrong!"

Must emphasize, not like extortion, more like seduction. "Hey baby, those are some sexy potatoes you got there, what say I buy them at above market value? Wanna buy some CD players that 'fell off the truck', big boy?"
Plus, even if we did pay them outright, it wouldn't be extortion, we would be choosing to do so. Though similar to our oil relationships, it would be different; our oil relationships are like a drug addict: we will pay whatever it costs for our next hit. Paying off nations to do what we want is more like telling them, listen, it's cheaper for us to buy you than to invade you, as long as you cooperate. Remember though, prices are dynamic.

Are there any truly one way functions? Maybe quantum cryptography could count?

I need to say that I.

Wait, whether they got good grades because they enjoyed learning, or because they worked hard to earn good grades, how is either one of those detrimental to a person's notoriety? Aren't both of those people somewhat non-typical in their ability to accomplish things? Isn't that what we want in government? People who either work hard, or find hard work easy? And how can academia be a racket if it doesn't have those sweet fruits like mercedes and million dollar apartments? I agree, it is a racket for those of us who enjoy learning, but the word 'racket', in this context, generally implies financial benefit, which most academics would probably agree doesn't really exist.

There is a comfort to the ambiguity.

This evidence, is everywhere.

When people ask, "why do you have faith in science, and reject the notion that it is reasonable to have faith in god?", an appropriate response ought to be, "I do not have faith in science, just like I do not have faith in gravity, or the big bang or evolutionary theory. I have empirical evidence that fits logical and mathematical theory (science), and I have empirical evidence that the very methods used to establish

Ah ha, maybe now we have found the heart of the matter. Scruton (is it?) says that "...we seek for the causes of things, but we also seek for their meaning. We have moral values, aesthetic tastes, yearnings and aspirations, which for the want for a better word we call spiritual. Such things are not irrational even if we find it difficult to provide a scientific foundation for them." I for one have had no trouble finding a scientific foundation for aesthetic tastes (my own or others), moral values, yearnings, or aspirations, but meaning I believe must be understood as a relative word. What does the moon mean? What is the meaning of a specific bacterium's life? What is the meaning of a specific molecules' role in the universe? The word 'meaning' only makes sense with respect to some lifeform, and even then only really to the higher life forms. It does not make sense to talk about the meaning of some causally disconnected galaxy with respect to humanity, because it literally makes no difference. I do not find it difficult to find scientific explanation for this, nor would I consider topics that find scientific explanation elusive to be evidence that non-scientific descriptions are adequate. I am now entirely convinced that science is the only method which can resolve any approximation to truth, and that when implemented correctly, it will always produce the most accurate representation of what we would all agree to understand is truth.

Science, in it's most abstract form, has no flaws. This follows from the fact that any flaw that appears provable is more than sufficient enough to revise science to accommodate for the oversight. Science might be described as an abstract process of observing and interpreting the world, with the trait of allowing revision of method upon new evidence. Basically, science is the memetic evolution of ideas, independent of the bias provided by tradition, rites, rituals, belief, desire, etc. IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD that SCIENCE has NO QUALMS about abandoning it's current methods in exchange for improved results. Humans have such a problem, and that is the only thing that retards the ability for science to do that.

We need ask them, how would you explain the obvious fact that children are not identical to their parents? And what would you expect the extreme long term effect of this would be on a species?

Remember that, the crusades, the inquisition, and the current conflicts in Kashmir, Israel, and many other places in the world, are in the name of religion. Stalin did not commit crimes in the name of antitheism, or atheism, but in the name of another dogmatic belief system (communism). An atheistic stance can be derived from strong skepticism, an informed understanding of science, or equivocally Occam's razor, if one has accepted the notion that no belief is more valuable than any other, and receives even a small dose of science, or an intelligent inference from the world that surrounds them.

When people claim science is a religion, is an appropriate answer: but it has no true dogma?
I dreamt we were all beautiful and strong.

No matter how close two people are, an infinite distance still separates them.
Never underestimate the capacity for other people to let you down.

Isn't it beautiful?

We all end up old and in the way.
I can't go home. There's too much silence.

Heres a question, expanding on the issues I already have with the whole story of Abraham and Isaac: if you were to walk in on me, with my child tied up, and a knife held high above their chest, and I told you to trust me, that you should not intervene because I have a plan and it will all work out in the end. Would you be willing to just go along with me? Maybe since I'm not god, it's easier to not trust me. But it seems like I should be more trustworthy than a very old book that was written by people you'll never know.

Make sure it doesn't boil over.
"That means she's got issues, so she's not out of my league."

We should have worn helmets.

Even if the universe conspires against us.
I don't mind you hanging out, and talking in your sleep. I think you're just what I needed.

One way functions, entropy, causality, free will, incompleteness, randomness; the fact that quantum mechanics seems to both preserve causality, but destroy determination? These things all seem to relate

Lunacy and destruction, couldn't you tell that I was always happy to see you?


How I Appear So impartial

Skeletal anomalies.

While you're running through my mind.

If you understand that the phrase, "I can't explain why", is almost heresy with respect to science, you will understand why when asked why I feel, believe, act, or am, a certain way—I either give an explanation or become stuck figuring out why until I can explain it. And on the occasions I cannot find a good explanation, I become the greatest force of opposition with respect to that specific behavior of mine.

Stay lady stay.

"Popo zow peanut butter jelly time, horse porn."
"Don't hurt me! I'll betray anyone!"
"I want to learn what pleases you. I want to learn everything about you."

I'm starting to think I should set my alarm for a half hour after I go to bed, because it seems like it is only after my alarm goes off that I can fall asleep.

Mean and meaningless.


We do our best, right?
With any luck.
Tremendous contempt.

At around 55 minutes, Daniel Dennett says something to the effect that, he must question the potential harm caused by his research before continuing or publishing. I want to say that, any time pure information about the natural world may be regarded as potentially harmful, one should simply preface the publishing of such information with an explanation of how humanity, though emergent from the natural world, and bound to the laws of physics, does appear to have some modicum of self control, whether as individuals, groups, or the whole of the species. Regardless of our understanding of free will and determinism, we have all experienced the guilt of doing something we feel is wrong, as well as the situations of doing something you don't want to, because you know you should, and doing something you do want to, despite knowing you shouldn't. These situations are sufficient for us to know that regardless of the conclusions we draw in our research, our behavior, whether justified through academia or through private self-deceit, as far as our personal experience is concerned, we have some amount of control over our actions, or at least we should be aware that our actions are not the direct consequences of what we consider to be optimal or desirable, without including a multitude of motivations when establishing the optimal criteria. I would argue that this conclusion alone should be sufficient to prevent us from changing our behavior simply because some research indicated what we previously thought to be true may in fact be false.
Oh, in the second part (24 minutes in or so), Dennett says outright that he takes seriously the proposition that there are things we should just not try to find out, that there is such a thing as knowing more than is good for us. I believe I wholeheartedly disagree. Furthermore I would argue that it is not something that can be stopped. Much like technology that appears to contain both positive and negative consequences, unless the bad outweigh the good so disproportionately that no one can bring themselves to investigate the matter, then the investigation of the matter is essentially inevitable. Eventually Hitchens and Harris vocally agree, using biological weapon information as an example. Again, I disagree. Investigation of biological weaponry is our best hope at understanding the dangers of biological threats, whether synthetic or NATURAL. I agree you do not always give everyone all the information you find, but that is not the same thing as deciding not to continue investigating an idea because it could result in such dangers.

I would like to say you should never trust someone who says something is impossible, but then you would have to distrust me! What I should say, more accurately, is that you should never trust someone who says something you have observed is impossible. You should always be open to the possibility that your observations are mistaken or convoluted, or simply illusionary, but to declare them impossible, or unnaturally possible (i.e. supernatural), is to display supreme ignorance, and such people should not be trusted, they are not authorities, and they do not understand the basic tenets of science.

These guys [that is, the religious defenders] like to make a lot of silly claims, like that we must have faith in reason, and I think I can finally resolve my discomfort between mathematics, science, and logic.
Mathematics, and logic, both require axioms, and those axioms are imaginary. Science seems to demand axioms as well, but the axioms are not ours to choose, but rather set out by the nature of the universe. We happened to choose logical axioms that made sense to us, cause and effect, true and false, syllogism, etc. Much in the same way, we chose what appeared to be the most reasonable mathematical axioms as well. In both mathematics and logic, we studied what appeared to most accurately model reality. On occasion, by thinking very critically, we have expanded our logic and mathematics into much more then required to explain reality.

Maybe the defining aspect of humanity is our information processing abilities. Our ability to accumulate, store, process, and communicate, information. And if you look at human history in those terms, you can see how our wellbeing (at least physically) has been largely influenced by our ability to increase the power of our information processing abilities. Language, written words, printing press, radio, television, computers, the internet, the last of which may prove to push us further than the rest combined. Information processing is the ultimate solution to the problem of persistent existence of a replicator (life).

I hate the anthropological argument of how the universe is fine tuned, if the universe were tuned differently, it would behave differently, true. For us to say that changing certain constants would result in our absence is fine, but to claim that it could not lead to other intelligent forms of life seems much less reliable.

Everything I know is determined by what is the more useful assumption. Any unnecessary assumptions will be discarded. The existence of a deity is not a useful assumption, and as such, I discard it.

"The suicide bomber community is entirely religious. The genital mutilation community is entirely religious. I wouldn't say that the child abuse community is entirely religious, not entirely, but it's bidding for it."
–Christopher Hitchens

Frank Turek was persistently asking Hithens where good came from, and Hitchens was not explaining it really, partially distracted by Turek implying that it must be molecular if one is a materialist (or physicalist, as I might prefer). Eventually Turek, desperate to get a response, asks where evil comes from, to which Hitchens immediately replies, 'religion'. He then says, and mortality comes from humanitarianism, prompting Turek to ask, 'who's humanitarianism? Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin?', and Hitchens asks, 'are you saying Hitler was a humanist?'. It was a funny exchange, but I want to point out, neither of them represented my world view; neither one of them seems to know about what I feel is the obvious answer. Humans are social creatures, as such we rely on one another to survive, let alone prosper. Stable societies can not be formed by individuals that do not have the basic morals that we virtually all agree on (murder, rape, theft...), because in a society that believes these principles are acceptable will simply destroy itself. This also explains why a small portion of society is amoral, and why as individuals we will on occasion perform immoral acts. These are side effects of the fact that beyond some threshold, a good society (with morals) will be marginally tolerant of negative events (these are the so called 'leechers').

Sociopathic and psychopathic.

To Mr. Turek (through http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankTurek):
Hello Mr. Turek, I recently watched your debate with Christopher Hitchens, and I felt obligated to ask you: when asking Hitchens for a materialist (or as I prefer, physicalist) foundation for moral views and what makes something good or not, what exactly did you mean by 'good' or 'moral'. You seem to presuppose that such concepts require a foundation such that they are universally agreed upon (undeniable to other humans). I am a moral relativist, and I contend that the most of our mainstream morals are the direct consequence of our reliance on societal cooperation (I am disappointed that Hitchens did not provide any similar answer, though his response that morals come from humanitarianism is similar). However, I see now that if one were to require that morals were absolute, than this would not suffice, and I know that when people debate absolute versus relative morals, both sides tend to view the opposing side as misunderstanding the concept of morals. So again, my question is, what exactly constitutes a 'good' or 'moral' act to you?

If you could please respond please, I would really like to understand your side of this issue better, because I think that the better we can understand one another, the happier we will all be.

Thank you very much for your time,

Second letter (about gay marriage):
I hope I don't seem to be too forward, but after emailing you that last question, I read some of your articles opposing gay marriage, and I have recently stumbled across a question for opponents of gay marriage: who are intersexuals allowed to marry? (Intersexuals are the modern PC term for hermaphrodites, some of whom are born with functioning male and female genitals.) I have never heard this question asked, and such people are fairly rare (between 1.7% and 0.1% of humans, depending on defining criteria, are born with ambiguous sex characteristics). Personally, I don't really care about gay marriage, or even straight marriage. I would like to marry a nice girl some day, but only to let her know I am committed to her. Otherwise I couldn't care less, other than the discomfort caused me in denying intersexuals this same right.

So I was curious what a staunch opponent of gay marriage would think.

Thank you again,

Intact D&X

List ALL of the sources you used to establish your world view:
Theist: holy book of my choice.
Atheist: Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Beakmen, science textbooks from 1st to 11th grade, Mr. Carey (physics teacher in high school), physics textbooks, mathematics text books, astronomy books, chemistry text books, biology text books, and most of all, my mind. Because every one of those sources has made errors, and it takes time to find them, and discard them.

"Fade out again. This machine will not communicate these thoughts and strain I am under."

It is only through the communication with others that I can hope to understand anything.

"...religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality."
-John Stewart (to Mike Huckabee)

John had some really good points for Mike Huckabee, who opposes same sex marriage.
He also said, "...it feels like semantics is cold comfort, when it comes humanity..."

I think there is an important point to be illustrated in a theory's ability to explain it's competitors. For instance, if you were to grant that intelligent design is actually science, and actually competes in some way with evolutionary theory, you should still understand that evolutionary theory can explain the existence of intelligent design, whereas intelligent design has to sustain modifications to explain evolution. In the same way, heliocentric theory explains geocentric theory, but not the reverse. In these instances, the alternatives are such simple illusions, it is a small matter to explain their existence.

I think I want to write a book, about religion and science, and call it something like, "God's place in science", or "Science and God", or "Modern Science and God", or any other misrepresentative title. Then I would make each chapter a misrepresentative title, like, "How God explains Everything", or "The Role of Tradition within the Process of Discovery". Then I would begin each chapter by introducing the theist's view of reality, and slowly explaining it in excruciating detail, I would frequently consult actual theists for their own opinions, to ensure that I was representing their view. Then I would methodically deconstruct and invalidate their views, with each chapter ending in an explanation of why the atheistic view was preferable. Anyone want to fund or publish me? I think it is wonderful what Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins & Dennett have all done, but they have nevertheless aimed at borderline theists and atheists more so than hard-core fundamentalists. I agree that in general, fundamentalists will not be swayed, but I do believe that regardless of how many confederates we accumulate, we could still shake some foundations, and I believe that constitutes sufficient reason to do so. Every single fundamentalist whom hesitates before pushing their views on another person is worth at least one borderline theist who stops voting their pastor's wishes, or who stops accepting their pastor's belief without question.
The one difficulty would be, religious people would tend not to finish the book, or any single chapter. And intelligent non religious people would be reluctant to read any of the book at all, simply by judging by cover.

I wish I had words and phrases like 'jesus' and 'oh my god', because they are so useful (if chosen wisely) in expressing the full gamut of human emotion with respect to surprise, whether surprise in anger, disappointment, happiness, excitement,

"What if everything you had burned down around you?"
"One of yours you had to bury."
"He was getting away." So I shot him in the back.

"It'd be better to forget you, but I really don't want to."

I want to learn what pleases you, what turns you on, what captivates you, and drives you wild.
What gets you going and what stops you in your tracks.
What are your dreams and fears.
What happiness do you lack.
I want to satisfy you, until your needs lose all meaning.


What Pleases You?

"Surrender your mysteries to Zoidberg."
"I'm acting astonished!"
"A raffle of the porno type."
They were in a pickle?
Deviancy amplification spiral, sounds nice.

"Cause it's bad to do what's easy
just cause it's easy.
And I wanna do what pleases me but I can't."

I wish I could type musical note symbols here.
I hate the fact that I know exactly how to manipulate the world, I just can't bring myself to do it, because I have some unjustified belief that it is wrong to lie. Maybe I can convince myself that the idea that 'it's wrong to lie', is a lie we must perpetuate in order to prevent the massive amount of lying that would occur if we were to just say it was okay. But seriously, lies that don't really harm anyone, but benefit you, what's wrong with those? And why can't I bring myself to commit them? Maybe it's not even lying, since everyone knows you're lying, it's not really lying.
I'm morally repugnant, but most people don't seem to notice.
Deviance is a virtue.
Let's start a crime wave.
Dreamt of all the friendships died.
Don't lose yourself.
Don't let yourself be lost.

I think the reason I like WALL•E so much is that I feel like I can relate to the main character. Though that's a pretty common reason for me to like a movie, and since I'm pretty good at interpretting things in a positive light, I'm probably pretty good at relating things to myself too. Anyway, I was driving home from work today, and I noticed that I was one of a number of cars in a line, and it started slowly, but suddenly I was overwhelmed with the feeling that, although WALL•E portrays humankind in an absurd, end-all of laziness, post-apocolytic society, we live in an oddly similarly absurd world, though it is not the same. We aren't yet obsessed with laziness, we are oddly indoctrinated with work, and so many ridiculous ideas about right and wrong that none of us have much of a clue about what we should really be doing (or not doing).

It's weird, I am a geek, but not the modern 90's geek. I've never enjoyed any game, or competition of almost any sort really, let alone the typical geek/nerd games, like dungeons and dragons, or role playing, or whatever else. I'm more the 1950s pocket-protector geek. Not into video games, not into fantasy, or role playing. Just into hard core science.

I'm so sorry.

"We'll go to the loony bin together, I don't give a fuck."

Sometimes I feel defectively altruistic. I'm pretty narcissistic too though.

"Notably, Foot classifies initiating a fatal sequence as a morally objectionable act, while legitimizing the morality of not aiding."

I think I can solve the proposition 8 debate. If marriage is defined to be a man and a women, what do intersexuals do? You could deny them the right to ever get married, but that seems prejudiced. You could allow them to marry, but then you'd be inconsistent. A conundrum! And it doesn't end there... as with many things in nature, just because it is commonly dichotomous does not mean it is truly so, prevalence of intersexual characteristics is estimated between 0.1% and 1.7%, depending on definition. Even better, true hermaphroditism, is "rare" to find with "both types of gonadal tissue to function." That means that there are human beings who have both male and female genitalia, both of which are fertile. (A little reflection can remind you that, there is nothing very bizarre about any of this, we have a clear causal understanding of what processes are behind all of this, and the existences of such humans is consistent with that causal model.) So here is a question, that really special someone, who is able to have children both as a mother and as a father, who could not really be called male or female, who are they allowed to marry? Am I wrong to declare the choices ring down to "deny some people the right to marriage based on anatomy" or "allow gay marriage"? And besides, do you really think this issue will disappear after you ban homosexual marriage? Do you really think homosexual couples will just give up and agree? Do you really think that gay marriage is a bigger threat to your way of life, or you're children's upbringing, than all the other issues in the world?

Older notes. (Did I post any of this already?)
From backreaction, though I don't remember which post...
Bee defined the accusation that science was a belief system, like religion, by responding that science could more correctly be referred to as a doubt system. I really love this idea, but she seems cautious to claim that it is a real description, and I would say it lacks a lot of the essential qualities of science. There is a lot of value in that phrase, but it doesn't quite sum up science. So let's fix that. How about, science is the process of doubting everything for which a clear, observable, repeatable (testable? falsifiable?) cause cannot be established.
Or: science is systematic doubt of knowledge, with occasional 'concatenation' of knowledge, the effect of which is to reduce the "total doubt" of the entire system (e.g. post Maxwell we needn't doubt theories of electricity & magnetism, but the one unified theory of Electricity & Magnetism).
Later I discussed all this with Corey. I think my conclusion was, science is a system of doubting EVERYTHING, ALWAYS, but, when sufficient empirical evidence is established, doubt is condensed such that the number of doubts is reduced, and the total amount of doubt is either preserved or reduced. (Probably reduced.) What must be emphasized is that scientific theory is always open to revision, replacement, removal, but only on the existence of sufficient physical, independently verifiable evidence. Getting back to the original statement, science is entirely dependent on the ability to abandon all that you know in favor of new ideas that explain equal or greater amounts of data while requiring equal or lesser degrees and amounts of assumptions. It is that aspect that makes the 'doubt system' description so potent.
Later I wrote: Or how about science is a system for managing & reducing doubt to the fewest assumptions possible. I'm not sure this is sufficient.

I think I've written this note before, or at least about it.
The fact that physicists are more precise & accurate in their predictions than anyone (or anything) at all, ever, anywhere, is really more a testament to our field's maturity, and the simplistic nature of the phenomena on which our studies focus (as compared to the rest of the universe, which emerges from the phenomena we study). I'm a physicalist, so if you aren't you might disagree.

Check out this logic: You install motion sensors in most rooms to power down lights & devices when no one is around. The conserved power reduces utility bills enough to pay for parts & labor installation of sensors. The reduction of power consuption has reduced cost & demand for power, thereby reducing cost of power per unit. Downside? (This assumes it is cost effective in the first place, which might not be true in a year, or any finite time span, though that seems unlikely.)

Am I an egalitarian, or a meritocrat? Probably somewhere in the middle... I believe that people's merits should have a good influence over their rewards in life, but also, I believe there is a baseline which everyone should be granted (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or something like that).
My personality type does, on occasion, conflict with others', however my personality is that I simply do not conflict with other people very easily.

I'm pretty sure I've written this one before: If I can't tell the difference between "too distant" & "too needy", what hope do I have? I'm not sure I've ever been called either one of those, but I'm sure I've self-diagnosed both at times. Maybe it's wrong to think those are opposing extremes of the same dimension?

Old hat.

If I'm bound to forget you, don't you let me be.


Some Hearts are True

I might have mentioned this before, but on occasion people who know me very well will say something akin to 'that's very unlike you'. I understand what they mean, but my natural reaction is to reject that anything is 'like me', which has led me to an idea. I seem to be attracted to girls who are very visibly defiant of the status quo. I am fairly certain that if you asked people, (including myself usually), I would not be described as defiant, though I might be described as 'hard to tell'. What I am finding an interesting idea is that mentally I seem fairly defiant (though not in the same way that some people I would have described that way, such as some close friends). I guess I would describe my mental defiance as carrying a direction, as opposed to defiance for the sake of defying. It should be said that defiance has a utility all on it's own. NO! Dammit! I sound like one of those people who view utility as the only metric. Happiness is my measure; the only sensible measure I've found yet.

"Germs are just a plot they made up so they can sell you disinfectants, and soaps."
"The future can be yours! Last chance! Last chance! LAST! CHANCE!"
Lost to history.

If I have a set of elements of given sizes, and I look at the size of each subset by summing up the sizes of the elements of the subset, how many different orderings are there (from least to greatest) given an arbitrary set? I'm not being clear. Maybe I'll get it some day.

Some hearts are true.
With strong hearts, and swung hips.
Our dreams, deserve it.

Another question, how would we differentiate the CMB radiation from a source of random noise coupled to the universe? (Just ignore the obvious violation of energy conversation for the moment.)

Dr. David Berlinski, professor of mathematics, said, "mathematical physics lacks all the rigor of mathematics". I am disappointed that such an experienced researcher can make such a mistake. OF COURSE mathematics is more rigorous than anything else! In mathematics you know EXACTLY what the rules are, because YOU make them up! YOU define the axioms you work with, and you see what follows. NO EMPIRICAL SCIENCE will EVER have access to the axioms! I'm ANGRY! Oh well.

I have the patience of a tibetan monk with a morphine drip.
I spend a lot of time trying to make my life into a joke because it's funnier that way.

Brisance is a measure of the rapidity with which an explosive develops its maximum pressure.

I'm pretty sure I know the sentiment.

Promise to be kind.
http://www.last.fm/music/Laura+Veirs find

Useful parameterization of ignorance.
Virulent is a beautiful word.

Such a colorful mess.

I don't understand people who say they are willing to die for their beliefs. Beliefs should never be worth dying for. Moral principles, sure, ethical convictions, sure, you're abilities to remain free? Sure. I don't think I would die for any of those things, since after dying I would be unable to reap the benefits, and further, I could always survive inside my own head, it's something that would be difficult to take away from me. That said, if it were taken away, I'd be close enough to dead that I don't think it'd make much of a difference. So there isn't anything I personally find truly 'worth dying for', but I can imagine being pushed to the point that I would no longer consider myself alive, so I suppose if the threat was that I had a risk of ending up at that point, then it would be worth dying for. I can almost imagine dying for a loved one, especially offspring, probably mostly genetic, though even adopted makes some sense. In either case, it is hard to say what I would do. I think the largest hurdle to dying for something is the inability to assure that the other side of the bargain is paid in full after my death. So dying for offspring, adopted or otherwise, how can I be sure that my death truly guarantees their life? (Or whatever.) Without that, it's pretty hard to commit. It just seems unproductive, thats all. I guess if we had some sort of horrible trap set up, that was going to destroy them with near certainty, unless I destroyed myself with near certainty, in which case, I guess, not a problem, I'd go for it.

You'd say...

"thrown forever into the trash can and replaced with a normative system that is compassionate and congruent with the needs and natures of human beings."


I choose my words with great care in effort to convey to you the seriousness with which I approach. I mean nothing but the best.
What a tragedy it'd be if you and me weren't happy.