Today I think i'll try and define life, seeing as I have nothing better to do. I'm doing this because of my extreme irritation at exobiologists who claim that water is essential for life. Lack of creativity is not valid science. By my definition, life started as a self-replicating chemical reaction. From there, evolution took over, and we gradually became an excessively complicated chemical reaction. This fits what they teach in schools. They say that life metabolizes, reproduces, and moves, and anything fitting those requirements can be considered life. Or something like that. Anyway, we're not much different than a myriad of reactions that you can see in everyday life. My point with this is, any chemical reaction can be considered alive, so long as it propagates itself. Fire is an excellent example of this. In fact, a world could one day arise where flames are the dominant lifeform. In this case, a water world would be positively hostile towards life. Another aspect of life is ecosystems. An ecosystem is basically lifeforms consuming the by-products of other lifeforms. So, in our hypothetical flaming ecosystem, ashes would be somehow made flammable again. Thanks to thermodynamics, an ecosystem always needs an energy source. However, this could be as small an energy source as you care to make it, right up until you hit quantum barriers. Because of this, it is perfectly possible to have interstellar or even intergalactic lifeforms which feed off of starlight.
So, in review, life is a chemical reaction, and an ecosystem is a group of reactions which sustain each other. BUT WAIT! Life doesn't have to be a chemical reaction! Life can be generalized to be a self-propagating system in a given medium. In that sense, computer viruses are life. Ideas and knowledge also fit the generalized definition of life. This has just given me an idea for a computer virus that would be unstoppable: one which evolves. It subtly changes itself every time it's passed on, and it can be set up in such a way as to have certain sections error-prone. Like in evolution, some copies would be more suited than others to carry on, while most of the altered copies would die out. If it's set up correctly, it could never be wiped out. Unless it was countered by other evolving viruses. You'd have a virtual ecology! However, if one group were to gain the upper hand, that would probably be bad. I feel a story coming on...
December 7, 2001
Don't bother disagreeing with my government plan. It was probably a hallucination brought on by a lack of sleep. Also, Michael brought up a good point. People are not made happy by order. So i'm going to sit in my little corner and decide on what makes people happy. Later. Because if I write it now, it'll be just another hallucination, brought on by a lack of sleep.
December 1, 2001
I seem to have an excess of free time on my hands. I'm babysitting my sisters, but they're watching TV, leaving me with the computer. So, on to...stuff. Let's see, how about government. No, it's not more Bush-bashing. Let's see If I can construct an ideal government[or at least better than what we've got].
THE RANT ON GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT, THANKS TO AN ANGRY MOB OF 2. BLAME SCOTT IF YOU WANTED TO READ IT.
Now, there are guaranteed to be arguments over this, but it seems okay as far as i'm concerned. If you have a problem with this idea, send it to [email protected]. That's all for today. However, i've got plenty of time left, so it looks like i'll have to say something else. Let's see...chaos. That sounds like fun.Chaos is, in general, a lack of order. According to stuff like entropy, all systems gradually become chaotic. Sadly, we like order. Order makes us happy. Most of us, anyway. This is irritating, isnt it? Nobody can ever be happy forever. We need to learn to like randomness and disorder. Then everybody will get happier as time goes on. But wait! The mind is fundamentally ordered. We would be happy, even as we collapsed. A side thought on chaos: I've heard that gravitational potentials are counted as order. In that case, a black hole is the maximum possible disorder. However, black holes give off energy. This seems like it would decrease entropy if this were true. Therefore, black holes shouldn't be the maximum entropy. At the other end of the spectrum, we have a uniform and infinite cloud of hydrogen gas. There isn't an infinite amount of hydrogen to work with, so that can't be right. But without an infinite amount, it would collapse under it's own gravity. Unfortunately, the latest theories have a universe expanding for an infinite amount of time, so none of this really matters. This scenario also has energy being lost, and we won't get it back short of FTL travel. Take that, thermodynamics!
Aargh. This has drifted off into the realm of physics. So, to recap, we're doomed by entropy AND an expanding universe. A silly side trip into logic: If we're doomed twice, and we know we're doomed, our doom can't be a negative thing, since two negatives would cancel out. But there may be more ways we're doomed. Therefore, there's a 50/50 chance that our demise is a good thing. If there is a God, he/she/it is rolling on the floor, laughing at his/her/it's creations trying to make sense of themselves. That would make an interesting religion, the idea that Ghod is constantly laughing at our exploits. Well, if Ghod created us for laughs, humor must be perfect, since god is generally defined as a perfect being. He/she/it must have a terrific sense of humor. It's 11:10, and I need my sleep.
November 22, 2001
Today's rant is on stupidity. Of course, you wouldn't be on this site if you were stupid. If you disagree, fill out the form at the bottom of the page. Anyway, the first topic is tests. Keep in mind, test have been made easier to make kids smarter. Isn't this the stupidest thing you've ever heard? The story behind it probably involves controlled substances. It's well known that people will study just enough to not pass, regardless of what the criteria are. Anyway, what I was saying: We don't have quotas for intelligence. And thank Ghod for that. I'd hate to see where that would get us. This reminds me of a side topic: Someday we will have a lawsuit accusing colleges of discriminating on basis of intelligence. Another related topic: "All men are created equal." Yes, but they don't stay that way. All people are not equal, and we need to accept that and get on with our lives. And not only in terms of money. Intelligence and talent too. In fact, just about any quality of a person is unequal among the population. Some people are just better at some things than others. And don't tell me that it balances out in the end, where people lacking in one quality are just full of a different one. Anybody with three working brain cells can see that that's not true. Qualities of a person are independent of each other. Anybody who believes otherwise is an optimist, and should be shot. [But not all optimists should be shot, merely people who can't see anything wrong with the world.]
November 21, 2001
Well, Kirsten answered the questions, at her website. Read it here. So, i'll go on to a totally different subject: Questions. Specifically, the lack thereof. There are too many things that simply go by without question, many of which don't apply anymore. Several are even slowing us down. I'm going to offend a lot of people now by citing religion. If you read Kirsten's page like I told you, you would have read an argument that religion is contradictory nonsense. I'll go further, and say that religion is the anti-progress. Many religions have inane rules which would've been fine several thousand years ago, but are now useless. We need a religion based in philosophy, without a view of how the universe works, including a lack of a God. No doubt there's one already out there. If not, we might as well start one. A religion of less than ten people, probably. I am now taking suggestions for names for the new religion. Send your suggestions to [email protected].
November 19, 2001
I have two questions I will try to work with in the next few days. What is the purpose[NOT meaning] of life? and, What is the purpose of religion? I'm especially interested in the second one, as religion seems to be universal in any sufficiently large group. Sadly, I have to finish my science fair project now.
November 17, 2001
Today will pretty much be a continuation from yesterday. I need to clarify what I said about nonconformity: A lot of "nonconformists" simply go against the norm. That is defined by the norm, and therefore is not nonconformism. A true nonconformist would do whatever they want regardless of social pressure, rather than against social pressure. That's all I have to say for now.
The older rants have been moved to a different page. Read them here.
This has been another round of ranting and raving. If you disagree with the views stated, simply respond in the box below, then submit. I will then laugh at your ignorance.
