DearDiary.2003-02-11
Thanks for the content KooMar. This should give us something to chew on. ---DavidSiegel
David: but then i like to live on the edge surkumdev1: living on the edge? you go dude surkumdev1: David: ive been warning her that i dont celebrate v day David: i think its a toture device invented by women to toture women surkumdev1: yeah David: but then i am somewhat melodramatic and prone to understated hyperbole surkumdev1: oh mard_tehrani joined the room mard_tehrani left the room alabidi77 joined the room alabidi77 left the room surkumdev1: brb surkumdev1 left the room surkumdev1 joined the room surkumdev1: hello guys David: hello surkumdev1: what u doing? David: converting 6/7 or 6-6-02 or 06/2002 into a valid date surkumdev1: oh David: the web developers neglected to validat input for date at the application level David: now i have to do it at import time surkumdev1: oh ok David: they hand me a random string an i have to parse it . . . David: sigh ... . meet the real world of programming surkumdev1: ha, good luck man David: thanks David: lol surkumdev1: wow, u guys log conversations David: he he David: that is pretty scary isnt it? David: sometimes a cool idea has a chance to play around in here and we want to remember it surkumdev1: yeah surkumdev1: i am ok with it David: at first i was like hhmm . . . David: but then it was cool surkumdev1: so, how long have u guys been doing it? David: not sure a couple of weeks i think surkumdev1: oh ok David: days all blur together for me David: not every day gets logged only when something somewhat interesting happens surkumdev1: yeah ok surkumdev1: dave, here's a webpage of mine http://www.xanga.com/mdsuresh David: cool surkumdev1: mostly my own quotes David: i allmost started a web log surkumdev1: yeah surkumdev1: do u weblog on wikiworld? David: but figured i didnt have enouhg time for my current endevours David: yeah some David: now i log it here though David: most of the time it makes it to wikiworld karma''swat''team joined the room karma''swat''team left the room David: be back (lunc) Mr. Subtlety (superfreak247365) joined the room little''miss''brenda joined the room runand_rogue joined the room little''miss''brenda left the room runand_rogue: heloo runand_rogue: good entrance no? brownhairedgirlirl joined the room runand_rogue: hello runand_rogue: abort the mission, brownhairedgirlirl: is this a chat room about the borg runand_rogue left the room brownhairedgirlirl left the room David: I need to write a robot that can be infected with the information physics theory surkumdev1: ha David: then i could put it on in this chat room to converse with new commers when no one else is around David: could one say that the very difinition of intelligence suggests all intelligence is collective intelligence? David: one could say it but would it mean anything to anyone else surkumdev1: ha surkumdev1: the bot? surkumdev1: yeah, u know about alice? David: no surkumdev1: alicebot.org is not working right now surkumdev1: http://www.alicebot.org/ David: bummer . . . what is it? surkumdev1: actually it is David: wont get me in trouble with my internet filters will it? surkumdev1: what do u mean? surkumdev1: u are not allowed to access the web from office? David: <smile> my company blocks certian websites and logs everything surkumdev1: ok splenda6 joined the room splenda6: hey room David: ello surkumdev1: hey what do u guys think of surkumdev1: The first step in failure Is to think that you can outsmart everyone The first step in success is to realize that not because 99% of the populations, think so, feel so, it is true. Besides, 99% of the population is exactly not rich or smart for that reason. So, what am i sayin? That unless you really put ur ideas in motion and experiment, u/they are only outsmarting them/u in vain. splenda6: makes sensew.. in a way surkumdev1: yeah jimscarver: makes 89,7% sence splenda6: or you could say don't be arrogant David: we do tend to think we are smarter than the average person splenda6: we being who? jimscarver: the average person thinks they are smarter than the average person David: i have average smartness in mos areas David: yes splenda6: lol@ jim surkumdev1: i have average IQ David: in some i am less than average jimscarver: that is true, according to a least one study David: iq is a very kludgy tool for mesuring intelligence splenda6: I don't know my IQ... that may say something about my intellegence David: it is biased surkumdev1: i really really have an average Iq jimscarver: IQ only measures a few of the intelligences we know about. David: yes splenda6: true David: how do we messure alien intelligence with wich we have no common cognitive ground? splenda6: we wait til we encounter them and take it from there splenda6: who knows there are aliens? surkumdev1: may be, aliens will give us a better IQ test surkumdev1: David: hmm . . . alien intelligence in any intelligence that is alien to me David: dolphins could have alien intelligence but im not sure because i dont understand them surkumdev1: i heard that dophins can understand grammer David: yeah i head that once surkumdev1: like stuff like clause surkumdev1: phrase and stuff David: maybe they are trying to understand us and succeeding better than we at understanding them David: they may have several layers of language that we may not even be able to phathom David: we are just stuck on grammer surkumdev1: yeah surkumdev1: so, splenda, what bring you here? David: for all we know there may be several classes of intelligence trying to make contact that we cant even consider because we are too narow minded surkumdev1: can be surkumdev1: dogs could be intelligent and could have had their own language splenda6 left the room surkumdev1: do u know that cats only say 'meow' when they try to communicate with humnas David: look you scared her away David: lol surkumdev1: what did i do? David: i belive that . . . another example of cats making a better attempt at communicating with us than us with them David: nothing kumar surkumdev1: in fact, cats do not meow when they are around other cats surkumdev1: dave,i care less of internet people David: do baby kittens? David: i know surkumdev1: i dunno, this is what a friend of mine told me David: that is interesting surkumdev1: cats meow when try to communicate with humans surkumdev1: and with other cats, they use a completely different tone of vocie surkumdev1: it's really funny because for more than 1000 years, we have been thinking the opposite David: could be a function of skinners law but might be an emergant sign of some level of intelligence surkumdev1: could be surkumdev1: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl<code>story2&cid</code>571&ncid<code>571&e</code>11&u/nm/20030210/hl''nm/zoloft''phobia''dc''1 David: i need a drug for shyness surkumdev1: that's just stupid David: lol surkumdev1: i hate physcologoical studies surkumdev1: and stuff David: i concure surkumdev1: u know something. I used to be on paxil for depression surkumdev1: then i heard one study that paxil was a placebo surkumdev1: so, i realized and stopped it completely surkumdev1: after that, i never had any attack of depression David: i think we will look back and think why did we use these stupid brain drugs as if it were a sledgehammer surkumdev1: it was just that sometimes, i was completely in pain. surkumdev1: because i sought the pills, it only made it worse surkumdev1: and increased my reliance on these drugs to get rid of them surkumdev1: when i releazied i can do it myself, it turned out to have a much better result surkumdev1: i do not like this drug culture David: good job . . . . that is no small feat surkumdev1: one of my mom's friend's son, is very active. surkumdev1: now the school wants to put him on readalin surkumdev1: i was active as a kid surkumdev1: hyper, by american definition surkumdev1: ADD may be a real disorder. I just donot think every kid has it. surkumdev1: it's just completely wrong. surkumdev1: u know what i m saying? cozmic_serpent joined the room cozmic_serpent: resistance is futile surkumdev1: u are too hot of a woman? surkumdev1: cozmic... surkumdev1: what up cozmic_serpent: cozmic_serpent: wots this room bout? surkumdev1: we are talking recently about ' http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl<code>story2&cid</code>571&ncid<code>571&e</code>11&u/nm/20030210/hl''nm/zoloft''phobia''dc''1 ' surkumdev1: drugs for shyness cozmic_serpent left the room surkumdev1: hello surkumdev1: people here... surkumdev1: http://www.wikiworld.com/wiki/index.php/Koomar%20Tries%20to%20Do%20QM dsiegel_spkn left the room David (dsiegel_spkn) joined the room David: good stuff jimscarver: awesome David: I need to take more time to read through it when in am not parsing dates jimscarver: Coyote Kitten (1/3/01 7:36:09 pm) Reply Cat language I remember hearing or reading somewhere that cats have about 14 different sounds in their "vocabulary" and that each sound means something. For example, "meow" is a combination of two sounds: "me" and "ow." The "me" part is like a general greeting, and the "ow" part is a kind of warning. Therefore, a loose translation of the word "meow" is "I'll hang around as long as you treat me well," or maybe "I'll be your friend as long as you don't tick me off." I don't remember where I heard/read this. (I promise I'm not making this stuff up.) Has anyone else ever heard of this? jimscarver: http://www.i-love-cats.com/meow/bigsocks/ jimscarver: i thought kittens meow to call their mother David: it would be interesting if cats translate something familer like meowing for momma into communicating with an alien intelligence like us humans to get food or attention David: of course this may be explained away with skinners law David: skinners law has not concept of intelligence its all a black box jimscarver: skinners law tells how we learn, not why that is optimal, learning is one key aspect of intelligence. jimscarver: neural networks obey skinners law, that don't mean they are dumb amimals jimscarver: nice stuff kumar, some of it i will have to add my 2 cents surkumdev1: ok David: the entity in question must be able to make a decision based on past experience in order to follow skinners law no? David: ameoba for example do not follow this law unless you consider the genetic species over time jimscarver: ameoba learn as i understand it, to avoid shocks etc. David: an individual ameoba? David: that is very cool David: that means that evolution came up with some form of realtime memory very early on in development David: one might even say some primitive form of cognition was taking place <use of 'cognition' very loose here> jimscarver: http://unisci.com/stories/20014/1030011.htm um, that's not it, explains amoeba movement David: thanks for the link David: i am becoming more and more intrested in the basics of decision making, mechanical and cognitive jimscarver: Pfiesteria is single-celled dinoflagellate, meaning it uses a tail for mobility. Dinoflagellates are one of the oldest forms of life, and this is one of the strangest, researchers say. It has many guises; about 20 are known. It photosynthesizes like a plant. When threatened, it can turn within seconds from a tiny dinoflagellate into a large amoeba and engulf its predator. While lying dormant in a cyst on the sea floor, it senses the presence of fish and then comes out of its repose to fill the water with poison and kill the fish. It then devours the fish flesh, often leaving deep wounds the size of quarters. jimscarver: stranger than fiction, single cell blobzilla David: very facinating David: physical science is discovering a strange world where the rules of QM and Newtonian physics converge staypaid2002 joined the room David: i wonder if a similar domain exists with cognition David: if complex cognition emerges from 'simple' mechanical decisions David: it would be intresting to take a microscope and look at the place where it emerges staypaid2002 left the room jimscarver: http://custance.org/Library/Volume3/Part_VIII/Chapter2.html The Ubiquity of Mindedness David: Jennings . . . is that the same that was quoted by [[SevenLambs]]? David: this is a fantastic link thanks jim jimscarver: amazing what you find when you don't find what you are looking for. surkumdev1: yeah David: ive thought the same many times goin''with''a_robot joined the room goin''with''a_robot: So what are we trying to solve, a more efficient silence? David: yes David: what is on your mind goin''with''a_robot: Dunno, programmers block, boredom David: hmm. . . David: me too David: this is what has been on our mind http://custance.org/Library/Volume3/Part_VIII/Chapter2.html David: among other things David: how can something have a memory without a brain David: or learn goin''with''a_robot: I do not believe that is possible David: this suggests that our memories are not in our brain David: well it apears to be the case in many single cell organisms David: it kinda defies the concept of mind does it not? surkumdev1: Dave, u are fogetting something. The DNA (a blueprint of the creature) which has billions of bits of information resides in the neclues of the cell David: yes that would be a memory of the species as a whole surkumdev1: yes David: not the learning of an individual cell surkumdev1: so, it is definitely possible that the cell stores in inside on the molecules inside it goin''with''a_robot: I dunno, I tend to take a more traditional approach to cognitive science; we don't really know enough about the brain to suggest something besides chemistry David: unless the cell can modify its DNA directly without reproduction surkumdev1: well, they do not have to modify the DAN surkumdev1: you still have RNA David: ok surkumdev1: ribosomes, etc surkumdev1: which the cells can definitely modify David: RNA actually carries out the process of creating the mechanical operations of the cell right? surkumdev1: yes, i think surkumdev1: but i dunno surkumdev1: i am no biologist David: me either only took bio101 and forgot most of it over 5 years ago David: might need to brush up though David: some form of decision making and learning seems to be taking place with single cell animals surkumdev1: a single cell has can do multitude of things surkumdev1: the cell is microns in length surkumdev1: but atoms are about amstrongs in length surkumdev1: compute the average volume of the cell and how many hydrocarbons one can fit in there David: so there may be sufficient complexity in a cell to contain some sort of decision making information system? surkumdev1: yes jimscarver: dna is long term storage jimscarver: rna us immediately usable to make arbatrary protiens David: given enough complexity some form of basic AI may emerge surkumdev1: may be jimscarver: ceel have more information processing capability than a super computer jimscarver: cells surkumdev1: biological machines are exteremely efficient surkumdev1: dna with 2 billion strands packed into 1 micron x 1micron x 1 micron surkumdev1: i dunno about the dimensions David: Drexler envisions the day when we can improve on the cellular information system with nano rod computers David: see [[EnginesOfCreation]] surkumdev1: yeah David: but i am not sure if we can David: the bilogical cell may be the theoretically most efficient system possible once we understand the mechanics of it surkumdev1: the funny about biological systems are that they are still suboptimal surkumdev1: even after billion years of perfection, they are all imperfect David: that seems to be a difficult asserstion to support when so little about the information system of the cell is understood David: sure they are by definition limited to in vitro environments surkumdev1: well, what seems to be difficult assertsion? that cells are suboptimal? David: yeah surkumdev1: well, they are because they use things like reproduction to create new ones surkumdev1: and species, even humans around us are imperfect David: what is suboptimal about that . . . optimal of course is a subjective bench mark . . optimal for what purpose strawberrigirl73 (strawberrigirl73) joined the room cakyguy66 joined the room David: hmm . . . surkumdev1: i agree that it is dificult to define optimal strawberrigirl73: hello im here strawberrigirl73: cakyguy66 here? David: cells don't seem to be able to multiply numbers very well David: yello cakyguy66: yes im here wrong room thop David: awww surkumdev1: however, because of techniques used by evolution, they are still suboptimal strawberrigirl73: lol strawberrigirl73: u can add me to ur friend's list David: hang out and give us some clues into the nature of cognition surkumdev1: hey girl surkumdev1: david, computer scientist use GA type algorithms to solve NP-complete problems all the time strawberrigirl73: who are you talking to surkumdev David: no u surkumdev1: even primitive GAs are good at finding suboptimal solutions David: hmm. . . sometimes punctuation even in chat can be usefull <thinking to self> cakyguy66 left the room David: bye David: hope you stop by again soon strawberrigirl73 left the room surkumdev1: so, Dave, u know what i am getting at? surkumdev1: they are optimal, as they are David: hmm surkumdev1: but nature is always interested in greedy optimization David: not sure what a GA is surkumdev1: Genetic Algorithms David: ok surkumdev1: basically, suppose you want to make an aircraft that flys surkumdev1: you have the parts like wings, screws, wheels, motor, etc surkumdev1: now, make a random prespriction for a flying aircraft surkumdev1: fly it and see how far it travels surkumdev1: now make many aircrafs with different but random presprictions surkumdev1: and do the same surkumdev1: now, mate the fittest aircraft with another fittest aircraft by randomly combining their prescriptions David: i have a rudimenteray familerarity with genetic algorithms . . . just didn't make the connection to the Acronym GA surkumdev1: oh ok surkumdev1: but the thing is that Aircraft will start flying over time David: thanks for the refresher though surkumdev1: flying, in the sense,it would fly a certain distance and fall into the ground David: why does the human cognitive process beat GA's for finding solutions jimscarver: they mix random and directed approaches surkumdev1: humans are still optimal solvers for many problems David: or do engineering teams actually use GA to when they design surkumdev1: well, GAs, in their current state are not the most optimal algorithms David: maybe the are deep GA built into human cognitive processes surkumdev1: humans are not good at number crunching. Although they are good at optimizing things with many many variables surkumdev1: for example, Intel still uses human designers to do chip layout surkumdev1: and to do chip design David: we can intuatively discover that componants with less drag are better for the air plane surkumdev1: yes David: how does a Machine GA accomplish that . . . trial and error . . . but we get to that conclusion from the very begining jimscarver: GA approach optimal much faster than brute forse surkumdev1: yes surkumdev1: but they get stuck surkumdev1: just like neural networks surkumdev1: on local minimas / maximas jimscarver: designs do evolve in groups, but usually one guy leads each area. surkumdev1: so, you introduce random perturbations in their genetic structure David: we connect old ideas with new ideas to introduce new elements into the GA process Machine algorithms cant seem to do this very well jimscarver: GA don't get stuck, they can mis a solution, but they will try it eventually. surkumdev1: yes David: human processes seem to prioritize branches of exploration as more or less likely for success David: this is known as the directed approach David: yes? jimscarver: no, the whole reason to use GA is that you aviod getting stuck in local mins and max surkumdev1: yes, but nature doesnt put its faith in a single human though surkumdev1: it's interesting the best scientist most do not come from a family of best scientist goin''with''a_robot: nature in this discussion seems to be the opposite of entropy, no? surkumdev1: or the best musicians do not always come from the family of musicians David: entropy . . . now that is an intresting domain surkumdev1: entropy always increases jimscarver: synergy is opposite of entropy surkumdev1: because many species die whereas only a few survive David: assertions everwhere assertions surkumdev1: assertions??? goin''with''a_robot: how about 'a formula for synergy'? surkumdev1: entropy is a probabilitistic concept goin''with''a_robot: or am I lost? David: yes but welcome to the lost boys club surkumdev1: you are right that entropy does not always have to increase David: we are all lost if we could only admit it surkumdev1: but mostly it does goin''with''a_robot: I'm just seeing nature being described as a formula here, but, you know, a formula for what? David: nature applys skills to convert energy and mass into complexity David: it seems the very nature of the so called laws of physics will create complex systems over time Vanity High (unwilling_temptations) joined the room Vanity High: hello David: yello goin''with''a_robot: hi David: complex systems begat complex systems Vanity High: ? surkumdev1: dave, it's interesting David: which will continue to create more complex systems untill every partical of the univers is part of one unified complex system Vanity High: or is it already? David: exactly goin''with''a_robot: but astonomers say that the universe is actually spreading out, not in David: vanity read my mind or do we share the same mind? surkumdev1: it would interesting if our galaxy was one gaint cell David: yeah but what do astronamers know . . <tounge in cheek> punkin_15424 joined the room punkin_15424: http://www.imagine2020.com/2450298 v Vanity High: well really wouldnt say cell but somen u could compare it to goin''with''a_robot: don't get me started, the indeffinate recursion theory is something I think about constantly punkin_15424: http://www.imagine2020.com/2450298 surkumdev1: what is it punkin David: elaborate on theory robot Vanity High: i hate theorys David: just another system of thought completing for your brain waves vanity punkin_15424 left the room goin''with''a_robot: well you know what recursion is, if we're all one cell... surkumdev1: well, actually Ed Fredkin wrote about it a little David: ok i think i get what you hinting at . . . like fractal recursion . . . the smallest part has many smaller parts that look just like the biger part goin''with''a_robot: you know, open ended go nowhere question with no answer, but I can't stop thinking about it goin''with''a_robot: exactley surkumdev1: where robot, there could be a suitbale point over which us creatures may not be to able to know anything David: elaborate on that kum surkumdev1: like think of the characters in the Quake world David: ok Vanity High: whats that? surkumdev1: the game quake Vanity High: oh goin''with''a_robot: I always wondered how space can exist, considering how every known object, including the universe itself exists inside something else Vanity High: nvr played David: electron exlusion events Vanity High: no use wondering about it if u cant ever know surkumdev1: well, they will never able to know they are running on top of the computer surkumdev1: and even if they find out, they may not know how it works goin''with''a_robot: well...I have a hard time sleeping whit this crap running through my head David: hmm . . . that is of course only if the charachter can know anything at all surkumdev1: u know what i am getting at surkumdev1: ? goin''with''a_robot: totally David: robot take a quick perusal through www.wikiworld.com Vanity High: maybe u should get a ps2 David: put in the things that keep you up at night surkumdev1: yes, think of a baby who is born and raised in a Virtual relality goin''with''a_robot: I've been looking through it as you two were discussing memory thing surkumdev1: something like the matrix David: like a bio baby that is fed vitural information or like an algorithm with the exact same complexities as a baby? surkumdev1: yes David: which one? surkumdev1: bio baby that is fed virtual information David: ok surkumdev1: well, may be, it will realize that Quake world is made od pixels David: ok surkumdev1: but it may not be able to know how the graphics card that makes the world works surkumdev1: can u understand where i am going with this...? David: if the input was of suficient resolution the baby would not know David: ok goin''with''a_robot: yea, like we can't learn beyond a point Vanity High: this is what i do when i outgrow the athiest room.... David: lol David: ok Vanity High: / unwilling_temptations left the room David: the very fact that we are emerssed in this bianary universe means that we have no access to certian governing dynamics of the universe surkumdev1: yes, something Ed Fredkin calls the other world David: either conceptually or experimentally surkumdev1: whose implementation or purpose we will not be able to know David: you might be on to something David: but then it seems to me there are a multitude of possible ways of knowing that we have yet to explore goin''with''a_robot: j'ever notice every field of science leads to these questions? David: yes David: i have acttually David: it seems the more we learn the more we hit the same walls surkumdev1: it seems funny that even humans are not born knowing their human body works surkumdev1: like they are not boring know what their bodies are composed of David: does the cytoplast? surkumdev1: boring know born knowing* David: did i get that right? surkumdev1: cytoplast? goin''with''a_robot: more of an instinct to stay alive, possibly on the level of your cells surkumdev1: oh </verbatim> ----- <pre> outradulous (1:41:02 PM): why is everyone smarter than me so dumb? outradulous (1:41:28 PM): because they didn't have my parents outradulous (1:41:37 PM): or my siblings outradulous (1:41:51 PM): too bad you guys wasted all that good sense on me [[JimScarver]] (1:52:54 PM): http://www.wikiworld.com/wiki/index.php/DearDiary.2003-02-08 outradulous (2:33:41 PM): from an interview in newscientist: outradulous (2:33:43 PM): I don't think there's any future for journals. They're just a waste of time. I haven't read a journal in years. The future is the Web: the Web archive doesn't filter out the good stuff, and the bad stuff is there just as much as it is in the journals. I think in the future people will just publish in the Web archives. outradulous (2:33:53 PM): http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?idns23811 outradulous (2:36:11 PM): http://theory.ic.ac.uk/~magueijo/ outradulous (4:38:44 PM): http://unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list<code>sub&sub</code>30 be there or get nuked outradulous signed off at 5:09:10 PM. outradulous signed off at 12:19:42 PM. outradulous signed on at 1:06:00 PM. outradulous (4:30:44 PM): http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/map''discovery''030211.html outradulous (4:32:46 PM): it all makes you sound very smart outradulous signed off at 5:19:16 PM. [[JimScarver]] (10:13:38 AM): http://www.quantumfields.com/ZPV.htm his calculations dont jive with mine, guess i am wrong. outradulous (10:13:49 AM): it's ok outradulous (10:14:05 AM): you've just misjudged the amount of zpe that matter absorbs outradulous (10:14:14 AM): you'll get it outradulous (10:14:23 AM): the universe isn't expanding THAT fast outradulous (10:14:40 AM): zpe must be absorbed only slightly slower than it propagates, no? [[JimScarver]] (10:57:33 AM): same rate but most is lost forever to future [[JimScarver]] (10:58:35 AM): i added abunch of related work references http://www.wikiworld.com/wiki/index.php/ZPE [[JimScarver]] (10:59:18 AM): when we get it right, and complete, Science will succumb.:-) outradulous (10:59:22 AM): yeah [[JimScarver]] (11:02:21 AM): i am thinking that the discrete nature of ZPE waves may give it an actual energy closer to the amount of supposed dark matter. outradulous (11:02:45 AM): zpe is a range of frequencies right? [[JimScarver]] (11:02:47 AM): i don't think it could be wrong.... we shall see. outradulous (11:03:10 AM): basically everything we can't detect outradulous (11:03:20 AM): all the photons we are having a hard time counting [[JimScarver]] (11:11:47 AM): it is hard to measure.... I assume energy density doubles in background radiation as the wavelength doubles. This is the case through microwave and then it goes back down to zero for waves bigger than the universe. We just dont see the background lower than microwave as it cancels, it is too uniform. outradulous (11:13:46 AM): can we affect fluctuations? outradulous (11:13:53 AM): i guess outradulous (11:13:54 AM): we do outradulous (11:13:57 AM): gravity outradulous (11:14:04 AM): gravity is the evidence [[JimScarver]] (11:14:53 AM): you can listen to it's noise on an unused am radio station. outradulous (11:15:15 AM): how the hell is a radio receiver picking it up [[JimScarver]] (11:15:42 AM): everthink is a radio receiver, these are elecromagnetic waves [[JimScarver]] (11:15:48 AM): everything outradulous (11:18:24 AM): but a radio receiver is tuned to a certain frequency [[JimScarver]] (11:24:06 AM): so is atom [[JimScarver]] (11:25:42 AM): well can receive a range, 2 atoms can receive double together or independently [[JimScarver]] (11:26:03 AM): so matter can receive A LOT of frequencies. outradulous (11:26:32 AM): yeah [[JimScarver]] (11:27:04 AM): the neucleus receives only very high energy waves very infrequently. [[JimScarver]] (11:27:16 AM): they miss outradulous (11:27:44 AM): how does it get zpe outradulous (11:27:54 AM): just because it is so abundant? [[JimScarver]] (11:29:09 AM): it gets as part of an atom or set of atoms outradulous (11:30:28 AM): so gravity might not increase exactly linearly as mass outradulous (11:30:46 AM): because propensity to receive is altered by the size of the agglomeration [[JimScarver]] (11:31:35 AM): but mass is gravity outradulous (11:31:41 AM): ? outradulous (11:31:48 AM): i thought eating zpe was gravity [[JimScarver]] (11:32:00 AM): equivaent outradulous (11:32:08 AM): k outradulous (11:32:12 AM): i gotcha outradulous (11:32:13 AM): i do [[JimScarver]] (11:34:31 AM): a mass listens to state changes that fit, gravity and inertia, hence mass are the properties that manifests [[JimScarver]] (12:05:06 PM): a gazzion heads and a gazzion tails add to zero. the actual mass of the zpe depends on the noise level, which should be detectable in some frequency regions and extrapolatable. outradulous (12:06:11 PM): that's not a word outradulous (12:06:22 PM): but i gotcha outradulous (12:07:01 PM): lunch outradulous (12:07:05 PM): keep thinking outradulous (12:07:09 PM): do some math