"Insist on yourself; never imitate. ... Shakespeare will never be made by the study of Shakespeare" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
LOL. Longshot. It's Saturday. Go out on campus, find a pretty girl, talk to her. I used to go to a bookstore on Berkeley campus, arrrg, I forget the name, probably still there. Near there is a coffee shop with lots of conversations going on. You could buy "Either/Or" and then go to the coffee shop and read it. Who knows maybe some pretty girl will strike a conversation about Kierkegaard with you. You could tell her that you are reading Either/Or, but that your favorite Kierkegaard writings are the ones on women. The rest is up to you.
I just realized this is incorrect. I did not take into account the virtual "cloud" that surround all "real" constituents of matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle I don't really know how many there are or how, if they are long lived enough, aid in computation, but it is very conceivable that the number is enormous, and perhaps this virtual cloud can be tapped into and made into a virtual computational cloud. So a proton may have access to 100 trillion quantum computational-cores for a fleeting amount of time for all I know. [I don't really understand virtual particles. It seems as if they are concoction to plug gaps in our understanding. For example, it is hard for me to distinguish between a virtual particle and the underlying quantum field that governs the physics that real particles obey. It could be that the entire universe is nothing more than the a virtual particle event that created virtual matter anti-matter pairs, and the "real" particles that are left over are statistical manifestations that for every 1000 anti-matter particles created at creation, 1001 matter particles were created. The matter/anti-matter asymmetry is another mystery]
I should have been more careful when I wrote this. The current thinking is that the laws of physics are nothing more than what is forced upon physicists when you make the models "point of view invariant" http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/Laws.pdf So in essence, this says that all of physics is essentially dimensional analysis and conversion factors, a very powerful view that gives me pause in the "ordered universe argument for a creationist GOD" argument.
i've been thinking you can't measure an omnipotent being. the very definition precludes scientific investigation doesn't it
No, measuring an omnipotent God is not possible using limited instrumentation. What about that equation doesn't make sense?