I'm no physicist and won't pretend I understand the theory, but I did talk about this over dinner with a school friend who is currently getting her doctor's degree in astrophyiscs. She basically said that 90% of the top scientists in this generation are so deeply buried in string theory that even when they find reason to doubt, they can hardly come up with any alternatives.
That's kind of the thing. It's something that is completely theoretical, so there's no way to prove string theory, and outside of the math end of it, no way to really conceptualize it because it deals with 10 or 11 dimensions. There really is no way to test it, which is something even the current rock star of the physics world and the biggest name in string theory, Brian Greene, freely admits to. But, there's also no theory that fits the model better. In the absense of being able to actually disprove string theory, and without an alternative theory that answers the question, we're kind of stuck with string theory right now.
I don't fear death - I don't believe in any sort of afterlife, so there's nothing to fear. I'm not even sure I fear dying any more - having seen the way the hospice handled things when my grandmother was dying, I know there doesn't have to be pain or suffering. But I'm not in any hurry to experience it. I want to read the Guinness Book of Records where my name replace Jeanne Calment's.
That on Judgement Day we will all be resurrected and judged for our actions on Earth whilst we were alive.
Why? We can't control the weather. No indignity in getting smacked by a tree thrown by a twister. Is it that it's your own body rebelling against you? Even at our healthiest, there are bodily functions we don't directly control. Is it just the matter of degree? I'm not seeing it.
I'd like to believe: First Principle/'One'/Absolute . . . individual consciousness is a part of this . . . consciousness grows through stages of life and death, becoming more material and embodied . . . full development occurs . . . Consciousness returns to One.
Pretty much answered your own question. We've never been able to control the weather so there is no indignity in getting smacked by a tree thrown by a twister, much like we've never been able to control every bodily function. Indignity comes from losing the abilities we all once had, what most people still have. It's about slowing losing the physical components necessary to being oneself, watching the ties to your identity and reality slowly loosening. Nobody embraces losing the ability to speak, comprehend or remember. Same goes for losing the ability to clean, feed or clothe oneself. That's the long, drawn-out suffering and loss of all dignity I suspect Packard was taking about.
I chose the word 'believer' carefully. Because honestly, it's pretty much the same as believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible - there is about the same amount of hard, physical proof and unfortunately I cannot understand the mathematics involved. But the whole model just makes sense to me in a way Storm is irrelevant when it comes to scientific discussion. He's driven purely by his own ideology which bends science to whatever he has believed all along. See his stance on global warming for example. 'Real scientists', as he brags up there, say that it's man-made by an overwhelming majority. Still it's against his little testosterone driven ideology that billions and billions of tons of pollutants could have any effect and thus he believes the bribed minority. I mean, what more does one have to know to assess his credibility? He's just trolling and hiding his complete ignorance of scientific matters behind his usual pomposity. Throw a poster like me into the mix and you could probably bring him to 'prove' that the sky is pink with green stripes. His 'proving' how organic foods are less healthy than those with pesticides on them was priceless too
Well, I guess that's where I disagree with most people. I don't see my identity as connected to those things. For me, mind is all. A handicap would be another limitation to mentally compensate for, like gravity, being confined to a body with a contained outline instead of being an omnipresent vapor, not having telepathy, having only 4 limbs, seeing only in the visible spectrum, etc, etc. Most accept these limits with no thought to it. I don't. I think of everything. The unexamined life is not worth living. Well, that's merely ego trying to tie itself to an idealized static time-slice as an ideal form. Or in plain english, we see ourselves growing up into this perfectly healthy, athletic 20 year old, and we should stay that way. Why? When everyone starts a baby, and ends feeble. It would seem given this knowledge, we should embrace all the stages of our life cycle as one process, one being. To connect your identity to one time-slice of that being is to miss the point. Were you robbed of dignity when you shat in diapers as a baby? So why, when you're elderly and incontinent? You're elderly and incontinent. That's what you are. To rail against that is like trying to box against the ocean waves. Seems silly to me. Having it fleshed out in detail makes it seem no less silly to me.
Okay D, rather than arguing or making a cheap joke about you not having a physical connection to the world, I'll just say congrats on your transfiguration. Again there is a difference between not having every ability you can imagine and losing the abilities you've always had. Hey I'm not saying it'd be impossible to become an omnipresent vapor. Pfft what did Socrates know anyway? Not talking about being forever young. No, not everyone ends feeble. Not seeing the connection between understanding and embracing every stage of our life cycle. Babies never have had control of their bodily functions, I'm guessing most adults have. I understand what you're saying but can't you understand why somebody might be bummed to lose the ability to take a dump on their own? Believe me, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just offering a different point of view.
I don't fear death. I fear dying. There is no evidence of anything after death, of course, and these "theories" are bullshit.
"I fear death, but there are things I fear worse than death, therefore, there are times when I will not avoid danger."
Yeah. Not necessarily static -- see Clyde's post -- but idealized, of course. You make a great argument to show that dignity is foolish, but not that this ideal we've outlined isn't dignity.
String theory is sort of like science for people who think "People" magazine is an important chronicle of world events.
That's not the case I'm making. I'm saying that seperate from things we can't control, that dignity is an act of will. It's all in how you face things. That IS the case I'm making. The ideal you've outlined by definition is the choice you've made.
Exactly. Because how we face things we can't control is the one thing we CAN control about such a situation, and a situation in which we have very little control throws that remnant of control into strak contrast.
And I'm saying that remnant of control is an illusion in the first place given all the limitations already placed on us, and given the forces already buzzing around out to kill us.
I don't fear death per se. I have a sense that there's something on the other side; not sure what it is, but my impression is that it's benign, not the Catholic fire and brimstone I grew up on. And some of my favorite people are there, so it'll be fun hanging out with them again. What concerns me is any kind of long, slow downspiral into death, either mental or physical. I've seen too many people go through years of living death. Though after reading this thread, I definitely fear string theory.
That it's a small remnant of self-control doesn't make it an illusion. Otherwise, why would you call using it an act of will?
