Foundation of scientific and technical thought

Given that were only interested in our own immortality I would say controlling
entopy to our advantage would be all that's required,Genetic modification does that by changing the codes to stop decay,that may be possible sometime in the future if not already possible. It may be just the practicality of it thats holding us back.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Universe seems to be an ordered system not prone to disorder and there is no proof that it is heading for it's own destruction

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Heh, you can tap dance around it all you like and control can still exist with uncertainty.

Do you mean there are no boundaries in reality? No asymptotes? No impossibilities?

One was a statement of being satisfied. The other was a statement of possibility. Are you inventing poles again?

I understand its necessity and see it as quite natural.

Remember that when you get your next tetinus shot.

I'll make sure to get the postcard out before that moment.

For the snake.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"death" and "disease" are not a fundamental physical laws. Entropy is. They are a result of entropy. And as long as there is an external energy source and we use it cleverly enough, there's no reason that death and disease can't be eradicated within the thermodynamic system called a "Human Being".

Of course it dosen't! I said that within the laws of the cosmos, one can theoretically maneuver them to ones hearts content. But you can't (as far as we know) change the law it self. Thus you are always limited in scope to what the laws will ultimately allow.

This brings up an interesting idea. Could it one day be possible to actually affect the fundamental laws of physics themselves, thereby opening up an entirely new realm of the possible?

Hmmm...

 

hence the humble suggestion that on a cosmic level, there are some things which constitutionally always remain impractical for the living entity

 

Crunchy cat

hence control can exist with limitations

I mean there is no force that can prevent reality from manifesting - whether its such smooth sailing in our understanding of that is a different issue

if you are satisfied, why consider a different possibility?

so if you had to suffer entropy somewhat prematurely (due to reasons that were necessary and quite natural) that would be perfectly fine with you?

remember that when you break two ribs after sneezing violently on your 89th birthday in an old persons home

given that your control is limited by uncertainty, thats a hollow promise

the snake may be momentarily angered when it bites you, but apart from that he's a happy chappy

 

Supe

:bravo:

if a person thinks all pigs can fly and all horses are pigs, there is also no reason why horses can't fly

if the laws of nature were under our control it wouldn't be a problem - in the meantime our molars rot while we are cajoling about immortality in the material world

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hmmm...

 

Don't take this the wrong way my friend, but you really are an ass. What else can one say?

Did I really post something so fucking stupid that would make anyone equate it to horses and pigs flying?

You must really think I'm an idiot. Well, good night.

 

And you still wont admit you made an false statement... interesting.

I'll buy that for a dollar.

Because it might be true.

You bet.

It might be hard for you to deal with reality.

I'm writing the message now... just in case.

How is he going to be happy locked in a room without food or water?

 

there certainly is a mine of possibilities to say the least ....

that logic is sufficient to postulate about truth?
certainly

And as long as there is an external energy source and we use it cleverly enough, there's no reason that death and disease can't be eradicated within the thermodynamic system called a "Human Being".
similarly, as long as pigs can fly and horses are pigs, there's no reason why horses can't fly

More along the lines of a bad poet actually - namely having a vast reservoir of misplaced confidence ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Crunchy cat

limited control means just that - limited

only for one who is not satisfied that what exists within one's grasp is true

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

atheists and foxholes .....

being comfortable with the notion of suffering is not a trademark of sanity

more hollow promises

if you think it will be dead in 2 weeks, probably not as distressed as you when you open the door

 

And any resulting uncertainty means just that... uncertainty... and that brings us back to control with uncertainty.

Its scary to think that if you are satisfied then truth wont move you.

Theists and deathbeds.

You put so much emphasis on suffering rather than living. Its really odd. Maybe its hard for you when envisioning a life form that make people suffer for eternity... now that's insane.

Settle down there beavis.

Get a snake of equal size and lock it up for two weeks without food and water. If it survives I'll give you $1000. I'll even front the cash to purchase the snake and optionally a container.

 

Crunchy cat

which brings us back to the issue that rationalism and empiricism have contingent aspects of uncertainty because they are limited (ie subjective)

Its strange to think how one could be satisfied with something they were aware is not true

erm - a foxhole is a deathbed of sorts

its odd that you can talk of suffering as if it was a mere "option" of material life

since I generally advocate the possibility of getting out of material existence, its not clear how it is I that is all form an eternal life of suffering and not you

there are very good reasons why autobiographies written by a person in their twenties or thirties are considered somewhat shallow if they go on to live to be sixty or seventy

provided that the snake didn't enter your room on the verge of starvation and your room wasn't a solarium chamber, you would have just lost $1000

needless to say, you seem to be illustrating the original issue (the follies of less intelligent solutions to problems) quite nicely