statements like this are borderline offensive, big natural gifted athlete didn't have to work hard to be one of the greatest at his sport. shaq may not be hakeem on the defensive end, but he brought it in his prime now I feel dirty because you made me defend him sorry, this thread is interesting and I really don't mean to derail
I have submitted several grant proposals that mean to study this by killing a few dozen graduate students slowly, with proper monitoring devices. But my grants never get funded. What does the government have against studying the afterlife? ... What are they trying to hide!?
Perhaps it's time to carry out these experiments on your own -- beyond the prying eyes of the dean. Start with a newsletter.
Maybe I misread your first post. I thought you were saying that life was not absurd and therefore existed independently of the absurd universe. Now I'm confused; how is the absurdity of both life and the universe evidence for "life [...] beyond death"?
Life gives the ability to observe the universe, and in some cases, it gives the ability to create things the universe did not "imagine" yet.
What is special about observing? Does a positively charged ion not observe a negatively charged one and then move towards it? Life is a novel organization of elements in the universe, but it is not unique in that respect. Stars have created whole new elements. The universe is full of phenomena that result in the "creation" of new things.
A positively charged ion could spin in both directions until a pair of eyes determines where it goes. So what if the universe is full of phenomena? Who would be there to enjoy it? Isn't it amazing that a scientist from some far off planet can discover the exact some scientific laws as we can? What would their ears think of our Mozart? While alien, they could still come across the same conclusions in a universal language of science. We can lead a very charmed existence. We live and die. So do other phenomena. Doesn't make it any less special or any less unique. Realizing that we are unique is the difference.
Life is one of those phenomena we find in the universe. Why does it have to be anything more than that? It's beautiful and fascinating for what it is, just like a star or a black hole. Life is part of the universe, not something separate from it.
I don't disagree with that. I thought we're discussing why life is special. I find the ability of the living to tie a star and a drop of water together to be a special trait.
Well, than I wonder why the article went so far as to state that his arguments are based on "unshakable scientific grounds" when nothing of the sort is presented. Ostensibly, the reviewer is not intentionally distorting the author's aim, in which case the author is just being totally dishonest with his intended audience.
didn't say he wasn't one of the best of all time. Just that he wasn't a very hard worker. I live in LA. Every summer was drama about how out of shape he would when camp started. to infer that he's better than Yao because of will and dedication is unrealistic. sorry for derail.
Forget the universe or life...existence itself is absurd. Think about that...why doesn't anything exist? If you believe in god, why does god exist or what's the purpose of god? There's no answer that doesn't sound absurd. And what's even more interesting, the more we learn about our universe, the more absurd it gets. For example, things are really moving apart - that space itself is actually expanding. That time didn't exist at some point in the past. That if you walked into infinity in one direction, you'd just end up at the same place. Dark matter, dark energy....every question we answer only leaves more questions, and leaves the main question completely unanswered. But when you think about it, no explanation you could conjour would explain anything we see as reality. You can always ask more questions...more "why's" it's never-ending. Existence is absurd. Whatever created our reality...you merely go up another level...what created that? How did that come into being - back to square one. Perhaps it's simply beyond human comprehension...or life comprehension. But life after death...if you think about it...isn't any more absurd than any of the other stuff we have observed. Why not I say. If we can believe all the stuff we have discovered, black holes, the wonders and beauty of it all, why not accept life after death as not plausible? What is that life after death? Maybe it's not conscious independence or anything like that. Who the heck knows. I don't. I don't think any living being on this planet does. Only thing I can tell you, I am not curious to find out anytime soon.
I don't think DNA is the commonality to all life as there are viruses that use RNA. Also there is still a debate about whether prions, self-replicating proteins are life. I think the one commonality is that all life, as far as we know it. Is carbon based.
Absurdity is a subjective term. Life the Universe and everything in it is just as meaningful as it is absurd.
I meant special as in exceptional, something that is not wholly governed by the physical laws of the universe.
I would chalk that up as more hyperbole to move books and for that matter the reviewer to get readership. That said what do you think about the arguments presented by D'Souza?
"Life" is a provisional term we assign to a certain set of our observations that fit certain criteria: self replicating, uses metabolism, responds to stimuli, etc. So talking about "life after death" is to use a different sense of the term "life". Now, as you suggest, we are moving into the realm of absurdity, unless you can identify some essential aspect of life that does not require those criteria; some would call it a "life force" or a "soul". Is there any evidence those things exist?
Things are meaningful only in context. The universe, by definition, cannot be in context and therefore can have no meaning.
