No, that has nothing to do with being human. That is by virtue of being alive. Dog, cat, toe fungus, tape worm. Doesn't matter.
Well, it does matter in the context of our slowing down and perhaps one day reversing the aging process. This is now and will only continue to be a hot topic in bioethics as those who embrace the prospect of extended life battle those who assert that human nature and society (and so the human condition!) will be changed for the worse.
it is far simpler to disregard erroneous facts than to invent lengthy explanations for them. To whoever who commented on physics working this way, it most definitely does not.
You talkin’ to me? I don’t think I actually said that, but I’ll argue against your point anyway.
On the contrary, that is exactly how “normal science” works, which is to say that is how science works
most of the time. In general, a given “reigning” theory gets fleshed out, so to speak, for some period of time until it is “overthrown” by a new, rival theory. It is in the immediate aftermath of such a “scientific revolution” that we tend to speak of “erroneous facts” or falsehoods being exposed and disregarded, “facts” that were nonetheless previously taken to be facts or truths.
Instead I choose to use Occam's Razor, and see the WC Universe for what it is.
You know, that would stand as an excellent paraphrase of Einstein’s view of quantum mechanics (minus the “WC” of course).
There comes a point where the explanation behind a theory becomes more complicated than the theory itself. . . . It is simpler to disregard the movie than to have to invent ways such as the rank reduction method in which this is true.
I apologize for switching around the order of your comments, particularly here in pairing your early and later remarks, but I think I’m still being true to your views. Anyway, my point is to suggest you’ve made a false analogy. You appear to equate the movie with the essence of a theory or a set of erroneous facts. But a true analogy to your arguing we should disregard the movie would be Einstein’s having argued we should disregard the subatomic realm because it’s just too weird or hard to make sense of. Of course Einstein never argued that–his goal was only to find a “better” explanation for that part of the universe than quantum mechanics.
In sum, I think you want to pretend that the movie never happened or doesn’t exist in the WC universe. But that would be to endorse a falsehood, wouldn’t it?
Yeah but what I'm saying is that I just don't see the effort of explanation worthwhile enough - I'd rather see the discrepancy for what it is and treat it as two separate things, not disregarding either but not unifying them. Sort of like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics...
Again, I think you make a bad analogy. First, many physicists are working to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, so I can only conclude you just don’t like string theory as a new explanation of our known universe. (I mean, surely you’re not arguing that if the two established theories can be unified they still shouldn’t be? To ignore such a “deeper truth”, if you will, is again to endorse a falsehood, isn’t it?) Second, and more to the point, how do you define “worthwhile”? I’m sorry, but it sounds to me like the real problem is you’re just not having enough “fun”.