impermanence is guaranteed until entropy is reached

That's why so many get gravestones. They figure, the bigger the mother is the better.

Reminds me of the ancient Egyptians and the pyramids.

My "problem" with entropy is who defines it ? That which defines it also defines "efforts" and "purpose", so your argument may simply amount to the tautology "no players, no game".

Entropy does not "need" subjectivity in order for the heat death of the universe to be inevitable.

I think all concepts , including the concept of "inevitability", requires it. (But I've argued that case before. You either see it, or you don't !)

I see it in the sense that you can't easily prove a negative...by that I mean I cannot prove with certainty that if I did not exist things would still exist.

Forget "proof". Think about this...

Since you seem to have considered that contemplating mortality in terms of "taking stock of self" is a rather futile exercise, that might give you an angle on the direction my comments are coming from...i.e. the attempt to transcend "self" and its conceptualizations.

Fresco, don't hurt the kid, he's messed-up enough already. You might as well attempt to teach your dog ancient Greek than provide the Chumster with an understanding of your perspective.

Or as Wittgenstein put it....."trying to lead the fly out of the bottle".

I know what you're talking about, Chumly. I can relate to what you're saying.

And I'm am not into existential physics, or anything nearly as complicated as that!

Yeah it's a frustration for me that everything turns to dust (or even less) given time.

Can you provide some examples that take your perspective into the realm of demonstrability (intended as humor)?

Can you provide some examples that take your perspective into the realm of demonstrability? Same question as posed to kuvasz but in his case it was intended as humor, in your case I guess it can be taken as you see fit.

The perspective I suggest is relative to your own contemplation of mortality. The mental"device" is to kill off "self" now by recognizing, as you are already doing, the illusion of its aspirations. From this should follow doubt of its independent existence. By this I imply a buddhist line that "self" is (merely) a function of its "attachments".

Now if you can take that on board as a working hypothesis, the next move bearing in mind your training in physics might be to switch the modus of "existence" from "things" to "fields" in tune with the paradigm shift which took place in the 20th. century. (There is an excellent "history of science" set of podcasts from Berkeley on this topic if you are interested.). Thus "selves" like "electrons" etc have no existence per se... they are nodes in a semantic/communicative field.

The plus point in this analysis is that "mortality" becomes psychologically sidelined. But this "transcendence" comes at the price of rejecting the naive realism in which that illusory self has a vested interest. In short, the way out of Wittgenstein's "bottle" lies in deconstructing the "self" which cannot pass through a barrier of its own making.

You seem to be suggesting I can use the wave-mechanical model to disassociate from the convention of self.

I am suggesting that you can use the intellectual cohesion which underpins the rationality of QED, but to understand it you need to ease yourself through the twists and turns of its historical development.

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978529

"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Fresco !"

I have understanding of the Rutherford model, the Wave-Mechanical Model, Bohr, Feynman etc. I've see tons of videos, read lots of books and teach some of the concepts as they relate to electronics, electricity, magnetism and light.

(Rather than QED (quantum electro dynamics) I should have used QFT (quantum field theory) which has been applied both microscopically and macroscopically.)

You have missed my point about following the historical development of various models, rather than looking at particular models. That development is itself a potential meta-model for the development of your own thinking about "self" in relationship to "world".

(Listen for example to the penultimate lecture from about 35 mins in. Note how this relates physics to social experience)