impermanence is guaranteed until entropy is reached

The transcendent duality of being the knower and the known.

Yes the models have changed over time and yes there are always people wanting to superimpose philosophies / theologies on said scientific theories. For example it's popular these days to try and relate eastern mysticism with modern physics.

There is a series called "Life After People" I've been watching on the tube. It's not half bad in terms of pointing out Man's impermanence. It's not based on cosmology/entropy.

Take the Life after People Quiz!
http://www.history.com/content/life_after_people/quiz

That was a fascinating and depressing quiz Chumly.

Thanks for sharing.

The point which elludes you is that "physics" started out as "natural philosophy" and still retains that status by those who understand the pitfalls of assuming the ontology "standard observers". The historical developments of theory illustrate the the continuity of paradigmatic shifts i.e. the fluidity of " observer status". I am suggesting that "self" reflects that fluidity, which like only the water in a river does not encompass a total description of what the whole river "is". Thus your concept of "an objective physical universe" is merely "a concept" based on the myth of a "standard observer". If anything that myth itself borders on "the theological" (if you follow Bishop Berkeley's arguments for a "God")

More than mere frustration, Chumly, all that earnest effort reduced to dust. Just like that! Poof, gone in a flash! I do understand where you're coming from. It makes little sense to me, too.

All you seriously informed people with all the answers, please carry on now!

(Just saying hello, Chumly. )

"Answers" like "dust" are in the eye of the dynamic beholder !

OK then.

I have always been pretty much of an "everything put together inevitably falls apart" school of thinking. That's what we mere mortals have to come to grips with. The inescapable fact of our impermanence. What meaning do we make of our existence given that this is how it goes?

Sorry for the digression from your discussion.

Really, I just wanted to say hello & carry on as bravely as you can, don't lose heart, to Chumly.

I am way out of my depth here. Obviously.

Please carry on from where you all were before I interrupted.

My answer to you is that you are are assuming a particular meaning for the word "existence". Think about the "existence" of a surfer's idealized "water wave" for example. Doesn't its existence (aka reality) depend on both the physicality of the water AND his status/intentions as "a surfer" ? I put it to you that all existence always involves relationship between observer and observed, whether it be of "waves" "particles" or "selves" or any other "thing". Who observes "things together" and "things apart" ?

Well, of course.

(speaking as one who is totally uninformed in the philosophical applications to the "mystery" of why are we here & what meaning exactly are we to make of our temporary existence ...)

Might I say (before you dazzle me with your knowledge ) that there might be many different approaches to reaching a workable (for each individual) understanding.

Me, I form my meanings & understandings through literature, art, much reflection, talking constantly to people who are trying to come to grips with the very same questions ... you approach the same questions through reference to Great Philosophical Minds who have grappled at length with the same questions. And use a special language to communicate their findings.

It strikes me as a great shame that your side of the fence & mine seem incapable of communicating what we have learned. Because, I suspect, we might have much to offer each other, from our very different perspectives. For starters, the language we both use is entirely different.

You write "well of course" but I wonder if you appreciate that this applies to what we call "science". Chumly's consideration of "heat death of the universe" arises from his understanding of "entropy" as an objective phenomenon. In fact the concept of entropy arose from the study of the "efficiency" of machines i.e. human endeavours to control their lives. So he is actually bemoaning "lack of control" which he sees as being caused by entropy. On my side of the fence (as you put it) we analyse instead our very concept of "control" as an epiphenomenon of "being human".

OK. Point taken.

But I still wish we could talk without specialized code.

Good wish, but it may be impossible when we consider the incestuous relationship between "language" and "social relaity".

Sadly, fresco, you might be right there.

What you mean by "social reality" & what I might mean by the same term are probably wildly different concepts!

Back to our never the twain shall meet side of our fences.

Not quite!

Taking the Heidegger line (which I have used recently elsewhere) ...
"Language speaks the Man!". This is a later more extreme move of his to describe Dasein (being)as subordinate to the language in which we are "thrown"(as in pottery). This position is expanded by recent French philosophers such as Foucault who gives the example of what appears to be a "factual statement" (like "It's a girl" on the birth of a female child) to be in essence promoting a particular view of social reality with life molding consequences. This line consequently touches on the etymology of the word "fact" from the Latin facere - to contruct, thereby underscoring the view of "an observer" being an active constructor of "the observed" via his language bias, rather than a passive recipient of "objective data".

Apologies for the lengthy reply.

Hi Fresco,
I was trying to inject a modest amount of humor by saying "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Fresco !" as it's play on words re: Feynman's book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surely_You're_Joking,_Mr._Feynman!

I knew that ! I get a bit carried away.

I am willing to accept as axiomatic the inexorableness of entropy (with or without sentient observation). Plus it's as good a reason as any to not bother putting the dishes in the dishwasher.