There are many types of love, first off! But I think the question goes down to can we explain the universe and all it's behavoir as a conglomeration of atoms and forces acting together to produce some synthesis? I think that it is evident that the view held in that idea is not comprehensive enough to satisfy humankind's inner need to have an anwser to what makes the world operate, least of all what brings together two people to fall in love. So I say strictly no. I'm not sure that love is even of the logical variety of life experiences. One could say that it makes social sense, it provides environments for raising and progeneration. It may serve such a function, but that hardly approaches the question involving the burning of hearts. For this one would need a more biological-science driven outlook. Resorting to chemistry is trying to put new brain data into a somewhat inappropriate scientific category of placid and pale chemical reactions. If science develops with trends that change in time, like ones affection may wax and wane, perhaps this route of inserting common happenings into a logical scheme will feel more at home. So not yet!

There are many types of love, first off! But I think the question goes down to can we explain the universe and all it's behavoir as a conglomeration of atoms and forces acting together to produce some synthesis? I think that it is evident that the view held in that idea is not comprehensive enough to satisfy humankind's inner need to have an anwser to what makes the world operate, least of all what brings together two people to fall in love. So I say strictly no. I'm not sure that love is even of the logical variety of life experiences. One could say that it makes social sense, it provides environments for raising and progeneration. It may serve such a function, but that hardly approaches the question involving the burning of hearts. For this one would need a more biological-science driven outlook. Resorting to chemistry is trying to put new brain data into a somewhat inappropriate scientific category of placid and pale chemical reactions. If science develops with trends that change in time, like ones affection may wax and wane, perhaps this route of inserting common happenings into a logical scheme will feel more at home.

I don't think that identity has anything to do with the innate, bound nature of a human being. It is a system that was created to orgainze people, and likey for crime or another sense of control. I don't know enough about people to really say how it would work without it. Ainjel seems to have the most reasonable idea of it.

If we consider identity as the sum of all behavior, of atoms and energies in a body, which is unique from every other individual in the universe, then I don't see how the dangers of identity can be adverted, anymore than I can choose to grow up without a pinky toe. I also don't see the neccessity of having no identity.

That's very interesting, so the gene must have been updated within a recent (compared to evolution time frames) development. And they have a dear Watson on the case, surely the riddle will be solved soon!

John Nash was schizophrenic, and eventually came out of it, because in his own words he just "decided" to be "rational." There is a video on youtube about his experience that is like an interview with narrative commentary added. It's a great, more factual follow up to the movie "A Brilliant Mind." In his nobel address, partly covered in the film, he said that he descended into madness, and then eventually came back to math and reasoning, and that through it he found that "love is the only reason."

I doubt I'll ever have everything nor do I want to...

I don't know. Whenever I chase happiness, or go for the gold, it always ends in a terrible wreck. I think that most people see it as a this or that situation; either you get rich and have all kinds of luxuries, or you live a poor life that some would call downtrodden. This puts success in a bad light, which isn't good for motivating people who still have many working years left. Wealth can be invested or put into education, for example, and hardly needs to be spent on a gilded lifestyle. Those are the people I look up to with money. They tend to have old shoes and live modestly. They usually have a sense of involvement in the world.

I'd be some type of a little yapper so that if there were people in my home territory I could be sharp with them and be excused!

I think M-Theory is where it lead to mostly. The M is a letter that is supposed to be replaced when the actual Unified theory emerges in a leter era. It collects what works for all the facts of science we curreltly know about. But for now, it is more of a description than an actual theory. And there are few if any predictions, and all kinds of knobs to dial.

There is actually a book out about just this subject called "The Trouble with Physics." Reading it was engaging, and I highly recommend it for anyone looking to understand string theory, where it started, it's great hopes, allure, and ultimate infertily and stalemate, all put into a unbiased perspective by Lee Smolin.

It's a story that deserves to be told in an honest, straight light. It's too easy to defend or dis aimlessley. It just seems too good to be true...

Add time.

Well, it is a good start up, and the concept rings true, that at some point all life was one or co-descending. But that takes time, and didn't it take time for the billions of humans to get begot? And that is just the more human side. So i'd trace it back all the way through development of sprecies, back to that first successful organism to reproduce, which, vaguely put, was a single cell model. If you wanted to go further, check out panspermia, which says that oragnic pre life was placed terrestially by comets, so in a certain sense humans are aliens to the earth, put and nurtured in an environment. The only guess I have for where that one bit of predisposition to life came from was when matter started to organize into shapes and molecules that could make rough copies of themselves, and just before that some economical ordering of events of nature. But put time int the mix time.

delightful! but I don't know whether it is satire at first or not.

For me, it is just a sense of connectedness, of being attached to even inaminate participants because they were created by the same mechanism that a pulsing lump of life was. And no, I don't think birth or parents create a person, besides a gateway provision.

Sacred is to hold something in view that is so great and wonderful that you're sure you're not the first to set gaze upon it. Life phenonmena is a miracle that still stands outside scientific understanding. It has to do with consiousness, and to bridge that gap between world view of physics and life experience is a daunting task.

To take a historic look at it, Einstein said (in jist) that one who doesn't think life has a meaning doesn't deservve to be alive. He held in another statement that people live on in their children, which I have always taken to mean at least partially that there is some effect in the continuation of what one does in their life into a new generation. But perhaps many would say that Einstain was just an old sentimental type at that age, though I believe that his step daughter said of his death that he neither had sentimentality or fear, he just viewed it as a event in nature. Still, continuing in this track, even a statistic quantum physicist like Max Born dedicated much of his later life (after the horrors of the world wars) to reducing nuclear armament for fear of continuation of life that it threatened. He thought he could make a better world for his kids and grankids, and that feeling too is perhaps shared timelessly, though mayhap not as often as is needed.

So there are lots of takes on it, but in brief the sacred is a type of ritual behavoir, met often in this strange arrangement of events.

I think that it is a common problem that comes from a fear of ineffective management of resources or of peoples time. The people who tend to be free thinkers also tend to be fast at work. All the same, as long as the individual has time, or is able to make it, to do what they think is in their best interest and worthy of their effort, then it doesn't really matter who is on top. The true to themselves low will rise, and most of the time without caring too much about it. I would guess that as technology or sustainability of workplace, or as we continue to get more from doing less, this trend will ease up. But that might take awhile, and has little to do with anything but business. Still, I wouldn't say anything if I saw a tacit collar hold on a boss one day.

So is the question of vacum being the absence of material still in play? It doesn't really clarifiy the image of a small space being squeezed inbetween puffs of a gas cloud. It seems that while the information age may not be agreed upon currently as what to call this era, give it until the thirties when some of these technological seeds are booming in an industry.

Whcih draws the person moreso to it is more important for an individual, and this must be stressed if a person is to be capable. I think that both really go hand in hand, and ultimately combine into a more satisfying union all the time. Perhaps now the street smart science is still courting the Queen, but the knowledge kindom has been without heirs for too long, and some branching out is called for, however much of a mix-match it is.

If I was a good philosoper- hahahaha

But anyway, my shot would be:
To hear the voice of a rock, to sing with nature and to be a creator, all of these bring explanation into view.

I don't agree with many points here. I find isolation to be uplifting, part of my well being.

I don't try to be perfect, or look for perfection in people. I try to be how I am, and not think of perfection. Perfect body doesn't exist, And I sometimes question intelligence.

I don't think that laws of physics should be applied to life.

In physics, from what I can tell, the law of cause and effect is special case of a master theory which doesn't exist yet. I think it is in loose analogy thermodynamics. The cause and effect relationships come from classical theories. I doubt whether such a thing can be maintained anymore.

About life, I am not sure. It seems that my past is an aid, source of tools, but in no way a determinant. People make up meaning between points, moments that they remeber. When they project a law of 'I have to do it, it is now a thing' it may be a problem, or at least is in my experience. Our minds do not predict nature as well as it does, if it does, so thinking of acting in this or that way, is really a tough gig to play.

I would say Darwin's way of thinking. It may not be apparent now, but I think that it will be increasingly a borrow over zone for physics in the future. It helps us think about the whole picture, about why change can exist in nature, and by what mechanism it acts. This applies to things like economy and industry, but also how we will live in the future. It marks a change in scientific thought, one from where are systems are stationary and do not change in time, as perhaps our ancestors thought when they were told that there population and way of life has been about the same, or not exponentailly growing. So it is a discovery of change with time, and this may not seem relevant to taday, for what do one care about whether today will behave like tomorrow, and that like the next? Does it matter that physical time may produce change in laws or scientific systems? A lot of people would say no. But I think that the affect of developing this change into other areas of life will have a lasting, if currently unknown, affect.

I took this question as an invention, becuase I find the word discovery so mundane, when in fact most scientific work or developed every day thinking is in the realm of imaginative and creative ideas.

The Many uses...