Re: The big and the small...

arnaldo (
Mon, 01 Mar 1999 16:07:32 -0600

Thanks for the String Theory... I had no idea. For me it was the Unified Field Theory....

"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:

> arnaldo wrote:
> > >
> > > Isn't this in a sense the theory of the Unified Field that Einestein
> > > spent the rest of his years looking for? The unity of the big and small?
> > >
> > > Tell me what all of you think about this...
> The unified theory he was looking for is in fact in string theory, more
> recently known as 'M' theory.
> >
> > > >>
> > >Adrian wrote:
> > > Sounds like God to me, Arnaldo.
> > >
> > > Adrian
> >
> > Well, everythig sounds like god to you... but which one? There are more
> > than 2000!!! Each one of them is good because explains everything to us
> > without having to make us THINK.... He or She created the Universe, created
> > us, kills us to have room for more people... explains everything.... god is
> > soooo cool.....
> Yes, Adrian, you must understand that to many or most people on this list, the
> word 'god' is a null set or else triggers very negative memes. Most of the
> highly intelligent people here on the list are rather tired of the old, worn
> out, childish schoolyard bully gods, as well as the simple-minded 'don't worry,
> be happy' gods. While creating a more 'spiritual' means of communicating and
> understanding transhumanism and extropy is laudable, referring to future
> transhumans as 'gods' is, in my mind, more of a hindrance than a help,
> specifically because of all of the emotional and memetic baggage that the word
> already posesses.
> This is why Vinge's term of a Power seems more appropriate, though it may still
> have connotations with the nation-state use of the term Power and Super-Power.
> Just calling them transhumans, and eventually post-humans, brings such entities
> down to a singular, everyday level that individual humans can relate to, and
> the terms are sufficiently new that they don't carry any memetic baggage.
> Finally, if we are all to attain god-like capability, then such capability at
> that time will be considered to be merely human capability by those people. It
> will only be seen as fantastic and extraordinary by those who insist on being
> left in a primitive state. We should not orient our view of such a world from
> the primitive perspective, if we are to become the new transhumans.
> The need for a theology of ourselves would only be useful, in my mind, if we
> wished the remaining primitives to worship us.....which I don't have a need
> for. Do you?
> Mike Lorrey