commike37 writes:
I'm saying that such morality would have to hold true if the world is only composed of strings, and nothing more.
Why?
commike37 writes:
The true question is whether or not you want to accept the premise that there are only strings, and nothing else(perhaps God or whatever you think that something else is)? If the answer is no, then you don't have to adhere to such morality.
I do not accept the 'premise' that there are only strings. I do not understand enough about the idea of string theory to make an informed decision but from what I do know it is NOT an adequate model and at best decades from being fully developed.. But what the fuck does string theory have to do with morality? My adherence to morality is based on my own concept of what I think is moral. What I have been taught, what I have experienced, What society deems is moral and what my personal world views lead me to believe is "moral". Not God.
I am not understanding where you are going with all this..really I am trying.
1. I pointed out that a complete theory of everything does not exist yet,, but you continue to maintain it does.
2. I pointed out to you that the concept of an absolute truth and objective morality is based on ancient metaphysics
3. I pointed out that String theory is a science. Because the math can be tested and validated.
I think this thread is beginning to unravel.**edit to add : here is a link that shows that String theory is "testable"other than math.
Attention Required! | Cloudflare**edit to fix link.
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-30-2004 17:12 AM
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-30-2004 17:23 AM