Should our theoretical physics remain immune to our wordly attacks? They will not we postulate! They will not!
How do we postulate from the negation of a should statement? Is there even a place for a should statement within the communities of contemporary philosophy. Should implies ought, and ought implies ethics, ethics imply morality and morality is non-scientific?
To be or not is no longer the question. Would our...? Could our...? Should our...? Those are the questions that TRUMP the new generation. Being is self-evident.
Let's clarify the presupposition. String theory is susceptible to criticism. Nothing new here. At what point do we recognize and acknowledge that this is a strength of the theory?
We think our the fictional father and his prodigal son should be fictionalized and demoted to the myths they are. From God to god. Thanks Hitchen for that we hope you like our word-play with this morphic palindrome.
Sorry I can not bring myself to Capitalize [T]heory in a sentence. It looks too much like a cross. From God to goD its tongue in cheek bestialization. ↩︎
Subscribe to data driven expositions to enhance human psychology
Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox