The Afterlife

[Chad]

One thing to me sticks out in many religions: A supposed afterlife. However, how exactly is this afterlife supposed to work? Are people thinking that they will be judged by a supreme being that will have final say over if they were good or bad? Upon judgment is your “soul” thrown in an infinitely large room or something, free to roam and do what you wish for all eternity? I guess all of this is rather dependent on your chosen religion. Doesn't this seem rather needlessly complicated, selfish (In a certain respect) and very wishful?

It would seem much more logical for me to think that when we die we just plain cease to exist. Why do many feel that other animals just die while we ascend to some afterlife? When I read about other animals, I'm often amazed at some of their abilities. Granted, humans do have some unique features, but does this really make us so much more deserving of an eternal life? Why is there a need for an eternal life? Is there a reason why we should have a “soul” that lives on?

[Random Thought]

The more I read and think about it, the more I think this is a great trick that the religion memeplex pulls. Nearly every religion proposes an afterlife. This afterlife guarantees a great existence after death. The afterlife is not able to be proven, so it remains in question, untestable for the most part. The positive side effect to believing in this afterlife I guess would be people obeying set rules and guidelines, according to the religion in question. While it may not seem like an obvious positive side effect, many religions seem to promote some common good ideas. Such as not lying, stealing and murdering. There's much more, but I don't feel like digging around for more specific examples at the moment Of course, those who follow these practices will be at a slightly better advantage for survival, which in turn will pass on their religious ideas to their children or others who think highly of them. Not to mention the fear of an bad afterlife to keep people in line and make them strive to follow the rules and guidelines that much closer. Ok, I trailed off a little...there's much more I would like to relate, but I'll try to get to my point! I just felt like I would share where I stand on the issue.

[/Random Thought]

I guess my main questions would be this: How do you suppose an afterlife to actually work (Supposing you believe in an afterlife to begin with)? Do you feel at all like the idea of an afterlife is wishful thinking from a fear of one day your existence might come to a complete end? Or does the belief in an afterlife come solely from the teachings of the religion that you learned?

For those that don't believe in an afterlife: What do you think drives the need for people to suppose an afterlife, along with what do you think continues to propagate it?

These are all genuine questions, I don't mean to sound rude if any of my post came off that way...I have a bad tendency make that happen...lol.

(Btw - I was unsure what sub-forum to put this under...so feel free to move it if you think it's better off in a different sub-forum )

[Arya]

how it is that some unfortunate peoples guardians desert them when an accident occurs. I would like to focus on this... you have made a rationalization that seems to fit, that the person deserved the accident/loss of guardian... but can this always be the case? Can't you picture the suffering of true innocents? Or do you get around this by subscribing to auxiliary concepts such as "we are all sinners from birth". But why then do some small children suffer when others don't?

My rationalization on when "bad things happen to good people" is that if guardian angels exist but do not "intervene" say when a person loses all they owned in a hurricane, there may be a different reason why that has happened. Perhaps the angel has sat back to allow the person to face the hardship, overcome it, and become a stronger person for it.

It could be the equivalent of a parent coddling or overprotecting a child for instance-if the parent is always there to correct mistakes or prevent them from ever being in a situation that could do them harm (like falling down for instance) then that child will never learn to deal with hardship or difficulty. That can pose some serious psychological issues when that child becomes an adult and faces a hardship such as losing everything to a natural disaster. That person would have much more difficulty in dealing with the situation and fully recovering from it than a person who has already learned to solve problems on their own.

Why one child will suffer when another doesnt may be the same scenario, or if my rationalization of reincarnation is true, perhaps that child who suffers is suffering for a fate he/she forced upon another in a past life. Of course you would have to be accepting to the possibilities of reincarnation for this type of reasoning to make any kind of sense.

BTW-I am not Christian, so the term "sinner from birth" does not apply to my reasonings.

It seems like an extraordinary exercise in mental gymnastics to navigate a course through this fantastic landscape. Infinitely more so considering the complete absence of all the supposed influences to the measuring equipment that speaks the language of the universe.

I want to understand where the certainty in all this comes from. Why the conviction in the absence of logic or tangible evidence? Sure I can sympathize a little knowing the separation that exists (as a consequence of our physical construction) between 'reality' and our perception of reality.

Not everything is known, such as the afterlife, spooks, and angels for example. Tangible evidence cannot apply for there are no solid evidences, data, or other means by which to determine their validity. But logic for me steps in when I read of parallels in many different countries and/or belief systems historically that document or mention the existence of spirits, reincarnation, and an account of "and afterlife". My logic states that there must be some form of truth to these possibilities when there are so many accounts of them from so many different people, eras, and belief systems globally.

I think that the problem is that we become too used to thinking that we have a direct-line to reality in our waking hours. As a consequence of this we have too great an expectation for that reality to stay real. Thus when we experience a processing glitch we tend to view it as something corporeal when infact it is not. If we take mind-altering drugs we know that our experiences are 'unreal' -- but the mind is just as capable of the odd 'hiccup' now and then. In the case of an afterlife the reports coming back from near-death experiences are consistent with brain function subject to oxygen starvation for example.

This can be very well so since all the persons reporting similar events also share the same basic brain functions and human chemistry, so that the particular circumstances that they all experienced physically had similar effects on them mentally. I don't doubt that possibility. But again, the inclusion of an afterlife, spirits, and reincarnation that is reported or believed by different persons of different belief systems throughout human history? That really indicates to me something more.

But even in everyday situations we can become overloaded, inspired or confused and at such times impressions can be gained which are incorrectly interpreted as having something to do with the external world when in fact they are all happening right here in our heads.

Again, this can very well be true and without tangible evidence to clearly prove otherwise how can we truly know if all the events that are the topics of this post are figments of our imagination (for example)?

What we have to do is look elsewhere to either disprove/prove that events like an afterlife, spirits, and angels may be a reality. Similar events reported by different persons worldwide may be one factor, but that can be possibly explained (as we discussed concerning near-death experiences and brain functions). But what of documentations of ghosts or angels that are recorded by persons of different religious backgrounds throughout human history? What of the belief of certain religions in reincarnation? Can those be just "hiccups" or "unreal percieved events" experienced by many?

[Chad]

There are far too many unfortunate people in the world for me to think that Guardian Angels exist. My sister's must have been asleep at its post! It's also untestable, which presents a bit of a problem. As much as I would like to think that someone was watching over us (Wait a second, that seems a little creepy now that I think of it ), it doesn't seem to be the case. It contains many other questions to, such as who/what decides what you watch over or who you protect, and how do you protect it if you dont actually exist?

Hi Chad, sorry for my delay-I've been busy also but want to respond to your observations/questions.

It does seem that some people may have "someone looking over them" whereas others out there have so much misfortune in their lives that it appears as though there are no guardian angels. I do not know your sister's situation (if you have mentioned it I missed that post and I apologize-just point me in the right direction of the post # and I'll read it so that you don't have to repeat yourself), but perhaps it may only seem that she doesn't have one. For reasons unknown, the angel or guardian may be staying in the background for there is some difficulty or obstacle that she must overcome on her own without assistance from an outside source. This sounds silly in light of those who are paraplegics from a car accident (not their fault) or a parent who loses their child to unforseen circumstances. Those circumstances sound very extreme, but then again there may be a reason why bad things happen to good people that are not "avoided" or interfered/intervened by a guardian angel.

Then again too, what if reincarnation exists and a person is sent back to Earth to "fend for themselves" without an angel to watch over them for the evils that they may have done to a person/persons from another lifetime-depending of course upon the severity of this evil. Hitler would be a good example-what if he was sent back to Earth for many successive lifetimes to suffer horribly all the evils that he infliced on a specific race of people?

No, I have never mentioned my sister’s situation. No need for me to go into details. She’s alive and well, she has just made some horrendous choices. Every obstacle we overcome is done through ourselves and/or the help of others. There is no need to propose a Guardian Angel. Choices you make are influenced by many factors that we can observe, such as ones environment, education, state of mind, stress, and influence from any drugs/alcohol and so on. To propose an influence that cannot be observed or tested is side-stepping the actual issue at hand.

However, let’s say this Guardian Angel exists. Why would it decide to ignore the very person it’s been assigned to protect? What happens when the person that they were assigned to dies? Who is making the decisions about what obstacles the Guardian Angels shouldn’t help you with? And off what standard is that decision being made?

If someone is sent back to Earth via reincarnation for evils, then something must be judging what is evil or not. How can they honestly say what is evil and what isn’t? Granted, something’s are rather obvious, but they all relate to our way society and culture has formed. We ourselves have defined bad and good. Sending someone back to Earth to suffer for the evils they did in a past life seems very sadistic to me. This accomplishes nothing and shows that some higher being is cruel and would rather torture people than truly change things for the better. I mean come on, if they had the ability to send them back to Earth, at least make it worthwhile.

Ah yes, reincarnation. This is an interesting idea as well. At one time I thought this was a reasonable explanation. However, there are some problems with it. What if the earth were suddenly struck by an Asteroid (Ala the KT Extinction Event) and all life became extinct (Yeah, it's far fetched because something would most likely adapt and fill the niche rather "quick")? Would the souls end up waiting a few billion years for life to evolve and come around again? And even then, I think it would be hard pressed to believe that all the same life would evolve on a second time around. Thus, do the souls adapt to other body forms with entirely different functions? It just seems to become overly complicated to me. A few of my friends do believe in reincarnation though.

Let's just say that reincarnation is a reality, and the Earth is completely destroyed by that asteroid. The souls have to go somewhere, and I would tend to think that any responsible creator would have a place for them to reside. The universe is too vast for me not to consider that a possibility, especially when another planet could very well sustain life as does the Earth. For the record, I believe in reincarnation and feel that I have lived other lives and met others that I knew from other lifetimes in this one. I'm not "weird" or "kooky" for thinking this, it is just something I have believed since I was a child.

Another planet very well could sustain life, but to think that the same life forms would evolve individually in separate areas of the Universe is too far of a stretch. Evolution is not a one-way set-in-stone process. However, if you believe that the Creator made Humans, then I guess it would be conceivable that he would jump us on over to spare planet. However, if the Creator is so powerful in the first place, he could have saved a lot of time and suffering of people by just destroying the Asteroid before it hit Earth.

I’m rather curious now though. Off what evidence leads you to the conclusion to living your multiple lives? Scars, memories, certain dreams? Apparently you have believed this since a young age, so I would be interested if your parents or someone you know also believed this, or how were you introduced to the idea?

Evidence for ghosts seems rather sketchy. Under true scientific testing, ghosts dont seem to exist. Many things should be considered before jumping to a wild explanation; the motive and sincerity of those reporting the sighting should be evaluated, the possibility of it being a hoax or con, physiology reasons and psychological reasons. I'd be willing to bet that any ghost sighting could be adequetly explained using those guidelines. Though it is often a story being told, it's near impossible to test.

I think memetics does a good job of explaining a lot of these different ideas. I fully reccommend Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine. It really makes you think, and I was able to relate a lot of the concepts to things that I see going on day by day. Things that I never really thought of too much started to actually make sense in terms of memes.

Scientific study and research will very quickly debunk the existence of spirits I have found. Scientific research measures things that are physical or attainable to be measured, recorded, or otherwise explainable through mathematical means (for example). The existence or possible existence of spiritual entities is beyond scientific explanation by traditional means. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist, it's just that there is not enough scientific proof to say "yea" or "nay" currently.

And the possibility for hoaxes and frauds is very possible, since there are many different ways to explain a "cold spot" or a piece of furniture or inatimate object apparently moving on it's own. And certain people are simply not honest souls and will lie/fabricate a "ghost" story for numerous reasons. Most of those reasons are for monetary gain or instant fame.

But thank you for the suggestion of the book-I am an avid reader and will most definitely check that out.

There is no evidence to suppose any supernatural events. Under what conditions would we be able to test the supernatural? I get frustrated every time someone says that something isn’t supposed to be found, or is unable to be tested because science cannot adequately explain the situation…and they take this as ok. There is no need to grasp at straws to explain something we wish to be true. Rather we should be forming conclusions based on real data, and as of yet that real data hasn’t pointed to any supernatural events. If we think there to be an alternate explanation, better than which we already have, then we should start testing that explanation! Don’t just sit back and take the easy way out! There are lots of events that were once considered supernatural, many of which were natural disasters like Floods, Tsunamis, Hurricanes, Volcanoes, Lightening, etc. In light of actual evidence and an understanding of how they occur, there is no need to label these events as supernatural.

[QED]

Rationally speaking, reincarnation is all around us in nature. Things die, decay, and after returning to the earth spring forth again. The water cycle is another good example. The changing of the seasons is a reincarnation cycle. Logically, reincarnation is a conclusion that may naturally be drawn by viewing the world around us closely. It's not nonsense, and to say so is to belittle billions of people's beliefs.

Leaving out one essential ingredient is what makes this conclusion nonsense in all but a poetic sense: information. All things are made of fundamental units such as atomic particles but these are all identical. An electron in your heart is indistinguishable from an electron in a rock. The information which determines "what an electron is part of" is its context among other particles. As this represents a dead-end for the theory of reincarnation I will assume that you would prefer to consider a form of dualism which operates on similar principles to the material world e.g. the carbon and water cycles.

The material cycles are born out of well defined conservation principles. The biomass of this planet is essentially a closed system which gives rise to some fascinating facts: because there are so many fundamental particles in a large objects like us, statistically speaking we all comprise a finite number of atoms from everything that has ever lived before us on this planet (so long as it has been dead for around 1000 years). Depending on whether Jesus ascended to heaven or not we would all have a certain number of his atoms within each of us. But without their original context these atoms mean absolutely nothing. They are indistinguishable from all others.

[QED]

My rationalization on when "bad things happen to good people" is that if guardian angels exist but do not "intervene" say when a person loses all they owned in a hurricane, there may be a different reason why that has happened. Perhaps the angel has sat back to allow the person to face the hardship, overcome it, and become a stronger person for it.

And here I find a glaring problem... consider an airplane crash. The statistics for survival in particular classes of accidents are such that everyone onboard is going to be killed. How can it be that several hundred men women and children were all picked-out for a terrible and premature termination? For what 'reason' is this happening? Were they all carefully shepherded from their various walks of life towards this one fatal calamity at 30,000 feet?

Why one child will suffer when another doesnt may be the same scenario, or if my rationalization of reincarnation is true, perhaps that child who suffers is suffering for a fate he/she forced upon another in a past life. Of course you would have to be accepting to the possibilities of reincarnation for this type of reasoning to make any kind of sense.

Nurture has it's limits if the lesson involves death. As for reincarnation this is an extraordinary idea that we might be punished or corrected for misdeeds in a previous life. Surely the only sensible lesson we can learn from the suffering of innocents is that there is no aspect of the cosmos that smiles upon living creatures: We are our own guardians and while our powers are considerable, they are most definitely limited.

BTW-I am not Christian, so the term "sinner from birth" does not apply to my reasonings. .

Except with respect to reincarnation.

Not everything is known, such as the afterlife, spooks, and angels for example. Tangible evidence cannot apply for there are no solid evidences, data, or other means by which to determine their validity. But logic for me steps in when I read of parallels in many different countries and/or belief systems historically that document or mention the existence of spirits, reincarnation, and an account of "and afterlife". My logic states that there must be some form of truth to these possibilities when there are so many accounts of them from so many different people, eras, and belief systems globally.

Well I presented you with a valid explanation for it being a global phenomenon. The common factor is "us". We all share the same senses and cognitive processing.

In case I've not bored you before with it, let me relate my favorite demonstration of why it is that such accounts are entirely internal experiences: You find yourself lost while walking in an unfamiliar place late at night. As this wasn't bad enough you realise that your path has taken you into a graveyard which is suddenly silhouetted before you by a fork of lightning. Are you feeling spooked? Can you cheerfully continue on the path or do you sense the presence of the supernatural as a tangible sensation down your spine? So what then if this graveyard turns out to be a prop -- an outdoor movie set?

Yes people the world over relate accounts of paranormal goings-on but isn't it reasonable to suggest that the reason we can't bottle it or weapons it is because it exists entirely within the realm of our human thought processes?

I think that the problem is that we become too used to thinking that we have a direct-line to reality in our waking hours. As a consequence of this we have too great an expectation for that reality to stay real. Thus when we experience a processing glitch we tend to view it as something corporeal when infact it is not. If we take mind-altering drugs we know that our experiences are 'unreal' -- but the mind is just as capable of the odd 'hiccup' now and then. In the case of an afterlife the reports coming back from near-death experiences are consistent with brain function subject to oxygen starvation for example.

This can be very well so since all the persons reporting similar events also share the same basic brain functions and human chemistry, so that the particular circumstances that they all experienced physically had similar effects on them mentally. I don't doubt that possibility. But again, the inclusion of an afterlife, spirits, and reincarnation that is reported or believed by different persons of different belief systems throughout human history? That really indicates to me something more.

I have to hound you down on this because you are giving me a reason why you believe something and I think that reason is not a good one. You agree that our shared cognitive processes represent a common element in all this. That is so. Have you ever noticed how widespread is the response to a "tear-jerker" moment in a movie? Next time you feel your eyes welling-up at the cinema take a moment to glance around at the rest of the audience if you need any confirmation of this.

The same widespread emotional response is to be expected to other sensory stimulation. So rather than take the numerical value and distribution of these accounts as an indication of "overwhelming evidence for the paranormal" we should be looking only at the merits of each individual case. All you are seeing is "overwhelming evidence that all humans operate along the same lines".

Again, this can very well be true and without tangible evidence to clearly prove otherwise how can we truly know if all the events that are the topics of this post are figments of our imagination (for example)?

What we have to do is look elsewhere to either disprove/prove that events like an afterlife, spirits, and angels may be a reality. Similar events reported by different persons worldwide may be one factor, but that can be possibly explained (as we discussed concerning near-death experiences and brain functions). But what of documentations of ghosts or angels that are recorded by persons of different religious backgrounds throughout human history? What of the belief of certain religions in reincarnation? Can those be just "hiccups" or "unreal percieved events" experienced by many?

We're discussing a wide range of phenomena here, but even so, I think the same answer applies: These types of phenomena are inevitable artifacts of mind because they are based on ideas which are "self-supporting" i.e. part of the idea is that it only happens in a realm outside the one we have access to. Any number of arbitrary claims can be made in this environment but certain ones endure because of their appeal.

[Being1]

In case I've not bored you before with it, let me relate my favorite demonstration of why it is that such accounts are entirely internal experiences: You find yourself lost while walking in an unfamiliar place late at night. As this wasn't bad enough you realise that your path has taken you into a graveyard which is suddenly silhouetted before you by a fork of lightning. Are you feeling spooked? Can you cheerfully continue on the path or do you sense the presence of the supernatural as a tangible sensation down your spine? So what then if this graveyard turns out to be a prop -- an outdoor movie set?

I like the point you are making here. Question; How do you explain the sensation of a fully conscious, out of body experience, where there is an awareness and belonging to the entire scene present, including your own body, but not through the senses of that body? Your thoughts?

[QED]

I like the point you are making here. Question; How do you explain the sensation of a fully conscious, out of body experience, where there is an awareness and belonging to the entire scene present, including your own body, but not through the senses of that body? Your thoughts?

What do we mean by fully conscious? I'm of the opinion that consciousness is a variable property like a light dimmer. We move from different levels throughout the night and day. I am aware of many instances of the sort of breakdown you speak of. I expect most people are familiar with "loss of context". This happens when you lose yourself in thought while doing something mundane. It also happens when people experience a mental trauma such as seriously bad news about something. The context of the world they were living in is dropped and on return can seem unreal. The other examples I'm thinking of is the 'old hag' syndrome where sleep paralysis persists during a phase of semi-conscious awakening causing one to be convinced that something supernatural is happening to them. As well as apparent physical sensation auditory sensations are also quite common. Extremely distinct and very loud sounds can be heard in states of semiconsciousness which are every bit as convincing as real sounds. Within a group of other people you can be left wondering why you are the only one to have heard something so distinct.

In my view the essential fact that covers all these supposed paranormal incidents is the illusion we have of 'normality' the fact that we have too great an expectation for reality to remain real. Consider the optical illusions that challenge your visual perception -- the sensation of disorientation when you come to realise how fallible your senses are. This sensation seems unfamiliar, but that is only because the illusion has been made clear to you. In reality we are normalizing all manner of similar illusions all the time. This is how we navigate the world we live in on a finite processing budget. We tend to think that we have a linear relationship with reality, but it is infact only statistical and subject to considerable disruption even in our so called waking moments.

[Being1]

Yes, that's right, consciousness is a variable property. And in this case I am speaking about fully on, not semi conscious, which is what you've addressed the remainder of response to. Fully conscious.... not in a dream, not induced by shock, or drugs, or stress.

I don't think that you do know what I am speaking of, because there is no way I would associate the words 'breakdown' with the experience I am refering to. Similarly, there is no 'loss of context'. On the contrary, there is clarity and a complete knowledge of context.

How do you explain this 'knowing' and 'being' of the situation at hand, a knowing that is beyond and separate from the senses of the body?

[QED]

Yes, that's right, consciousness is a variable property. And in this case I am speaking about fully on, not semi conscious, which is what you've addressed the remainder of response to. Fully conscious.... not in a dream, not induced by shock, or drugs, or stress.

Perhaps you missed the bit where I said "In reality we are normalizing all manner of similar illusions all the time". What I mean by this is that we are so adept at piecing together the fragments brought in to us by our senses that we see ourselves as having a "hotline" to reality when infact the link is nothing like as definite. Obviously you are speaking of some specific experience the details of which are unknown to me. But my point is that much of our perception is a process of invention and that our link to the world is far more tenuous than most people might imagine.

I don't think that you do know what I am speaking of, because there is no way I would associate the words 'breakdown' with the experience I am refering to. Similarly, there is no 'loss of context'. On the contrary, there is clarity and a complete knowledge of context.

How do you explain this 'knowing' and 'being' of the situation at hand, a knowing that is beyond and separate from the senses of the body?

OK, but you must understand that a feeling of conviction, a sense of reality -- these are internal constructs that we have become very much used to associating with external influences. But ultimately they are a synthesis and that synthesis can also take place independent of the external world.

Cognition is something we take too much for granted. There are many oddities about the way the brain works, like the fact that you can 'listen' to an entire orchestral symphony in your head. Not just a simple tone melody but a rich instrumental on a par with any ipod playback. Visual imagery can be mustered with equal clarity. Some (very lucky) people are able to take charge of their dreams and direct every moment according to their wishes (someone with this ability was shocked in later life to learn that very few people could do this! She thought everyone dreamt like that!)

My own personal experience is one that draws on all the threads I've discussed so far plus a number of exceptional incidents that, rather than convince me of the supernatural, have convinced me of the fallibility of mind. This has been made concrete for me following a stroke from which material damage to my brain resulted in a tangible cognitive disorder which left me in no doubt about the source of psychic experience in others.

[harvey1]

But Harvey, the closest you can come to getting anywhere near the faintest whiff of anything mystical/supernatural is right down at the quantum level. I say that because this level is a challenge to our current technology it's little wonder we find ourselves looking at a puzzle.

I disagree, QED. There's multiple reasons for believing in an afterlife that don't have anything to do with quantum speculations. I already mentioned the number 1 reason: the likely existence of God existing. If God exists, then why would an afterlife be such a problem for you?

(Btw, I've also mentioned the material causation myth and implications of platonism to be other reasons to suspect that an afterlife is a possibility.)

I'm going to stock-up on yet more reading material. I don't like the idea that I might be missing something anymore than I like the idea of process theologians having a field-day at the fringes of science.

It only looks that way because you have the wrong perspective. As I've shown, the material causation myth has been adequately debunked. However, you continue to hang onto it as though the logic was fine and dandy. It's amazing to me that you would continue to believe something that cannot be defended in a rational discourse. Sorry to be so forward about this issue, but I think it is dangerous to believe something solely on faith despite the inconsistencies in your belief system.

[QED]

I'm going to stock-up on yet more reading material. I don't like the idea that I might be missing something anymore than I like the idea of process theologians having a field-day at the fringes of science.

It only looks that way because you have the wrong perspective. As I've shown, the material causation myth has been adequately debunked. However, you continue to hang onto it as though the logic was fine and dandy. It's amazing to me that you would continue to believe something that cannot be defended in a rational discourse. Sorry to be so forward about this issue, but I think it is dangerous to believe something solely on faith despite the inconsistencies in your belief system.

Material causation has been debunked? Sure. If anyone's confused by this it means that when you back your car into a telegraph pole Harvey thinks it's a mystery how the dent appears in your trunk. Now I understand that this is all taking place at the macro-level where things behave classically, but this is where we live -- and die.

If you want to talk about the current slew of theories about the micro-world you're bound to get a favorable Tarot-reading and so am I. Until we experience something like the third revolution in superstring theory we are going to be short of a satisfactory account of the fabric of spacetime. Right now we have an embarrassment of competing theories. I bet you could get something useful out of Matrix theory - where the universe is just a hologram projected from a distant 2-D sheet? Black-hole entropy measurements point towards space having fundamental ingredients of Planck dimensions in a 2D configuration so space at least looks "knitted" (as it does in a zero-brane world). Goodness, it's a golden age for Cosmology!