If you feel that love could be explained, to your satisfaction, as a set of chemical formulas, i'm afraid i have no better analogies. You'll have to settle for dry arguments to internal consistency. Of course, by expressing love in a set of formulas, you've made it as elevated & sublime as as the crap you took today, and just as laudable.
I didn't say that love was meaningless. We can measure changes in brain chemistry when someone feels love. We can measure changes in electrical brain activity. We can even track permanent structural changes in the brain synapses when someone falls in love, and the continuing changes as that love continues to affect that person's life. All I was saying was that it's measurable, not magical. Just because landing an SUV on Mars and being able to take high resolution pictures of another planet was entirely reliant on an enormous slew of physics calculations, doesn't make the fact that we actually f'in did that any less special. It also doesn't make it a magical miracle.
Yes, i get it. To you, love could be reduced to altered brain chemistry -> altered release/reuptake of neurotransmitters. Got it. As i said, take a few tabs of ecstasy & go to town. Rinse & repeat.
Somebody told me that all three of fruit fly's pleasure synapses are firing on the dime when it sticks its sucker into a drop stale beer. Terminal happiness. Nirvana. Guys, it just don't get no better than this. Just a curious aside for you. BTW, you do realise that unless you start introducing variables & fudge-factors, you're stuck in clockwork determinism? Irrelevant.
Forgive me if i don't weep with you when you tell your stories of young love on the rocks. Now that you've explained it to me, i feel as much for you as for my washing machine.
No, it's not like that. I assumed you understood the difference between Newtonian physics & quantum mechanics. It's not a question of approximation & rounding off decimal points, it's an entirely different paradigm with radically different results. After you do something basic like convert mass into energy with Newtonian physics, get back to me. In the meantime: Learn to physics.
I understand what the difference is, thanks. One applies to a scale that has little effect to the scale of another. Maybe my analogy would have been better if I had compared finding the circumference of a circle using Pi, to finding a never touching tangent to a derivative curve using an infinitely close approximation. Sure, the later can be close, but since it never touches and just gets closer, it's not the same.
No, you still don't get it. Please learn to physics.
Whatever. Point is that Newtonian physics is supported by repeatable testing, and is practically fact at macro scale, while quantum physics is all those same things at micro scale.
No, no and no. I don't care if you don't know physics, but don't try to wing it.
Neither type of physics involved fancy stories to explain something we don't understand, which are passed as fact.
You've obviously never studied physics. Until you do, take my word for it: physics is no moar "factual" than the flimsiest myth. What's funnier, through explicit reliance on logic, physics is not even intrinsically sound.
Point me to something god related that is also testable and repeatable, and maybe I'll consider it.
I'm not offering anything up for your consideration, i'm not some born-again pushing Christianity on you. This is not a sales pitch, don't lowball me.
I thought we were having a nice deep discussion here. Sigh. Oh well. . . 
