"Good Health" is simply the slowest possible rate at which one can die. Can we all agree with that statement?
Given that, isn't the ultimate in good health to already be dead? At the point of death the rate at which you move TOWARD death is ZERO, which is slower than it has ever been in your entire life!
Therefore, to be in perfect health, you should drop dead.
January 26th, 2006 7:16am
I disagree. Death is not a state but an occurrence, therefore having reached the point of death, one begins to move away from the point. Since good health by your definition is the process of moving towards death, the time after the occurence of death is the opposite of good health.
So when you're dead, you'll be feeling rather poorly.
Nah, there's plenty of health complaints which don't have an effect on one's life expectancy. The basic definition doesn't stand up, therefore the question is somewhat moot.
However, even allowing the original hypothesis to stand, surely the measure of good health would be the extent to which the path to death has been travelled, rather than the rate at which you're travelling it? In which case death itself, as you would expect, is pretty much the point at which the quality of your health reaches zero.
January 26th, 2006 7:36am
God I love you lifeless, pedantic fuckers. Gimme a fish!
January 26th, 2006 7:45am
Certainly, sir. Mackerel or haddock?
January 26th, 2006 8:36am
January 26th, 2006 8:39am
If the extent to which death has travelled involves a double decker bus (an increasingly rara avis), then you can be as healthy as you like, but you still stand a high probability of death.
At the point of death, you're dividing by zero anyway. The result could be zero, or it could be infinite, or anything in between.
Aaron F Stanton
January 26th, 2006 8:47am
So at the point of death, you are neither healthy nor sick?
Shroedinger would be proud.