Is this universe eternal?

[Cromulent]

It's been suggested in other threads that the existence of linear time is merely a contrivance unique to this universe, meant to keep everything from happening simultaneously. Also, I take it that from outside this universe, on the "higher planes," our reality appears as a timeless unit. Okay, fine; I can deal with that.

What I'm curious about is whether our universe will appear to exist forever from within its own reference frame. As some of you may know, current theory in cosmology suggests that time itself began with the conversion of our universe from an infinitely-dense singularity into an ever-expanding morass of space-time and mass-energy, and so far there are no indications that the nature of time will be changing under any conceivable circumstance. Therefore, under current secular views, the universe's existence will basically be infinite.

Does that agree with current "afterlife research" thinking? Will there be no point, within our Earthly reference frame, when every soul has been "rehabilitated" and made ready to return to God? Will there be troubled souls here for all time, within the perspective of the incarnate souls themselves? Or perhaps, will there come some day in the distant future when this reality becomes entirely de-populated of all sentient life, and left to while away its infinite decline in solitude since it no longer serves a purpose?

Any ideas?

[Annie]

I think it is eternal, but it will change a lot over the years. I don't know the answer for sure, but I think that what I've gathered here on this forum is that our spirits will advance more as time, or the illusion of time, passes and earth will become a happier, more peaceful place. I don't know if this is something that is going to happen for sure or if it's just a hopeful theory. But if it does happen, I definitely think we have a long way to go before that day comes because there is so much corruption in the world.

I've heard several times that the sun will eventually collide into the earth, but that is billions of years from now and maybe by then we'll have advanced so much that we don't need to incarnate anymore?

[Andrew]

This is certainly a complicated question, dear Cromulent! I'm not 100% sure what the answer is, but I can certainly tell you what the evidence tells us.

1. The universe doesn't really exist:
The universe can't actually exist forever, since it doesn't really exist. I know that you were asking about its existence from the view of a being in the universe, but I just wanted to make this fact clear. This is all an illusion, and all illusion have an end.

2. Eventually there will be no one here:
Once all the sentient beings who come here to make progress are past the point of needing to reincarnate here, there will be no sentient life (if any life) here. I'm not sure if the decrease in population will be a steady one or happen all at once but, eventually the whole planet (along with all the others in the universe) will become barren of sentient life. And logic tells me that if there is no need for sentient, there is no need for any form on non-sentient life (assuming it exists).

3. Does something exist if no one experiences it?:
It all comes down to this, my friend: if a tree fall in the forest with no one around, does it actually make a sound? Of course the illusion of time and of the universe will cease to exist when they're done serving their purposes. I'm not sure how that would happen from the perspective of someone in the universe, but, since there will be no one actually in the universe, I don't think the perspective would actually exist.

Annie, scientifically speaking, you are correct. When the sun eventually begins to run out of hydrogen to convert to helium, it will gradually begin to swell immensely and will eventually engulf the first three of four planets (definitely destroying the earth). That won't happen for several billion years (I forget if it's five or ten billion, but we'll be long gone by then)! If this does happen, it would certainly be the end of our earthly school, but it would not be the end of the universe. I'm also certain that nothing natural will destroy the earth while people still need it to learn.

[OrichalcumEye]

This is certainly a complicated question, dear Cromulent! I'm not 100% sure what the answer, but I can certainly tell you what the evidence tells us.

1. The universe doesn't really exist:
The universe can't actually exist forever, since it doesn't really exist. I know that you were asking about its existence from the view of a being in the universe, but I just wanted to make this fact clear. This is all an illusion, and all illusion have an end.


You have to be joking. I can accept believing that the universe isn't real to the same extent that the "higher reality" is, but you seem to be claiming that the entire observable universe (which we are now using to communicate with one another) isn't actually there, and... what? We're both just pretending to read a screen and type on a keyboard? Even in the movie The Matrix, the clearly-fake computer-simulated world could be said to exist in that it was possible to interact with that world in an objective fashion.

[OldManRobot]

You have to be joking. I can accept believing that the universe isn't real to the same extent that the "higher reality" is, but you seem to be claiming that the entire observable universe (which we are now using to communicate with one another) isn't actually there, and... what? We're both just pretending to read a screen and type on a keyboard? Even in the movie The Matrix, the clearly-fake computer-simulated world could be said to exist in that it was possible to interact with that world in an objective fashion.

There's no need to nit-pick like this, OrichalcumEye. I think we both understood his meaning well enough.

As a side note, I recently read an article suggesting that by the time it reaches red giant status the Sun will have lost so much mass that all planetary orbits will be considerably wider, sparing the Earth an untimely death by plasma bath. So, we might luck out there. ;)

[Andrew]

OrichalcumEye, I understand your confusion. It's quite natural, my friend - this is very hard for most people to accept. I just want to clarify though that I try to state just the evidence, with as little spin as is possible. Let my try to clarify:

1. From our perspective the universe is very real:
From our earthly perspective the universe is very real but, in reality, both this universe and the afterlife levels are illusory. In actuality, we are each a little speck of light against a completely black background. All of us come together to form the God, or the Universal Mind/Spirit - whatever you want to call Him. We are each an important part of God, because God is all that is real. This is the seventh afterlife level, when we are all joined together with God. Just to clarify, a large part of us is still with God and was never separate from Him. In retrospect, "come together" might not have been the right way to phrase it. This whole separation that we experience is nothing but an illusion. We are God and God is We.

2. Eventually this universe and the afterlife levels won't be needed:
Once everyone has become advanced and progressed enough to reach that seventh level, there will be no need for the afterlife levels and certainly no need for this universe. I'm not sure exactly what the end of time/the universe would look to someone in the universe at the time, but, as I said in my reply before, the universe will cease to exist when our need for it ceases to exist, so there will likely be no one in it. I can't be certain of this of course, but it is my best guess.

3. Linear Time is an illusion:
When we get to the afterlife levels, we begin to get over the illusion of time. Here time is so rigid, but there it is endless and stretchy. There's no rushing, no being late, and no waiting. Everything can happen pretty much as quickly or as slowly as is needed. Any time that is experienced here and there is an illusion. Right now we are here, but we also united with God at the end of the spiritual, and united with God before Creation happened. You see, in Creation, time sprung up. God quickly put an end to it, so it doesn't exist. The problem is that we are right now in the perspective of that time. It's really mind-boggling if you think about it! So, technically, this conversation has already ended and never begun!

4. Think of the Universe like a school - a means to an end:
Looking at the universe like a school will really help you get an understand of what I mean. Think about school, you go there to learn (obviously), but, while what happens there has some effect on our overall lives (getting straight As versus flunking), it generally isn't a permanent effect. For example, if you fail English, you can take it again the next year and then move on at some point. The same is true with life: if you fail (ex. become a serial killer), then you may end up in the lower, dark, cold afterlife levels. It won't be permanent though, eventually you will united with God. Life is also like a school because it is a means to an end. Why do you do school work? To become educated. Why do you choose (re)incarnate here? To learn and gain experience and wisdom.

5. Technically, we are pretending right now:
As ridiculous as it may sound, our Higher Selves (the aware part of us) actually see this as a pretend life. Before we can be born, we must agree to participate fully in this illusion. Otherwise how would we learn? So this is a pretend life, and some part of us does realize that right now. That part of us will, as soon as we either learned our lesson(s) or have are too far gone to learn anything in this life, find the fastest way out of here.

I've tried to explain this as best as I can. I hope that, at some point, Roberta will contribute to this thread. She often explains things much better than I am able to. Until then though, if you have any questions, please ask and I will try to response thoroughly to them!

[Andrew]

OldManRobot,

I'm sorry! I got so wrapped up in responding to OrichalcumEye's comment, that I forgot to address yours! I may have read something about that too. It's sounds familiar. Anyway, I'm sure that nothing natural will destroy the earth while people/other sentient beings still have a need for it. Whether or not we humans will destroy it, however, is a question that I cannot answer...

[Roberta Grimes]

Hello everyone! I have been away for a week and had horrible internet - I could read but not post - so it is good to be home at last, and able to participate! Thanks to everyone - this is a wonderful thread! - and Vita, you have handled it as well as I could have done. It has been frustrating to be reading but unable to jump in, so please forgive me for chattering here more than is necessary, but you all have given me a lot to think about! What Vita says here is right, based on nearly two centuries worth of afterlife evidence: this universe is entirely illusory. The only thing that exists is Mind, and each of our minds is part of that universal Mind. But what does that say about how best to answer Cromulent's original question?


It's been suggested in other threads that the existence of linear time is merely a contrivance unique to this universe, meant to keep everything from happening simultaneously. Also, I take it that from outside this universe, on the "higher planes," our reality appears as a timeless unit. Okay, fine; I can deal with that.

What I'm curious about is whether our universe will appear to exist forever from within its own reference frame. As some of you may know, current theory in cosmology suggests that time itself began with the conversion of our universe from an infinitely-dense singularity into an ever-expanding morass of space-time and mass-energy, and so far there are no indications that the nature of time will be changing under any conceivable circumstance. Therefore, under current secular views, the universe's existence will basically be infinite.

Does that agree with current "afterlife research" thinking? Will there be no point, within our Earthly reference frame, when every soul has been "rehabilitated" and made ready to return to God? Will there be troubled souls here for all time, within the perspective of the incarnate souls themselves? Or perhaps, will there come some day in the distant future when this reality becomes entirely de-populated of all sentient life, and left to while away its infinite decline in solitude since it no longer serves a purpose?

Any ideas?

After mulling this question for awhile, I have got to say that the answer to Cromulent's question is NO. The uiverse had a finite beginning (as he points out), and the universe will have a finite ending. As the last bit of Mind ceases to incarnate here, the universe will no longer be supported by Mind so it will go out of existence altogether. Time as we know it here will cease as well. Gary Renard's first book about the teachings of A Course in Miracles was entitled The Disappearance of the Universe for just this reason! When we no longer need it, the universe will disappear. As Crom points out, this is an understanding far different from what mainstream physicists imagine, since they consider the universe to be objectively real and also subject to the laws of macro-physics. But physics is merely another construct of Mind - it has no independent reality. Does this help to answer everybody's questions??

[Firebird]

This actually raises a somewhat related point: since the universe is supposedly only here for the sake of instruction, does that mean that none of its 13+ billion years of history (as independently revealed through observation of various phenomena) is fictional? I.e., did the universe exist before people did, illusory or not?

[Roberta Grimes]

Hmmm. I am not sure how to answer your question, Firebird, but I will take a stab:

1) People not in bodies are part of Mind, nevertheless. The universe came from Mind, and each of us is a part of Mind, so the fact that we may not have been in bodies here for awhile after the universe began is not important. Since time is not real, we are eternal - we never began, and we will never end.

2) Intelligent life is all over the universe. So we could have been incarnating on other planets for eons before the first humanoid was born on earth!

3) Mind might have evolved through primitive life-forms. One of the many things that I wonder about is whether in fact our minds have evolved, perhaps even from origins as simple as individual plant or animal cells. There are some tiny hints that this may have happened, but not enough to pin a theory on.

4) We are told that the universe is neither as old nor as large as we believe it to be. I have read this in various forms from higher-level beings so often that I consider it to be likely true. Part of the illusion that is the universe is a back-story of great age and a tremendous volume of size... but neither time nor space is objectively real. And the universe that we consider to be solid and constant is apparently more like a playscape for very bright children in which we keep coming to the edge so more must hastily be added. I recall reading about someone who randomly pointed a deep-space telescope at an area of the sky long thought to be empty - and when he returned to it awhile later, he was amazed to see billions of galaxies there. Knowing what we have been told about the non-permanence and smaller size of this universe, I wonder whether those galaxies were hastily put there so the children would be kept amused awhile longer!

- So no, Cromulent, the universe did not exist before we did. But since we always have existed, it still can be very old indeed!

[Firebird]

I realize that both of us are supposed to be part of the same eternal "Mind," but I'm pretty sure I'm not Cromulent :P

Anyway, now that we have gotten to the point that the universe exists solely to fulfill a practical purpose, there's basically no room left for argument; the idea that the universe was recently created with the intent of appearing to be extremely old is irrefutable, since by definition it is unfalsifiable. I can live with that, to be honest.

[vic smyth]

"The universe as a playscape for bright children." Wow, I resonated with that statement so strongly that I almost floated out of my chair!

[Roberta Grimes]

Heh - I know what you mean, Vic! After having steeped myself in the afterlife evidence for decades, I felt the need to venture into quantum physics and consciousness studies to try to explain what the evidence indicates is going on. The science is entirely consistent with the evidence - it is impossible for the afterlife not to be real. And as is true with any other new discovery of something that is real, a lot of interesting related information flows from finding the afterlife levels. Based on my decades of study, this is what I have come to suspect:

1) Quantum physics is a variant of the physics of the greater reality. It seems not to be exactly the same, but rather the physics of the afterlife levels seems to be quantum physics on steroids! What we know as quantum physics appears to be a kind of converter plug between the physics of most of reality and the non-mind-governed macro-physics which operates just in this material universe.

2) Since we have agreed that while we are here we will "forget" what actually is going on, the powers-that-be (or God, if you prefer) developed for us a mechanical alternative physics. There had to be a way to form objects and make plants grow and things happen like clockwork within this material universe that did not need or involve our mind-energy. So Newtonian macro-physics was born, and since it governs the matter and energy of this universe we are sadly unable to make mountains levitate mentally (I think!), no matter how hard we try.

3) This material reality was made to be complex and wonderfully interesting. When you realize that this is our school and nothing more, you develop an ever greater awe at the amazing love that has been lavished upon it! I mean, butterflies? Flowers? Nautilus shells? Think of all the wonders we have been given to investigate, all the puzzles that we can enjoyably solve! For nearly all of human history, just the process of figuring out our original core environment has been enough to occupy our minds. Lately, however, I think that we are starting to see a bit beyond the schoolyard, and they are working quickly to make the walls a little higher, the scientific rules just a bit more complex, in ways that almost look jury-rigged. We kiddies are out-thinking our playscape!

Actually, the evidence suggests that right about now we are supposed to be elevating our spiritual awareness, so perhaps this is how it is meant to happen. Once mainstream scientists accept the fact that reality is spiritual and not material, they will have the fun of all those wonderful new realities to explore!

[OrichalcumEye]

So... when we discover something entirely new in astronomy or physics (or just through exploration), that new thing is created on the spot just as we find it? And no universe exists until (unless) we are observing it? Do I understand you correctly?

[Andrew]

Yes and no, dear OrichalcumEye. Here is what the consistent afterlife evidence has been telling us:

1. Our minds strongly influence reality:
We do not communally create reality with our minds. For example, if everyone starts to believe that the world is made of nothing but wood, then the world is not going to change into wood. That wouldn't make sense - the universe would be constantly changing which wouldn't be very good for the life that is trying to evolve and grow here. We can affect the things that happen in our lives and the lives of those who are close to us, but we do not create actual scientific discoveries.

2. All discoveries serve a purpose:
Even though we do not create the discoveries that are found on earth, we are the purpose for which they are there. In other words, everything that we discover is there to help us move forward and evolve. Nothing is here by accident, so, in that sense, we do influence what is here.

3. The Universe only exists because it serves a purpose:
The universe does not exist just because we think it is here, it exists because we have a need for it. The Mind (God, Powers that Be, whatever) created the illusion for us so, once we don't need the illusion, it will cease to exist.

I hope this helps, dear friend!

[vic smyth]

One of the books Roberta recommends is Quantum Enigma, written by two physicists. In the last few pages they theorize that when it comes to scientific discoveries (and, implicitely, all things in our lives): We actually create what we are searching for, rather than finding something that is there already (I'm paraphasing.) It's sort of like a magical google search, but instead of finding what you are searching for, you create it.

"Ask and it shall be given you, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened up to you."

[Cromulent]

It's true that, because science is a process conceived and undertaken by humans, its specific investigatory channels and explanatory models will necessarily be created ad hoc whenever discoveries that are made. There is no tablet in the universe's ephemeral CPU that records formulae describing gravitational acceleration relative to distance and the relationship of mass to energy. So in a sense, we do indeed "create" every new scientific discovery we make. In addition, presumptions about what the results should be can bias observations to the point that we effectively make things up out of whole cloth.

This should not, however, be taken to mean that the underlying phenomena that are being investigated and described by scientists are similarly being created "on the fly." There's an old riddle that's fairly apposite here; what was the tallest mountain in the world before Mount Everest was discovered? Answer: Mount Everest.

It's dangerous to be too anthropocentric about the universe we inhabit. For all we (or even the "higher beings") know, the universe has a higher purpose known only to its creator-- assuming, of course, that it was created at all.

[Roberta Grimes]

Hi Crom! Good observation - thanks for making it, and letting us chat about what is really a stubbornly thorny issue! I do understand that the subjectivity of a lot of quantum physics seems shocking when we are so steeped in what seems to be a dependably solid reality. But at the level of subatomic particles, what Vic says is basically true. Quantum Enigma is great - everyone should read it! No, the phenomena themselves are not being created "on the fly." But rather the results of quantum physics experiments suggest that we fundamentally misunderstand phenomena which for centuries we had thought that we had pinned down. The problem is not that the phenomena have changed, but rather it is that our understanding was too limited.

You might say that it isn't those who follow the implications of quantum physics to reasonable conclusions based in the afterlife evidence who are being anthropocentric. Rather, is it not those scientists who insist that reality must be non-spiritual who are the ones actually inflating the role of humanity?

Thanks, dear Cromulent, for being so patient and so precise in challenging us! You give us such a wonderful gift in pressing us to think things through more tightly and explain them more clearly ;-)!

[Cromulent]

No, the phenomena themselves are not being created "on the fly." But rather the results of quantum physics experiments suggest that we fundamentally misunderstand phenomena which for centuries we had thought that we had pinned down. The problem is not that the phenomena have changed, but rather it is that our understanding was too limited.

You might say that it isn't those who follow the implications of quantum physics to reasonable conclusions based in the afterlife evidence who are being anthropocentric. Rather, is it not those scientists who insist that reality must be non-spiritual who are the ones actually inflating the role of humanity?


I think you're confusing observer bias with acknowledgement of practical limitations to observation, though-- scientists who posit strictly "conventional" explanations for phenomena aren't making an assertion about the fundamental nature of reality itself (i.e. that it must be "non-spiritual"); rather, they're making an assertion about the boundaries of what we are capable of studying with any sort of reliability. The main problem that most scientists have with "spiritual" explanations is that, regardless of how much positive contributory evidence might be offered, such models tend to lack falsifiability which means having specific predictions that can be subjected to testing and, if shown to be false, would invalidate some or all of the proposed model. A major problem here seems to be the assertion that emotional states and beliefs can strongly affect the outcome of any attempt to observe or test the phenomena in question, so approaching the subject without pre-existing faith in its veracity (supposedly) interferes with the ability to get confirmatory results; quite an unfortunate situation. According to authorities in this subject, the only way for living experimenters to interact with the phenomena in question is to work through living human intermediaries, which adds cumbersome layers of emotional bias and observational filters.

At this point, there are a lot of aspects to quantum mechanics that are still up in the air. Even if you consider your interpretation to be the most parsimonious, it's a little early to be calling the issue in your favor.



Thanks, dear Cromulent, for being so patient and so precise in challenging us! You give us such a wonderful gift in pressing us to think things through more tightly and explain them more clearly ;-)!

Aw, shucks, 'tweren't nothin' ;)

[Roberta Grimes]

Thank you, Crom - what a wonderful question! You are helping us get to the bottom of this. Dear friend, no physical scientist has taken time to open-mindedly study the nearly 200 years of abundant and consistent afterlife evidence that is the primary topic of these forums. And that is why "they are making a statement about the boundaries of what we are capable of studying with any sort of reliability." They are flat unaware of the fact that there is a tremendous body of evidence about reality which is being ignored by mainstream science but which can indeed be studied just that way! Similarly, they believe that "spiritual" explanations "tend to lack falsifiability" because they assume that "spirituality" always equals "woo-woo nonsense." But they are wrong! And even if they continue willfully to ignore all evidence of the greater reality for the next thousand years, they will continue to be wrong. They cannot change what is true.

The portion of reality which exists beyond this material universe (which seems to be most of reality) is fully as real as are all the aspects of reality that scientists now accept. They don't know about it because they have dismissed it without open-mindedly studying it, but that makes it no less real! And because it is real, the plain fact is that most of the things which still puzzle physicists probably cannot be explained by them until they have studied the greater reality. It is fun to speculate about all the things that puzzle scientists whose explanations may lie in the afterlife levels, perhaps gravity and consciousness first among them.

Physicists have trouble understanding the implications of quantum physics, dear Cromulent, in part because they are reasoning from Newtonian physics, which is utterly different. I know nothing about Newtonian physics! But I know the afterlife evidence pretty well, and from the perspective of the physics of the afterlife levels, quantum physics makes perfect sense. The physics of the afterlife is like quantum physics applied at the macro-level: time is subjective, space has no size, and matter is created by mind-energy alone. It is easy to think that what physicists call quantum physics is the plug which connects Newtonian physics with the rest of reality. I may be wrong. But it seems from here to be a reasonable working hypothesis!

[Wendygo]

I think you're confusing observer bias with acknowledgement of practical limitations to observation, though-- scientists who posit strictly "conventional" explanations for phenomena aren't making an assertion about the fundamental nature of reality itself (i.e. that it must be "non-spiritual"); rather, they're making an assertion about the boundaries of what we are capable of studying with any sort of reliability. The main problem that most scientists have with "spiritual" explanations is that, regardless of how much positive contributory evidence might be offered, such models tend to lack falsifiability which means having specific predictions that can be subjected to testing and, if shown to be false, would invalidate some or all of the proposed model. A major problem here seems to be the assertion that emotional states and beliefs can strongly affect the outcome of any attempt to observe or test the phenomena in question, so approaching the subject without pre-existing faith in its veracity (supposedly) interferes with the ability to get confirmatory results; quite an unfortunate situation. According to authorities in this subject, the only way for living experimenters to interact with the phenomena in question is to work through living human intermediaries, which adds cumbersome layers of emotional bias and observational filters.

At this point, there are a lot of aspects to quantum mechanics that are still up in the air. Even if you consider your interpretation to be the most parsimonious, it's a little early to be calling the issue in your favor.


0_o Good grief. You could have just said "scientists try to prove which ideas are more wrong because it's a lot harder to prove which ones are more right, and that makes it harder to study ghosts." I'm betting you write law textbooks for a living, right? :D

[Cromulent]

0_o Good grief. You could have just said "scientists try to prove which ideas are more wrong because it's a lot harder to prove which ones are more right, and that makes it harder to study ghosts." I'm betting you write law textbooks for a living, right? :D

Actually, no, but looking back over what I'd written there in the midst of my caffeine high I can definitely see why you'd think so. Judging by how well you encapsulated my post in a single sentence, you would probably be a better pick for the textbook-writing job... and judging by the wall-o-text I built there, I should have been a mason :)

In any case, I wish my job were as enjoyable as participating in science v. supernatural debates like these.

[Roberta Grimes]

My dear wonderful friends, reading your little exchange is such a treat! I love you both - please stay exactly as you are ;-)!

[Rosehippi]

Cromulent... did you write that in English? Lol

Wendygo must be a genius... she is quick... LOL.

No The universe is not eternal but ever changing, unlike God who is eternally the same.... God seems to change vicariously through his creation... but not in his personal self... He changes us... along with our free will choices that can't be easy!

Roberta honey, if I stayed the same I would never get out of this old tore up from the floor up flesh body and into my new drip dry spiritual body!!! LOL! I wanna go home!!!

[Rosehippi]

There is only one thing that keeps me going in this world, the belief that I will see my loved ones again and that God's word is true, past that... It is the individual people I discover who touch my heart... what else is there besides love?

[Roberta Grimes]

Hi Rosehippi! It's good to see you here. You are so right - God is eternal, and anyone who does much studying of the afterlife evidence becomes really anxious to go home! I would just add one thing to your most recent post, though: there is something else besides love that is important. It's forgiveness. They tend to go together, as I know you realize, but in fact we are on earth to learn both, and they are so different that it is easy to learn just the love part without paying much attention to learning to forgive. This has been my experience:

1) Learning to love is easy. We are programmed from infancy to seek love and to give love - loving is innate to human beings. Loving is a kind of happy-think that feels better and better, the more of it we do; and the more we love, the easier it becomes to love.

2) Learning to forgive is tough! Just as loving is innate, it seems to be innate in us to mistrust and hold grudges. At one time, perhaps our survival depended on our besting other people in whatever ways we could... but now that tendency is a great impediment. A current thread (http://afterlifeforums.com/showthread.php/219-Forgiveness) on this subject talks about some of our problems inherent in learning to forgive. You will for certain see your wonderful loved ones again - and soon! Meanwhile, your job and mine is to advance spiritually as far and as fast as we can so we all can have the greatest eternity possible.

I'm with you, dear wonderful Rosehippi - it is disturbing to find our bodies falling apart! Only a day or two ago, we were all teenagers ;-). But very soon we all will be 28 again, and this time we won't be saying "too soon old, too late smart" - this time, we will be both!