Intoscience

Again, one person's success could be another person's failure. I guess success would be achieving a goal that was set out initially. Whether that goal leads to improvement etc... well that could be subjective. Don't say "define improvement"! Turtles all the way down. I don't disagree, but overcomplications are not going to solve the immediate issue. Self help is a place to start, delving deeper may take more effort and commitment and though shouldn't be ignored should be considered as a long term plan. It has been shown that a little exercise and a better diet can improve people mentally. I'm not dictating to my son, just offering my advice as a short term solution. I may need to invest in a deeper more thought out plan. He is complaining but not prepared to even consider trying to solve the problem. In my day this would be termed as lazy and I would get a clip around the ear and made to get on with it. People need to take responsibility for their own actions, if they are impaired in some way such as having a clinical mental illness, well fair enough. Encouragement to do self help is important though. One could even argue that if I didn't offer the advice to my son then I'm also being "lazy". That I don't value my son's wellbeing enough to invest the effort in trying to do something about it.

I think this depends. My son complains that he is feeling unfit and putting on a few extra pounds of fat. I recommend that he does some extra exercise and cuts back a little on the excess junk food. He can't be bothered to do either, but continues to complain. So I think he should do something about it, he is too lazy to do so. One could say that he values the lack of effort to make the change more than the result of such a change, fair enough, but then quit complaining and make better use of your time. Problem is not all agree on whats best, or how to tackle the issues that they do agree on. Working together for a common goal is always the first step to success.

Well time, or at least the manipulation of space-time could come under the banner of technological advancements. Temporal simultaneity, yeah I agree.

I think this makes sense. Logically you would not expect to see any sufficiently advanced technology. If it exists then you would expect some form of non intrusive perhaps invisible observational tactics applied. Whilst I agree with you regarding remote observational techniques and use of resources, I think though if "they" are inquisitive enough then they would want to acquire some physical samples. I'm not saying abductions or anything like, but much like we do, send at least probes to the surface of other worlds to either collect or analyse directly physical aspects. I guess likelihood of their detection depends on their level of advancement. I would expect that the more advanced they are then the less likely of detection by us and vice versa. For example, if an alien technology is just slightly more advanced than us. So say they are at the stage where they are able to send probes across interstellar space to other worlds. They may have the technology to easily do this but that does not guarantee the level of technology to cloak their presence to such a degree that we would never detect them. I think (my personal opinion) that the overwhelming vast majority of sightings are not extra terrestrial, I'd probably even say all . I would not though simply dismiss the possibility based on my opinion or belief. I remain skeptical because the logic (our logic) points strongly towards non extra terrestrial phenomenon. But I won't dismiss all claims simply because even after thorough investigation using modern understanding, theory and techniques some do remain - inconclusive / unidentifiable

We share the same view point and conclusion.Your post pretty much sums up my own stance I also agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary verifiable evidence. But I also dismiss the premise that no verifiable evidence suggests no possibility, which sits at the other end of the scale. So in response to many of the claims, unless its completely obvious, or the evidence strongly points towards, that its a natural phenomenon or a hoax then I would refrain from complete dismissal. Even if we look at our own evolution, especially so as you said; over the past 300 years. Its not beyond the realms to imagine human kind, at some point in the future, via person or probe visiting other worlds (we have already done this within our own solar system using probes). For this reason I have no problem with the possibility in principle. I do however share the consensus that spacefaring aliens are likely to be extremely rare and also not likely to share temporal simultaneity with us. Thus even if they exist the likelihood of visiting Earth while humans are around would seem very doubtful. However the caveat being that if technological life is rare, an alien species is likely to be aware of this. In which case if they detect our existence then we are likely to be of some interest to them.

This is definitely going to be the case for many unexplained objects appearing on photographs. But an object picked up by accident on a photo that was intended for a specific content is not the same as a photo purposefully taken of an object itself. Though I agree with you this also works both ways. If an object is defined as "unidentified" using all known methods of investigation then asserting it's "got" to be something is incorrect without verifiable evidence, but likewise asserting that its "not" something is also incorrect unless you have evidence to support the dismissal, for example "its not a bird because its clearly not the shape of any known bird, its metallic in colour and saucer shaped and its flying in a way no bird has ever been seen to do so". However, "Could be" is just speculation, so to state that it could be something is also incorrect but makes for some fun investigation. So anything that remains inconclusive is self defining; Unidentified. Though I'm not a fan of alien visitation, I would not simply dismiss it based on my beliefs. I would remain skeptical based on the lack of verifiable evidence available. Also I would remain skeptical based on our current understanding of the laws of physics, the vastness of the universe and the low odds of temporal simultaneity. But I would not also out-rightly dismiss the possibility of such.

I guess it's a combination of a person's ego and/or how they value themselves at that time compared to their peers. I remember working for a company owner who once was in conversation with one of his employees who at the time was making around £30K a year. The company owner was complaining that the £150k a year wages and the £500k dividends he received was not enough and was pittance compared to that which his business associates from other similar sized companies were making (in the millions per year).

As far as we know "space" isn't composed of anything, its just a void separating things. What is theorised, is that empty space is not really empty, so its would be easy in this respect to image space being composed of something.

What are you suggesting? That scientific research from here on is is a pointless pursuit because the more we learn the less we understand? No one is arguing that the cost of the LHC is not immense, certainly from a personal perspective its unimaginably expensive. However, we are offering comparisons and potential benefits that may justify that cost. It may also be true that we have to draw the line somewhere because the cost to advance experiments like these is unwarranted. In fact this is exactly what happens in science all over the world many projects never get off the ground due to benefit analysis. There are budgets to work within, and trust me, investors want returns for their buck, in some form or another. Me personally, I'm biased and admit being so. This is because of my passion for science especially the astrophysics and cosmology side of things and my interest in the quantum area is growing also. So I'm all in favour of spending money on research, space travel... I get excited at the prospect of new discovery!

Ok, so really you are looking for personal views. That's fine, some, most on a science forum like this are likely to respond with objective mainstream views based upon scientific study and understanding. Some will also approach the subject from a philosophical view. But the fundamentals around the questions are still undefined with any verification, we can only propose what we theorise based on experiment and observation.

Your thread is titled "what is life, what is our goal" There are many ways to interpret and answer/respond to these. What is life - well fundamentally that's still up for debate, there are plenty of ideas, arguments to define what life is. What is our goal - Our goal as a species? our personal goal? life's goal?... Again, many arguments and ideas around all these still up for debate. Fundamentally life's "goal" function - sustainability and replication, why who knows? It was either designed that way (programmed) or it just happened randomly. There may not even be a goal or a why it could just be perceived that way due to the very essence of humans desire for purpose.

If we work backwards to the beginnings of life, simple cells, and the fundamentals, the only functions/purposes (if you want to call it this) life had was to survive & self replicate (sustainability & division). Why this happened in the first place is still a mystery. Nothing really has changed, other than as life became more complex it started to implement its own self purpose.

You may not experience the positive impacts directly, but indirectly you may experience the benefits. And even if you never personally get to see the benefits, your decedents may do so. Would you not like to improve things for your children and grandchildren? Lets say that for example from the LHC a discovery made leads to improved technology, which then in turn leads to advancements in medicine or faming, which then leads to better treatment for disease or crop growth, which then leads to more lives saved, extended or less suffering, which improves the quality of life for the people who suffer. Would you agree that the money is well spent then? Would you not want that for your family? All the technology you rely on today is founded from scientific theories discovered/verified by experiment. Some of which was discovered hundreds/thousands of years prior to the technology becoming a reality. But the point is, non of it would have happened if it wasn't for scientific experiment, be that simple back yard stuff to the LHC and the ISS in orbit today. If you are so hung up on the costs of the LHC, where would you rather see the money spent?

+1 I would say this qualifies as the LHC being successful, no? (my bold) Scientific study is a journey of discovery, whether that be solutions to problems, answers to questions, or the discovery of more to ask and solve. You seem to be implying that the LHC is/was the experiment to end all experiments? This couldn't be further from the truth.

Of all the things to ask regarding an F1 engine, I'm intrigued by why you ask this specifically? A lot of teams use the same engines as other teams, provided by certain manufacturers. So I would assume they are more likely to be similar than not.

I like and agree in most part the basic premise of the views of the OP. In fact if that is all religion is designed to do then I'm in. Anything that promotes a healthy and happy standard of living for all life is surely a good thing, no? I also agree that "if" god is real then I would imagine god to be unimaginable, as I have stated before. But I'm also happy with the notion that there is no requirement for god in the first place.

As others have stated depends on what you are comparing it to and who regards it as value for money. You can do a cost benefit analysis if you like but its difficult to determine the total eventual benefits (if any) at this stage. It provides 1000's of people with jobs It enables cutting edge research that may lead to useful technological advancements It may lead to advancements in medicine, energy procurement/efficiencies It provides access for budding next generation students and scientists across the globe to study the fundamental structures of matter and energy It is just one of many scientific tools that are relatively inexpensive compared to many military tools (both that may be beneficial depending on the context) It enables the human race to gain more in depth data of the universe around us, which in turn feeds our emotional desire to understand our place and maybe purpose. These are a few at the spring to mind, but then I'm biased in favour of such projects.

1. Totally agree 2. All humans are unique 3. Yes, humans created the idea of god 4. We do - humans 5. Time could not not be subject to an all powerful omniscient entity, or any other reality. 6. We thrive to survive, the rest is emotional appeal, hopefully making society a more pleasurably place where all are welcome

When you strip it back there seems to be only one purpose/function - to procreate - (survival of the species). Everything else is an appeal to emotion.

The alien and Bob don't share the same present moment. It takes time for information to travel even at the speed of light.

What makes you think you are "pretty much?" god, define god and pretty much?

It's been a long time since I did any study around Newtonian gravity and then it was only very basic stuff, I'm only familiar with this equation So the model presented makes little sense to me, however I'm not qualified enough to comment on it. So I'd be more than happy to be educated further on this subject (math not being my strong point). Ok, this is probably why I get frustrated. The models basically offer predictions of the behaviour dependent on context. I want to understand the physical properties of gravity (if any) which as being pointed out by others, may not be possible. Thanks Maybe I'm trying to understand gravity fundamentally as a thing rather than as an interaction.

Ok thanks, I guess then what I'm really asking is why the models (lets just keep it to QM & GR for arguments sake) are conflicting. In that one describes gravity as a force (particle exchange) and the other as geodesics. This then in my mind sort of emulates the wave particle duality we see with particles. Where similarly gravity can be one or the other depending on the context of the observation/experiment. Ok, I get this thanks, what I'm really asking then is, what is gravity at its most fundamental level a geodesic due to the interaction between mass and space or a force due to the interaction between 2 or more massive objects? Or neither, as these are just different models representing the same effect? Ok, maybe I'm confusing models with description. Thanks

I'm not taking it as criticism, I appreciate your offer and would be interested in gaining a better understanding. I'm sure I have many misconceptions, which is probably why I struggle to get my head around the models, their relationship and how they fit into the big picture (or small picture). Yes, and this is my question really. Can any model describe to a fundamental level which describes the underlining mechanics? I was listening to a TED talk where a scientist (can't recall the name) mentioned that some well know physicists are exploring theories that go beyond what we may currently consider as fundamental such as space & time. That such things like space & time maybe projections from a deeper more fundamental reality. Yes, I appreciate this and it maybe the case that the deeper we delve the more models arise and then fail as we go deeper still. My question is as per my reply to Bufofrog

Yes, I agree and familiar with each model. I just can't get my head around which model actually describes gravity in its "true" form. All the models make accurate predictions even, Newtonian that has been succeeded by GR still is accurate enough for most applications. But if all fail at some level then in my feeble mind all are just approximations and don't describe gravity at the most fundamental level.