Intoscience

I think its a good thing that children learn about values as young as possible. There should be a balance and this should be determined by age/maturity also. Kids at 10 are old enough to understand basic values and old enough to do some chores to contribute towards the family unit. However they are still young enough that they should have the freedom to play and enjoy their experiences. My parents were quite strict in comparison to modern times, though by contrast likely quite lenient compared to their own upbringing. I don't think either me and my siblings, or either of my parents suffered as a result. I do believe though, that in comparison to the modern young generation, the older generations are more respectful and appreciate the value in things much more. Though this is my perspective and opinion, my experiences with my own children, and certainly the younger generation I work with, seems to hold true.

Just to clarify to everyone, It was iNow's quote not mine (I made an error when selecting the quote option), however, I agreed with iNow that's all. But yeah, certainly the perception of wealth is variable. I'm not sure wealth in any terms of universal definition and be accurately defined. For me I'm most happiest when I can enjoy the simple things in life at the same time that I have the reassurance of security both for me and my family. So this is my definition of wealth. For others it maybe possessions, power... Or maybe even just a meal on the table for that day. I don't think that is true, how can you know what money a person needs to live? Not all have the same responsibilities, live in the same economic climates, have differing health needs... A person living in a remote tribe in the middle of the Amazon is not like to have even come across money. By contrast a person living in the heart of the city of London will struggle to find accommodation to rent less than a few grand a month... so wealth is not comparable in this instance.

Money does, however, help buy happiness up to a point... According to recent data, anyway. Around October of last year, some new research came out suggesting that the threshold is somewhere around $70K per year. Happiness is harder below that point and easier above it, but the gains in happiness don't continue to grow as income does... For example, $300K per year is not meaningfully different from $70K per year in terms of happiness. This suggests that the money / happiness connection exists, but is less about being happier per se, and more about struggling less and not consistently experiencing poverty anymore once money is available. An interesting aside is that greater access to money/wealth DOES allow one to have greater experiences (both in terms of frequency and quality), and research shows that experiences DO lead to more happiness, FAR more than materialistic possessions. I'm with you on this. Interestingly the term "money is the root of all evil" if was true then all wealthy people are doomed to be dammed. I agree, how can money be the problem, it depends on what people do with it, and how they intend to gain it, where the problems arise.

The happiest people are not always the wealthiest people as has been pointed out many times throughout this thread. Unfortunately, in modern western society (and many others throughout the world) money is a means to an end. A person is unable to survive in society without it (unless you are fortunate enough to be in a position to completely live self sustainably, off the land so to speak, which is rare and arguably not really possible these days). Wealth can be measured in many ways and can be defined in many ways per individual. I consider my self to be fortunate that I have reasonably good health, family and friends, a roof over my head and a basic form of income to enable me to live comfortably, though by no means extravagant. If I really want something that I cannot afford then I do without or work hard and save up for it (I'm not a fan of credit facilities unless absolutely necessary) So by definition I could consider myself wealthy and generally happy, which then begs the question would more money make me happier?? My answer would be that more money may improve my security and sustainability and also provide me with the means to a be able to experienced more things, and possibly things I would never be able to previously. It may also buy me better health care for me and my family which in turn may improve my happiness. In contrast, poorly managed disposable monetary wealth can have an adverse effect that may lead to less happiness. In summary, its not really what you have (own) but rather what you do with it that counts. In answer to the original OP it seems money is an essential to live in modern civilisation so unless there is a better practical alternative then if you want to remain within the society system then you are stuck with it I'm afraid.

Are living things just a bunch of organic transistors? I've been following (attempting to follow since I'm very ignorant when it comes to biology) the work of Michael Levin - https://wyss.harvard.edu/team/associate-faculty/michael-levin-ph-d/ I was watching a pod cast recently and he was describing cells and as an analogy compared their behaviour as similar to transistors in mechanical electrical circuits. In that they communicate with junctions between themselves where electrical charged molecules can be shared, swapped etc... He was saying that individual living cells communicate using electricity not only in just the brain but every cell throughout the living organism but at differing rates of speed. Where a group of cells form there also forms an hierarchy that decides what form/shape the group will produce e.g. an eyeball, or a finger etc... One of the interesting things he is working on is the ability for geneticists to manipulate the cell group to form different structures, thus bio engineering. The potential of this is mind blowing when you consider the possibilities should it be successful over a large scale, not just in a lab at micro scales. https://ase.tufts.edu/biology/labs/levin/ Apologies if I have this a little mixed up, my understanding is very limited as biology is only a very casual interest of mine.

Proving an idea to yourself does not prove it as mainstream. That's why there are things like peer reviews and objective criticism... as part of the scientific method, you know, gees... Your posts started out reasonably ok, with you suggesting an idea that you have been working, good so far. Then it turned into a preaching session, now a slanging match. Not very scientific is it for a science forum?

Yeah, and since I can't really add to what has already been posted I believe philosophy and science in raw form are yin-yang

"what is the point of philosophy" To partner science.

Ah, ok I hadn't noticed, thanks for the heads up!

So what are you telling us that we don't already know? That light passes through space and is not reflected, so appears dark? What a revelation!!

Space appears dark (black) in colour because black is the colour our brains attribute to the lack of detectible light entering our optical system. It has nothing to do with the colour of "space". Colour is nothing more than the frequency of the light being reflected off the object which is being illuminated. When the light is reflected it will appear as a colour, or a combination of colours, and possibly a multitude of colours if the light is reflected at different frequencies, like a prism. Space doesn't reflect visible light so will just appear "dark", this doesn't mean space has a colour, its just the way we perceive it visually.

Your own personal experience of the present maybe. But experience is about perception and interpretation. Then, if you throw relativity into the mix, which you should, since its the most valid current model that has been verified over and over for the past century +. "Your" present relative to another's within a different frame of reference may not align, you may not agree on the timing of an event, thus may not agree on the "present". Then you may also want to consider the definition of present in perception terms anyhow. Since the experience of each present moment is an after event, so to speak, (it takes time for you body & brain to process information received) technically you could say you only ever experience the past not the present, so time only ever exists in the past. Then you may want to consider the "flow" of time, is each moment a discreet point separate from the previous & next, or is it a continuous blend within no definitive moment (present)? Then what does this mean from a relativity view point, if my present is now and yours is later which moment exists and which doesn't? You seem to want to model with absolutes, but unfortunately the universe doesn't work this way. The sooner you understand this the better! Then maybe you can start to re-think some of your ideas and realise why they are incorrect and some completely absurd.

What do you mean by darkness? We perceive (observe with our eyes) space to be dark (black) because that is the "colour" our brains attribute to the lack of enough photons entering our eyes at the perceptible frequency we are designed to detect. Darkness just means the lack of brightness, in other words a reduction in photons (EM radiation) within a certain frequency that is detectable with the human eye. As an example, infra red cameras/scopes etc, makes visible EM radiation at a different frequency that would normally be undetectable with the naked eye.

I still don't understand what your idea is trying to portray from this diagram?? What is virtual time? In what manner is history recorded?

What do you mean by special? Time is used as a coordinate along with the 3 dimensions of space, e.g. "I'll meet you for lunch at the Café Royal at 1pm". Your question is a bit like asking is dimension a position? Your clock is just showing coordinates on a chart, there are an an infinite number of discreet positions. From your chart are you suggesting that the direction of time goes around in a circle so eventually you end up back in the past?

How do you know that your physical life is any better than your spiritual one? Assuming so, that your spirit lives on and is eternal then I would hope that eternal happiness is part of that story also. Physical life is full of suffering, this is the point and what Jesus was basically promoting, that when you die (assuming you follow his teachings) then you will ascend to something greater than that which you now experience. If people want to believe this, it gives them hope and eases the suffering they may endure in life then I think its a good thing and no harm is done. If people choose to use religion for other less moral or more damaging agenda then it becomes an issue. If your going to sell something to someone they need to be convinced its going to be of some benefit. You can't sell them an eternal physical life story because there is no evidence of people living eternally. But cleverly what you can sell them is an eternal spiritual life, for a number of reasons this is an easy one to sell. First off, you don't get your prize until you physically die so its a one way ticket. Secondly, no one can refute the claim convincingly because once you die you can't come back and tell everyone about it, so there is no proven evidence either way. Thirdly, the selling tactic is that you must believe (buy into it) to guarantee your prize, so you have sort of nothing to lose if it turns out a crock, but potentially plenty to lose if it turns out to be true.

As exchemist states, our current models suggest there was a beginning of space & time, and as yet we have no idea whether there is and end or not. There is no limit to numbers, but there may be a limit to words and events Well since matter and energy (that which we can observe and measure) only makes up a small portion of the universe it all depends on your point of view. Time and space is also very very important and matters, else we would not exist in the first place. There is no requirement to invoke a "creator", this is a belief rather than an observation.

The people that knew her well personally all say the same thing about her, that she was very intelligent, diligent, hard working and committed to her duty. But above all she had a sense of humour and was very personable showing care and sympathy not only for those close to her but for all people. In answer to what was her job, well she was a leader. Not in the sense of like a general or president etc.. but as a role model. She did lots of diplomatic work helping to secure relations between many nations. Her responsibilities go far deeper than what may have been portrayed. Though there has been lots of scandal over the years with many members of the royal family I don't think its fair to say that Charles has failed miserably. He is portrayed in a poor light and probably unduly lost much respect because of the all the events around his divorce with Diana and then this compounded more so by her sudden and tragic death. Charles is much like his mother in many ways, and shares many of her values. I think we should give him a fair crack at the whip before condemning him at this early stage. He has big shoes to fill (not literally she was a tiny lady) and its going to be a tough time to try and live up to his mother's legacy. Lets hope he steps up to the mark and proves that he is a worthy successor to the throne.

Exactly this is why the question makes no sense when worded such a way "the speed of time" I assumed from the rest of the post that the poster was confusing this with the speed at which the rate of change can occur 0 > C.

I guess there are 2 things to consider 1. The measurement of time for any relative observer. 2. The "speed" at which time propagates 1. The measurement depends on what you are comparing to. each frame of reference will measure time to tick away at 1 second per second (a constant rate) however different frames of reference (as swansont stated) may not agree and find that their clock seems to tick away slower or quicker in comparison to the clock in the other frame of reference (variable rate) 2. The speed of time propagation (though makes little sense really), or rather the speed at which change takes place will be C, since time is a measurement of the rate of change, no rate of change happens faster than C so this will be constant (though this rate may have varied during different stages of the evolution of the universe).

Yeah partly agreed, that was sort of my point with this; However, you may not have been aware or have the inner desire to be a master paint sprayer, but you were dedicated, committed and must have had some pride/focus in your job even if you didn't consciously feel it considering you did it for 20 years. Paint spraying is a skilful task, not something all people would have an aptitude or desire for.

I would not take too much notice of these sorts of made up rules!! Sure you can do a study across a number of disciplines and get some kind of figure. But in truth how can you do this with any real detail and comparatively? How can you compare becoming an expert soccer player to an astrophysicist? You also have to define what you mean by "expert" someone who is highly skilled but lacks experience may still be defined as an expert. On the flip someone who may not be highly skilled but has vast knowledge and experience could also be defined as an "expert". I have seen some kids learn exceedingly quickly and become "experts" in a sport within a couple of years, where some more mature people have taken 20 + to get even close to the same level. The individual levels of learning can also vary from one extreme to another, the tortoise and hare situation... The point is, I would add to this and say - it also takes desire, dedication, commitment, focus and a will to achieve goals.

Thinking back, I heard/read something similar to this before. Good point

Recognising numbers and the order they go: counting The functions I learned in primary school: + - / x But I'm not a mathematician so not qualified to answer with any authority.

Absolutely, something you see often in all walks of life.