Intoscience

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.

To be fair "IF" god exists then I'm not sure we could assume this premise anyway. We have our experience of time, for all we know this could be all part of the model and not relevant to god.

This is something that bugs me. I can't get my head around why there should be different models. I appreciate that they may be used for different applications, much like you may use different tools in engineering to achieve the same goal. But in my mind there will be just one that is the correct one, so all the others are useful approximations.

I have similar experiences with my Bluetooth mouse. I put it down to the "Bluetooth fairy's". (sorry couldn't help myself) Sometimes I notice that it can depend on the surface I place the mouse, I guess its the optical detection sensor picking something up like dust/grains/surface blemish etc...?

I like to think of gravity in just of "interaction" terms. When a imagine the force of gravity I imagine it in the classical sense of a force and then struggle to consolidate this with the GR model of gravity.

Yes, I can understand this and agree. Really it's the only way we can form an image, and certainly one that would make any sense to us, or at least resemble something familiar to some degree.

Assuming god exists and created life, to ask why maybe a unique human inquisitive trait and may not apply to god or any other living being. What other life considers why it exists? Do we know, can we know? Humans have a desire for a sense of purpose, it's the seeking for purpose that drives us to enquire of the why's (especially when it comes to existence in general). The reality could be that things just are, with no reason or no purpose and no god.

I don't know, and maybe I will never find out during my own experience. I would hope that it doesn't play a significant role in the hiring process, mainly because I agree that the tests don't necessarily represent a person's true capability or potential. So why are they used at all? The company whose job I have applied for considers itself to be a modern, diverse and inclusive business, committed to people, the environment and sustainability. A sales pitch I know, so why are they using a personality test as part of the employment selection process? I assume that they may attribute certain personality categories to be beneficial for certain job roles. I can't fathom for what other reason they may want to do these tests other than they may also consider certain personality types to fit better with the company's ethos and culture? I also assume that they place some faith in the results of the test, else why conduct them, other than to tick boxes? By the way, I have progressed to the last stage in the interview process, which is encouraging.

I'm just saying that if I believed god was real then I couldn't imagine what god was or looked like. So yeah, to fill the gaps I may consider god as a reflection of human self image. But then I can't imagine how such a "being" could be god. In a sense its a bit like trying to imagine what was before the big bang, what is at the edge of the universe what exists beyond space & time... Asking such questions may in themselves be nonsensical but they also might be quite valid. So I imagine god to be the same - beyond our imagination but not beyond existence (in some form). If you think about such things more closely you begin to realise that even our language may lack the ability to describe these things. If so then how can one begin to for an image? Our imagination is limited really to our experiences, our sensory inputs. I image god to be outside of this.

Well yeah that's sort of the point, isn't it? (my bold) Maybe it could be interpreted this way but that was not my initial intent, no, well sort of to a degree I guess. I imagine that if I believed in god then to me god would be unimaginable in my mind. Since god in this sense is all powerful and encompassing then god sits outside (if that even means anything) all that we can ever imagine. Making it impossible to imagine god and the "realm" god resides, (again if that evens means anything). So my statement was to summarise and embrace this notion.

I try to apply logic where I can and try when possible to avoid contradictions. Though, being human, with complex emotions, ideologies and all the other distractions, I fail miserably at times.