Strange

Citation needed.

I would say that they drifted apart as science become more focussed on testing ideas against the real world in rigorous and objective ways. While philosophy is more about analysing ideas: taking them apart and asking questions about them. So, philosophy is about asking better questions and science is one way of getting useful answers. Note that an important aspect of science is that it works: i.e. it is productive. In other words, science can be used as the basis of technologies that, for example, give us better medicines or mobile phones. And that is where things like ethics, etc. should come into it: what technologies should we develop and what should we use them for. (Philosophy obviously also has a role in defining the methods used in science.)

Fascinating. Can you provide some context? Like a link to the web page or article it comes from?

Interesting graphic. Can you provide some context?

But, as you say, those groups are of variable number. So the choice of where to draw the boundaries is subjective and, ultimately, arbitrary.

Now available in a spray can, apparently. https://www.surreynanosystems.com/media/news/*%20new%20applications%20include%20consumer%20products%20such%20as%20cameras,%20and%20luxury%20goods

I asked because I was trying to understand your definition. And yet you insist it is not vague and subjective. As I say, I did try that Google. And found a large number of results none of which appeared to be relevant. You seem unwilling or unable to provide a specific reference or a link. Why is that?

Of course it is semantics, we are discussing the definition of terms. It is not "just" semantics, it is totally semantics and nothing but semantics. (The phrase "just semantics" makes me wonder is people know what the word means.)

dark, gloom, obscurity, shade, adumbration, cover, dimness, dusk, punumbra, protection, shelter, umbra, umbrage, obscuration, atramentous, caliginous, crepuscular, aphotic, cimmerian, nebulous, obfuscous, tenebrous, stygian, shady, somber, ... None of those sound like "entropy" though. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/darkness

Shadow?

Please show this derivation.

And you now need to show that these results are incorrect. Or stop claiming that calculus gives the wrong results.

Click on "More Reply Options". That will give you a preview.

Mike, you are a jolly nice guy. Will that do?

Lets say, for simplicity, that the population increases by a factor of 2 at each generation. Then it would take about 69 generations for the population to increase by 1029. If we allow about 30 years per generation, then that is about 2000 years. Clearly, this would require the population to spread rapidly to new planets to have enough spaces and resources. (These numbers seem quite small but I think that is because population growth doesn't really work like that, rather than I have made a gross error. Although that is entirely possible, as well.)

Oops. Forget that. Need to work it out again...

That Snow White analogy is interesting. I wonder if the ideas of resurrection, etc. fed into the story. Or maybe the basic tale is old enough that it is pre-Christian and just shares common themes. ... google ... google ... This article suggests there may be some historical facts behind the story: http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/exploring-true-origins-snow-white-and-seven-dwarfs-004150 It may have then incorporated mythic elements that everyone would have been familiar with to give it greater "depth".

We are not mind readers. We can only respond to what you say, not what you are thinking. You are unable to provide any reason for those doubts. Therefore there is no reason for anyone to take them seriously. Unless you can show, in suitable mathematical detail, that calculus is incorrect, then your doubts are irrelevant. All you need to do is admit that you have made some foolish and unsupported claims, that you agree they were wrong and you won't repeat them. It takes some courage to admit you are wrong (the first few times - I can assure you, from experience, that it gets easier with practice).

So you are guessing about what might happen in future and using that to support your idea. This is the fallacy of begging the question. Not quite an established fact, but yes that is the consensus. But that wasn't the question. I didn't ask how old it is, I asked why you say it would be unlikely to last 12 billion years? They also recognise adverse changes and adapt to that. Or they could become extinct (if that is the "better" solution). I have never heard of such a model. Citation needed. Your opinion does not really count as evidence. I have never heard anyone say that. So, again: Citation needed. If things have been getting better for 12 billion years, why is everything still a bit crap? Surely it should all be perfect by now.

No doubt there are some people out there using this as "proof" that the Bible was written by Martians.

You have repeatedly claimed that calculus, and mathematics generally, doesn't work. How can you make these claims but not have the evidence to back them up? I assume you have no such evidence and there is nothing at all wrong with mathematics. Perhaps the problem is with your understanding of mathematics?

Speed is not force. And force is not energy. I doubt such a collision would release enough energy to destroy the universe. The planet, maybe.

It is a MYTH. Why are you worrying about these numbers? You might as well wonder why there are Seven Dwarfs and seven days in a week.

So when the Sun turns into a red giant and engulfs the Earth that is more desirable, satisfactory and effective? And when all the stars have died and the universe is cold and dark, that is more desirable, satisfactory and effective?

Yes.