What's the most important thing in the world?

[Marla_Singer]

Without time all we would have is space.

There is no time, there is only energy. Time is only a "frame" generated by the expression of energy.
There is no space, there is only matter. Space is only a "frame" generated by the existence of matter.

Where there is no energy and no matter, there is no spacetime. And if I believe Einstein, "matter" is only a specific expression of energy, so there is only energy.

Hence my answer. What's the most important thing in life: energy.

 

[Daw]

Don't like kids? Bah, you just don't know how to cook treat them.

 

[warpus]

Time-space exists as a thing, though. I thought. It can bend and stuff, wasn't that what Einstein figured out?

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Sauron; Why is "virtuous" linked to "important"?

 

[Souron]

You'll have to explain the fundamental link between virtue and importance.

@Sauron; Why is "virtuous" linked to "important"?

Ethics is a study of what matters; what ultimately has value. Virtues are the traits that get you that.

"What is the most important thing in the world?" is in fact an ethics question. It asks what we should value. Should we value the common good, or is pursuit of individual prosperity more important? Does anything matter at all? These ethical questions are refinements of the first.

So if money is money is really the answer to this question, then we have to define what is good and virtuous first in terms of how it relates to accumulating money. Money must be more important that conventional values like fairness.

 

[Souron]

"What's the most important thing in the world?"

Time.

Maybe?

Where would we all be without Time, eh?

Or should that be: "When would we all be without Time?" ?

Why is time more important than gravity? Or than any physical constant that gave rise to the world as we know it?

Which leads to the follow up question: why is the world as we know it important in the first place? or in your words, why is it important for us all to be? Surely the answer to this question will better tell us what is most important.

 

[Ryika]

why is the world as we know it important in the first place?

Because we find it important. The very concept of importance is based upon some form of life assessing meaning to something (because of needs or wishes they have); the moment you try to instead define importance as a universal constant the whole concept becomes void.

 

[Souron]

Because we find it important. The very concept of importance is based upon some form of life assessing meaning to something (because of needs or wishes they have); the moment you try to instead define importance as a universal constant the whole concept becomes void.

Sometimes you can ask "why does it work?" and get an answer other than "because that's the way it is". You would instead get an answer in terms of other things, for example explaining chemistry in terms of physics. Likewise here I'm trying to ask "why is time important?", and I posit that there is an answer other than "because we find it important". Now sure, ultimately you're right, just like ultimately there is no "why" to physical constants. But before you get there, there is another answer, and whatever that is, I posit that it shows something that's more important than time.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ethics is a study of what matters; what ultimately has value. Virtues are the traits that get you that.

"What is the most important thing in the world?" is in fact an ethics question. It asks what we should value. Should we value the common good, or is pursuit of individual prosperity more important? Does anything matter at all? These ethical questions are refinements of the first.

So if money is money is really the answer to this question, then we have to define what is good and virtuous first in terms of how it relates to accumulating money. Money must be more important that conventional values like fairness.

So far the discussion has focused on "things" of importance. as in objects or similar. You have perhaps moved the conversation. I would suggest that behavior is most important, to shift the discussion into the ethical direction. Money then becomes an object that can direct action. what is most important in the world would be actions that meet some quality. I would say it is actions that benefit others more than they harm others. Or along those lines.

 

[Souron]

So far the discussion has focused on "things" of importance. as in objects or similar. You have perhaps moved the conversation. I would suggest that behavior is most important, to shift the discussion into the ethical direction. Money then becomes an object that can direct action. what is most important in the world would be actions that meet some quality. I would say it is actions that benefit others more than they harm others. Or along those lines.

For that statement, you would need to define what benifit and harm are, and when you do that you're answering the original question. Now you are saying that "everyone's" befinit matters, which a refinement. I think your answer likely amounts to "human prosperity", when you boil it down. I could go for that.

One thing I'm not clear on: what are you contrasting "actions" to? acts of nature? human intentions? What's important about "actions"?

 

[Birdjaguar]

For that statement, you would need to define what benifit and harm are, and when you do that you're answering the original question. Now you are saying that "everyone's" befinit matters, which a refinement. I think your answer likely amounts to "human prosperity", when you boil it down. I could go for that.

One thing I'm not clear on: what are you contrasting "actions" to? acts of nature? human intentions? What's important about "actions"?

it is a slippery slope.

Money, food, health, shelter, education, have all been promoted as "the most important thing". I would propose that all of those take second place to how we behave. Human actions are more important than things. Human actions bring things to bear in ways that impact others (and not just people). Using money is one way we can act to bring benefit to our selves and others.

Few deeds are totally one sided so we have to balance the good and not so good side of what we do. We spend money on a nice dinner with a young girl so we can hopefully get in her pants later. We give money to environmental organizations to preserve things for later that impact people now negatively.

Human prosperity is a great goal, but we cannot forget that it is nothing more than the collective experiences of individuals.

 

[Kyriakos]

Sometimes you can ask "why does it work?" and get an answer other than "because that's the way it is". You would instead get an answer in terms of other things, for example explaining chemistry in terms of physics. Likewise here I'm trying to ask "why is time important?", and I posit that there is an answer other than "because we find it important". Now sure, ultimately you're right, just like ultimately there is no "why" to physical constants. But before you get there, there is another answer, and whatever that is, I posit that it shows something that's more important than time.

Value (and any trait of different type too) is tied to specific observing point of view. Humans and the ebola virus do not thrive under the same conditions, so they apparently sense things different as positive, namely the ebola virus probably would view it favourably if it could spread to the whole planet and kill everyone.

Re time, i do not think it exists in the manner we sense it. It is also at least possible (but obviously can't be proven, it is outside our point of view) that time "itself" does not carry inherently any of the traits we attribute to it.
Maybe it isn't even there as a distinct parameter either. Humans obviously primarily examine things with the concept of attributed distinctness.

If we assume that no set being has an over-important point of view (eg a god in theology), i assume that nothing actually has traits in the first place, and only a secondary effect (when observed comes into contact with observer) does it assume some traits based on the sensory organs of the observer.