posted
I personally believe that we (as humans) are curious animals. We wonder. We want to learn (new) things. So most of our life is question-driven. Every time we find an (more or less satisfactory) answer, we move on, asking the next question. Thus the idea for a thread in search for the Ultimate Question.
What would be the question of Maximum Importance for you? Maybe nobody can provide a good answer for it, but then again, there is a chance that someone else has the answer you are searching for.
All in all, I suppose it’s interesting enough to learn what other people’s questions are. So the goal here is not to provide the answers (though they are welcome of course) but to find that Ultimate Question.
In this here context, my candidate would be: “What is the Ultimate Question?” (yeah, I love self-reference too much )
But in the larger context, my question is: “Can a single person make a difference in the World today?”
What is your candidate?
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my ultimate question is: What's for lunch?
According to Adams, the Ultimate Answer is 42, but the Ultimate Question is logically unknowable. I actually like this theory, because if we know the Ultimate Question, what would happen if we find out the Answer? What then? If the Question is unknowable, then whether we know the Answer or not, we can still go on looking.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd's UQ: "Is physical death in this universe 'the end'?" Returning the favour, I give my (personal) answer: A big "NO". And not only because of the re-incarnation stuff, but because I choose to believe that our existence transcends this physical universe, which is just a very small part of the Total Universe (the Totalverse).
Raventhief’s UQ: “What's for lunch?” I don’t even pretend to have an answer to that. Just to observe that this is a much more pragmatic question, which proves that not only the answers define us, but also our questions.
The parallel to Adams’ Answer/Question is pertinent, but the goal is not to find The Absolute Ultimate Question (which would be acknowledged as such by everybody). [btw, I’ve read the book – funny, I’ve seen the movie – nice visual FX] This thread is a chance to show to the others what our concerns are. They are different, just as we are (or seem to be).
Tante Shevster’s UQ: “What is the right thing to do?” Nice question. This shows once more that even if the question might be the same for more than one individual, the answers are as diverse as the individuals themselves.
Thesi’s UQ: "what is the ultimate question?" Hmmm, I’ve kind of seen that before.
As for my own UQ, I call a difference something that can be appreciated by a “large” number of other individuals in the World. How large? Well, all the people I know, and all the people that know me (now or ever), are a small number. When my deeds surpass my “name”, then I call it a big (enough) difference.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for my own UQ, I call a difference something that can be appreciated by a “large” number of other individuals in the World. How large? Well, all the people I know, and all the people that know me (now or ever), are a small number. When my deeds surpass my “name”, then I call it a big (enough) difference.
Then I still say "YES". Plenty of people have done and are doing things that will affect the lives of people they've never heard of and who will probably never hear of them. (Here I'm assuming you're speaking of positive difference, but even if you just mean a "difference" for good OR bad, "Yes" is the answer.)
Additionally, while you can't often trace all the ways your actions affect others, even a small act can create ripples that affect untold masses. One teacher can inspire someone to change the world. Even if that teacher only inspires that one individual, I'd say she's changed the world. Of course then it stretches the definition of what constitutes a "single person" making the difference.
Anyway, my answer is still "YES". Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
The problem with the question is its subjective to what is evil adn what is good by the definition of those answering.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My question is: Does the Universe have unlimited space? Can you keep traveling in one direction forever and ever? If so, how can something be never-ending? How can there be no end? It seems impossible when I try to picture the universe on a whole. And if it is ending, what the heck is on the other side of the end? What happens you reach the end? You hit a wall?
And another question, this one assuming the world was created the way it was in Genesis, before G-d made space, what was there? If you went back in time to before G-d made space, what color would everything be? What would you see?
If G-d exists, when did He start existing? What was He doing before he made the universe for trillions of years? When did G-d first become a Being? How can He have been around forever, there must be a beginning to everything. He can't have just been there for trillions and trillion and trillions of years doing nothing. It just drives my mind crazy. In my mind, there can't be a G-d, but at the same time there must be a G-d. In my mind, I don't see how we exist.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: And another question, this one assuming the world was created the way it was in Genesis, before G-d made space, what was there?
Oh! I know! <-- me frantically raising my hand Hermione-like
My rabbi said that before there was anything, there was G'd. And He wanted to create the universe. So, to make a space for His universe, He withdrew -- shrank down -- a little to create a space for His creation.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what was G-d doing for all of those years before he made the universe? And what made him want to create the universe, he got bored one day?
What I really meant by that question was, what would it look like if you were there before there was anything? It couldn't be black because there's nothing there, it couldn't be white, or any other color? What would you see?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
does that imply that God is somehow 'outside' the world, and so 'not here with us', watching from afar? that's kinda sad...
My UQ tends to change depending on day and mood.
What will happen to me after death? Why can't my body act as my mind would like it to? Why some people like to hurt others? Has anyone something to eat? Why can't I look like Keira Knightley (without the horsey jaw)/insert name/insert name (depending on the mood)?
Hmmm, so maybe that means the UQ is in itself intangible? (much like Raventhief had said)
Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
you're right about us, smitty, but that's just all we can do, since we're not God He, on the other hand, probably doesn't have an UQ, because he's omniscient.
You're so right about your UQ, too Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmmm, I think it has already been made, it's just NOW that we've changed it (in the past century or more). And I thing it's still acccepted in some cultures (the Muslim religious law, for example).
Unless you mean a law that will be universally accepted by the entire human race. I think we'll have to wait for that...
Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do so many people say G-d instead of God? I first noticed it with Dr. Laura. I assume it is to make God generic--not specific to one faith, but I don't see how it is more generic.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thesi’s UQ: "what is the ultimate question?"
Oh! It was yours already. I honestly didn't even realise! I was so confused...
It's been my question for a while now.
Anyway, although you kind of dismissed your suggestion of the ultimate question as too broad, and I suppose I agree in the way that you then narrow the focus to a totally human and individual level.
However, I would still consider what you and I suggested as a perfectly valid question, despite the fact that it appears self-referential!
The whole of life in this particular state is a journey, or a search. Therefore, it is the journey or the search to carry out the journey or the search that is important and not the actual totally unknown and undefined destination at the end.
Also, I liked your mangling ( ) of my name so much, I kept it. Thesi. Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
a) To find the ultimate question. b) There is no ultimate question. There are an infinite number of penultimate questions. Like the speed of light. It's just a little bit unreachable.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
42 arises from the AWESOME Hitchhiker's Guide series, which I think everyone should read. Or, if you are lazy (which I doubt you are because you probably got here by reading on of OSC's books), you can watch the movie.
And according to the Restaurant at the end of the Universe (I believe it was that one), the Ultimate Question is "What is six times nine?", basically meaning (if you analyze it, which is utterly silly because it is a comedic book) that anything we know is wrong. That will help you sleep at night! Posts: 48 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a question: Could God create a rock that he could not lift? This would either proove or disprove his omnipotence
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Assuming humans CANNOT EVER be perfect, how close can an individual come to being perfect?(In my mind, this means: How close to being exactly like Jesus can one become? But that's a religious thing, you may interpret it as you wish.)
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I will use the LIFO order for my comments [I know I don’t have the answers, but I surely have comments ]
Tinros’ UQ: ”How close can an individual come to being perfect?” Well, as you are specifying, your “standard” for perfection is a “well known” historical figure. I use the quotation marks for I think that in order to know well someone, you have to live close to them (in time and space). What we “know” about past figures is just the stories the “historians” told us. So as usual, the perfect image that we have about them is just that, an image. Not that the original was bad or something, but it sure was different. Maybe even better.
Reticulum’s UQ: “Could God create a rock that he could not lift?” Before anyone tries to answer such a thing, please define what you mean by “God”
HectorVictor: Well, I know that that 6x9=42. We just don’t interpret the numbers the same way… With that I sleep very well at night.
rCX’s UQ: “42?” The answer to that question is above: “6x9” ...
Teshi: Sorry for the mangling I’m a terrible dactolygrapher. <-- proof here As for your candidate answers, well: a) that is not a valid answer as long as a question is not the same thing as taking an action. b) First part ok, but the analogy with the speed of light bothers me a bit. The speed of light is perfectly reachable: the LIGHT does it every time. ::wink::
skillery’s UQ: “What's next?” That’s actually a Perpetual Question with no definitive answer. Good one too.
The Rabbit’s UQ: “Woher? Wozu? Wohin?” Even though I’m not able to speak it, I have great respect for the German language. It seems to be complicated, but it is one with a great power of encoding concepts.
Friday’s UQ: “Why does existence exist?” I have a “parallel” question: “What if existence didn’t exist?” ::wink::
lem/BGgurl/Tante Shvester “...Why do so many people say G-d instead of God?…” issue I think it’s great that different cultures can and do meet on this forum. Wherein deities come in various sizes and shapes, colours and names [e.g. God, Buddha, Iahve, Oversoul, Mahomed, First Aiua, IPU and whatnot]. I propose, for the sake of neutrality, and not taking any name in vain, using the term “deity”. If some questions address a point attached to a specific deity, it may then be specified there.
BGgurl’s UQ: “Will the concept of the existance of a diety ever be made into a theory or law that people will generally accept?” Personal opinion: Theory – maybe, law - surely not.
smitty’s UQ: "what the heck am I doing?" As far as I’m concerned, you’re doing a great job.
oolung’s UQ: “Why some people like to hurt others?” [I’ve chosen one according to my mood ::wink::] Parallel question: “Why some people like being hurt?”
GaalDornick’s Q: “Can I ask more?” Please do.
I will make my comments on the rest of your questions in separate posts, as they address some points that I have strong opinions about, that I’d like to share with you.
Topher’s UQ: “Will violence be _ever present_ and neccessary part of humanity?” I just want to point out that the “necessity” part seems to me to be the real issue. I for one, say yes. [sorry I’ve passed your UQ, this edit tries to undo that]
lem’s UQ: Where does "Do? It doesn't do anything, thats the beauty of it" come from? Is this just another question about the deity? I don’t mind you asking, you had to do what you had to do.
T_Smith’s UQ: “Are we more evil than we are good?” My personal definition for “good” and “evil” is: “Doing good for the sake of it, is good. Doing evil for the sake of it is evil”. This way I’m able to find an answer for myself.
Imagine you have a set of square bricks, in many sizes and colours. And you can use those bricks every single way you like, but they are always square, and there is no other shape of bricks. So one day you invent the circle, and using it you design a disk! And obviously you try to build it, to prove that your design is good. But as you get to the edges of the disk, you need smaller bricks to approximate the shape you invented. And you have smaller bricks, or you can cut bigger ones to get them. That’s good. But you still need smaller and smaller bricks, for somehow the shape you get is not the designed one. And the smaller the bricks you need are, the more of them are necessary. At some point (long before the limit of the giggling atoms they are made of), that number will prove to be impractically large.
So, is the disk an impossible dream? Should you be satisfied with an “imperfect” square-ish disk?
No, the circle is perfect, the disk is real, the idea is good. But the problem is actually in the bricks themselves. In order to build a “real” disk you need to BREAK the bricks altogether. You need some bricks with a different shape. Like a curved shape. They aren’t Opposed to the square shape, they just aren’t square. How hard is it to get them?
Key: Bricks = words/concepts Circle = the real world/universe Disk = our image of it
New shape: "somethinglessness". New bricks: shapelessness, timelessness, spacelessness, lightlessness, eventlessness, hatelessness, powerlessness, selflessness, etc(lessness) .
My intuitive sense of time is fairly simple. Three are seconds passing, forever in a continuous flow form past to the future. I’m hanging in a point in time, namely the present. Forever passing, forever changing. But what is a “point” in time? It’s no year, it’s no day, it’s no second, it’s no fraction of a second. It is just a moment. That’s a consistent definition, for the time is a continuum, there are “points” in it (relative to any frame of reference). But then I learn about Zenon’s paradox on Achilles and Tortoise’s race. It goes like this: Everybody knows that Achilles is faster than the Tortoise. Being fair to the Tortoise, Achilles accepts a 20 foot advantage for the opponent, as a starting position. He only has to reach the Tortoise, pass by and easily win the race. “Let’s go!” But by the time Achilles reaches the spot where the Tortoise was when the race started, the Tortoise has made a few steps to a new spot. And while Achilles reaches this new spot, the Tortoise advances to still another spot. And while Achilles … Wait!! That’s not good. This will never end! As long there is a non zero distance between Achilles and the Tortoise, and Achilles is running with great but finite speed, it will take some non zero amount of time to get where the Tortoise was, and meanwhile the opponent is advancing some non zero distance ahead.
Somehow, my intuitive bricks of time are not useful here. I cannot simultaneously accept this reasoning, and the fact that objects moving with greater speed reach and pass by objects moving with inferior speed in the same direction -- something that I see every day.
Yet this is nothing compared to …And then I try to think about the beginning of the Universe, and what was there Before that? Scientists are comfortable with the idea of the Big Bang, but they are begging the question: What was there before that? Yes, I’m repeating myself already. Their answer: “Before that there was nothing, not even time”. Time is defined (for the scientific community) as starting at the precise moment of the Big Bang. But my intuition keeps asking the question…
And then I realise that once more, I’m using a wrong set of bricks. But I try: “There was a time when there was no time”. No, it’s no good. The time brick is still there. One more try: “Before the beginning there was …” Wrong again. The bricks “before” and “beginning” are just parts of the bigger brick of time. The bricks just can’t let me get to the circle... or even to the disk.
So here is my answer: “Beforlessness of the beginlessness of the Universe(lessness), there(lessness) was(lessness) timelessness”.
posted
As you said, suminon, we can see easily that the Achilles and Tortoise logic is flawed. The answer is in mathematics. The distance between Achilles and the Tortoise forms a convergent series, that is, each term is smaller than the previous one in a certain definable way. One of the properties of convergent series is that even though the number of terms in the series is infinite, the sum total of the series is finite. For example: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32...ad inf = 1
In this case, if we chop time into infinitesimal bits (moments in time which are greater than zero, but not by any definable amount) at each bit there is a distance Achilles must travel to overtake the Tortoise. And if we add up all these infinite amounts of distance, we get a finite distance which Achilles can travel in a certain amount of time.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raventhief, I personally prefer the Physics solution of the Achilles paradox, which using the relative speed between the two moving objects calculates the time and space to the meeting point.
As for the answer of “mathematics”, what can you tell me about this series: 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + … ad inf ? Isn’t this a series where each term is smaller than the previous one in a certain definable way?
Yet my point with the paradox has everything to do with the bricks . Can you give an explanation of the flaw of the reasoning, using the “standard square” bricks? There is where I’m “lost”
posted
Sorry, convergent series doesn't include ANY series in which the terms get smaller in a definable way. There are guidelines as to what is or isn't (hence certain definable way) and I don't remember them off the top of my head. Doing it roughly, I think your series also converges to 1, but I'm not certain. Seems like that's another paradox, since your series is clearly greater than mine, but that's math for you.
As to the flaw using bricks, I'm not sure what you mean, but if you define your bricks as blocks of time, then adding up the infinite number of continuously smaller time bricks will still give you a finite time to interception, since the series converges. If that's not what you mean, then I misunderstood the question.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:T_Smith’s UQ: “Are we more evil than we are good?” My personal definition for “good” and “evil” is: “Doing good for the sake of it, is good. Doing evil for the sake of it is evil”. This way I’m able to find an answer for myself.
Everyone is going to get the same answer if they apply it to just themselves, because hardly anybody ever truly thinks themselves more evil than good, purely based on the fact that evil and good is subjective. And yet, evil exists, does it not? The question I posed is an unanswerable question, which if it could be answered honestly and truly for each individual, would do a lot of good.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Everyone is going to get the same answer if they apply it to just themselves, because hardly anybody ever truly thinks themselves more evil than good, purely based on the fact that evil and good is subjective. And yet, evil exists, does it not? The question I posed is an unanswerable question, which if it could be answered honestly and truly for each individual, would do a lot of good.
I really agree with you here.
And because I started to include some paradoxes (I love them) I just want to notice a “subtle” one:
People don’t get to agree on an Absolute definition of Good and Evil (just see how many religions are trying to do that, and the result in the World today), but they do tend to agree with the fact that the definitions are essentially subjective (at least you and me agree on that ). Then why does anybody try to find such widely accepted definitions? Easy enough: “Because that would be good”. But that brings us to square one: “What is good and what is evil?”. Ah, we can’t agree on that for it is subjective, but it would be good to find a common way ...
What if we stopped looking for “Good” and “Evil”, and started looking for a way to accept and tolerate each other, in a generally acceptable manner? Could we accept our differences of thought, and not judge everything and everyone from our limited point of view?
Hmm, I’ve just stumbled upon a good UQ, don’t you think?
quote: Raventhief As to the flaw using bricks, I'm not sure what you mean, but if you define your bricks as blocks of time, then adding up the infinite number of continuously smaller time bricks will still give you a finite time to interception, since the series converges. If that's not what you mean, then I misunderstood the question.
Well, maybe I wasn't too explicit with my question. I’m talking about the bricks {of time} in the context of my previous post entitled that way [part 1 of 3]. What I’m saying is that using my intuitive understanding of “time” {this is the brick!} I’m utterly lost if I try to comprehend Zenon’s paradox. It bothers me that the concept of continuous time, a concept that I thought to be “simple enough”, doesn’t allow me to “break” the paradox.
And since you seem to like this mathematical “gadget” of convergent series, why won’t you try to use it with my “problem”? Let’s say that Achilles’ speed is v1 and Tortoise’s speed is v2, such as 0 < v2 < v1. And the distance between the opponents as the starting position is D. My Physics solution gives for the time of interception T the value of D/{v1-v2}. Can you calculate the same using a convergent series?
[ok, this is quite aside the topic, since it hardly stands a chance as a UQ candidate ]
I define the terms of series 1 as the distance at a given time between Achilles and the Tortoise. At the start of the race, the first term of the series, S0, is 20 ft. The next term of the series is defined at the point in time at which Achilles has covered the first 20 ft, or the value of the first term. At this point the distance between Achilles and the Tortoise is 0<dist<20, but until we define the velocities, it could be anything, and this is the next term, S1. Once S1 is covered, we have S2, which is even smaller, but still non zero. We carry this to infinity, or, rather, take the limit of series 1 as it continues. We then add the terms up, IE take the sum of series 1, and we get the distance from his start when Achilles will overtake the Tortoise. We then apply the velocity and find the time.
The only advantage to this method is it explains how our infinite series does not yield an infinite answer. The physics method that you described will give us the same answer much easier, but it doesn't directly address the paradox. The physics method doesn't ever ask what the distance between them at a given time, so there is no question of there being an infinite number of answers.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Ok, now that we have a working definition of “God”, we need to define the lifting part. What does it mean for a non-anthropomorphic entity, to lift that rock?
Tante Shvester, that’s a nice big rock. But I prefer another one. Have you seen a TV Show called “The 3rd Rock from the Sun?”
-Are all the members of the UQQ Jury present? -Yes. -The order of the day is Juxtapose’s UQ: “Why?” Is this a valid candidate? -It is a question, isn’t it? -It sure is. -So why won’t it be a valid candidate? -Because it is a Basic Question, like “What?”, “Where?”, “When?”, “How?” and “Who?” -Yet, it seems that it is the Ultimate Basic Question. -That is a valid category for it. -Do all the members agree? -Yes. -Wait! I’ve just got a call from our German correspondent, they say there are more Basic Questions in their language, and they are not sure this should be the UBQ. -So it isn’t over after all? -Of course it isn’t, this is not a Contest, it’s a Quest. It’s all about the searching.
quote: Raventhief: The physics method doesn't ever ask what the distance between them at a given time, so there is no question of there being an infinite number of answers.
Well, of course it does. We can build a function "d(t)" [the distance between the opponents as a function of time] like this: d(t) = D-(v1-v2)*t [defined on the interval 0 … T]. This way, you can have the distance at any given point in time in that interval. And there is an infinite number of such points
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Tante Shvester, that’s a nice big rock. But I prefer another one. Have you seen a TV Show called “The 3rd Rock from the Sun?”
That "3rd Rock" is also in the picture. It is in the bottom of the frame, holding up the car.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
This thread is a chance to show to the others what our concerns are. They are different, just as we are (or seem to be). ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
<-- me frantically raising my hand Hermione-like
