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?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:“Can a single person make a difference in the World today?”
Well at face value I'd have to say "Yes", but my threshold of what constitutes a "difference" may be much lower than yours.
My Ultimate Question: "Is physical death in this universe 'the end'?"
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
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.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
What is the right thing to do?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
My ultimate question is "what is the ultimate question?"
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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". Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
The ultimate question is this:
Are we more evil than we are good?
The problem with the question is its subjective to what is evil adn what is good by the definition of those answering.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Where does "Do? It doesn't do anything, thats the beauty of it" come from?
Someone had to ask it!
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
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?
Can I ask more?
Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
Will violence be _ever present_ and neccessary part of humanity?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
One more, ok this is my Ultimate Question:
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.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
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.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
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?
Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
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)
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
You guys are viewing time and space from our limited eyes, as opposed to God's. Some questions we can't get answers to.
My UQ is "what the heck am I doing?". It can be used in SO many ways Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
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 Posted by BGgurl (Member # 8541) on :
Will the concept of the existance of a diety ever be made into a theory or law that people will generally accept?
I know the answer to this may seem obvious to some, but the question still remains.
Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
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...
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
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.
Posted by BGgurl (Member # 8541) on :
oolung - I'm talking about the human race in general, and I don't necessarily mean a Judeo-Christian God
Iem - From what I've read and heard, it's forbidden, in Judaism, to say the name of a diety in full.
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
My UQ: Why does existence exist?
As in, why does, and perhaps why can, everything we know of exist as we know it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: Why do so many people say G-d
It's a Jewish thing. Part of not taking His name in vain.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think the ultimate question, is best expressed as a series of three questions which are most poetic in german.
Woher? Wozu? Wohin?
(From whence? For what purpose? Where to?)
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
My UQ: What's next?
The cool thing about my question is that if you wait long enough, you'll have your answer.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
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. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oh, the answer to my question is either:
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.
Posted by rCX (Member # 8503) on :
42?
Posted by HectorVictor (Member # 9003) on :
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! Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Here's a question: Could God create a rock that he could not lift? This would either proove or disprove his omnipotence
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
My UQ is this:
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.)
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Hello there!
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.
[ January 13, 2006, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
[bricks of time and space - part 1 of 3]
Bricks.
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) .
A.
[ January 13, 2006, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
[bricks of time and space - part 2 of 3]
Time.
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”.
A.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
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.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
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”
A.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
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.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
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.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: T_Smith:
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?
A.
[ January 14, 2006, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
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 ]
A.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Sure.
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.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
My UQ: "Why?"
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
“Could God create a rock that he could not lift?” -But God is the rock! Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I though Peter was the rock...
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Ah, he's just a chip off the ol' block. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
A Big Rock Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:0range7Penguin:
-But God is the rock!
I’d agree to: “But God is also the rock!”
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?”
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
[Deliberation]
-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.
Session adjourned.
[/Deliberation]
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
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
A.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
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.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
suminon, you're right, physics can ask that question. But it doesn't. This is the difference between physicists and mathematicians.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
That "3rd Rock" is also in the picture. It is in the bottom of the frame, holding up the car.
So you were talking about the same one? I have to admit I’ve been blinded by the boulder which is next to the little child in the picture, you know, right down into the corner?
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: Originally posted by Raventhief:
suminon, you're right, physics can ask that question. But it doesn't. This is the difference between physicists and mathematicians.
Hmmm, at this point, I don't know whom do I like best, the mathematicians or the physicists...
BTW, here is a nice candidate for a UQ: "What is best describing the (physical) Universe, Mathematics or Physics?"
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
[bricks of time and space - part 3 of 3]
Space.
The physical Universe is big. Really big. In fact, there is only one “thing” bigger than that: Imagination. Imagination is the greatest of things. It encompasses the whole Universe, and there is still room for doubt. But my brick of space has limits and so, the Universe itself should have them too. If it does, then my obvious question is: what is there beyond those limits? Bricks and bricks again.
So I imagine a sphere and a little, tiny bug on its surface. It’s so tiny that all around it, it sees “flat space”. Simple enough. It begins to travel every each way; its Universe is fairly uniform. But how big is it? Does it have limits? What is there beyond those limits? If it could travel “far enough” (in a straight line) it will return to the starting point and it will realise with surprise that as big as the Universe might be, it is NOT of infinite extension AND still has no limits. I can see “how that is possible”, because I see the whole thing, I’m in a three dimensional space, while the size of the bug keeps it “thinking” just in two dimensions.
So I back away one step and think: who is the bug here? Can I be sure, using my intuitive bricks, that the space around me is just of three (spatial) dimensions? Scientists have their answer, in form of the String Theory-like theories. But this time, I can use my imagination to bypass the bricks of space.
As you might have guessed, “Beyondlessness of the Universe(lessness) there(lessness) is(lessness) nothinglessness.”
A.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA:
BTW, here is a nice candidate for a UQ: "What is best describing the (physical) Universe, Mathematics or Physics?"
A.
Neither, they both are terrible at it. Really, no one branch of science is capable of doing more than a cursory job of it.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: Originally posted by Raventhief:
Really, no one branch of science is capable of doing more than a cursory job of it.
Not even philosophy?
So here is another UQ: “What branches of science should we embrace/combine, to have at least a hope of getting this whole job of Understanding the Universe done?”
A.
[ January 16, 2006, 05:49 AM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: Originally posted by oolung:
does that imply that God is somehow 'outside' the world, and so 'not here with us', watching from afar? that's kinda sad...
oolung, I dare ask you (but not only you) an “unrelated” question: Where ARE you? I mean, where do you begin, where do you end? Are you inside your physical body? Where exactly? In your head/brain, in tour torso/heart, in a lower position still? I mean, in the unlikely event that your head came separated from your body, what would you feel for a split second before “leaving this world”, would you be more likely to feel ::bodyless:: or ::headless::? But let’s not be so extreme. Let’s take the example of a hair. I mean hair is not “dead cells”, it has a root, it grows, it can be strong or weak (see shampoo commercials ) and so on. So is there a part of you inside that hair? If you pull it off, it dies (and it hurts), but what happens when you cut it? Is there a part of you that gets separated and then dies? How come it doesn’t hurt then? I know there is no nerve inside that hair, but I’m not talking about that kind of pain. It’s still a part of you, isn’t it? (I think this is the perfect opportunity to split the hair in four )
So, if we take into consideration also the bio-currents, the fact that we can FEEL things around us, even “outside” the 5 “classic” senses, then our body isn’t at all our “exact container”. Or is it?
Therefore, another UQ: “Where does a being begin/end as related to its body?”
A.
[ January 18, 2006, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
It might be the last post of this thread. So, for the sake of the Quest, I summarize the UQs, in chronological order:
suminonA : Can a single person make a difference in the World today? KarlEd : Is physical death in this universe 'the end'? Raventhief : What's for lunch? Tante Shvester : What is the right thing to do? Teshi : what is the ultimate question? T_Smith : Are we more evil than we are good? lem : Where does "Do? It doesn't do anything, thats the beauty of it" come from? GaalDornick : Does the Universe have unlimited space? GaalDornick : Can you keep traveling in one direction forever and ever? GaalDornick : If so, how can something be never-ending? GaalDornick : How can there be no end? GaalDornick : And if it is ending, what the heck is on the other side of the end? GaalDornick : What happens you reach the end? You hit a wall? GaalDornick : Before G-d made space, what was there? GaalDornick : If you went back in time to before G-d made space, what color would everything be? What would you see? Topher : Will violence be _ever present_ and neccessary part of humanity? GaalDornick : If G-d exists, when did He start existing? What was He doing before he made the universe for trillions of years? GaalDornick : When did G-d first become a Being? GaalDornick : But what was G-d doing for all of those years before he made the universe? GaalDornick : And what made him want to create the universe, he got bored one day? GaalDornick : what would it look like if you were there before there was anything? GaalDornick : It couldn't be black because there's nothing there, it couldn't be white, or any other color? What would you see? oolung : What will happen to me after death? oolung : Why can't my body act as my mind would like it to? oolung : Why some people like to hurt others? oolung : Has anyone something to eat? oolung : Why can't I look like Keira Knightley (without the horsey jaw)/insert name/insert name (depending on the mood)? smitty : what the heck am I doing? BGgurl : Will the concept of the existance of a diety ever be made into a theory or law that people will generally accept? Friday : Why does existence exist? The Rabbit : Woher? Wozu? Wohin? (From whence? For what purpose? Where to?) skillery : What's next? rCX : 42? Reticulum : Could God create a rock that he could not lift? Tinros : 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.) suminonA : Could we accept our differences of thought, and not judge everything and everyone from our limited point of view? Juxtapose : Why? suminonA : What is best describing the (physical) Universe, Mathematics or Physics? suminonA : What branches of science should we embrace/combine, to have at least a hope of getting this whole job of Understanding the Universe done? suminonA : Where does a being begin/end as related to its body?
Thanks to all for participating!
A.
PS: this doesn’t mean that the topic is closed, feel free to add your candidates. But when the thread drops again to the 3rd page, it would be closed de facto, wouldn’t it? Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I have two ultimate answers to somebodies questions right here they are:
-41
-I like cheese!
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
The ultimate question is "do I have to get up know or can I sleep some more," followed by "Is the coffee done yet?"
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Advent 115, I just want to notice that 41 is a Prime number, therefore that would be a Prime answer, don't you think?
Orange7Penguin, what about those who don't drink coffee? I for one prefer Java
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
[The One Who Had All The Answers]
I was living my life quietly and joyfully, when I learned that there is One who has All the answers. They said it’s not about knowing everything, it’s just that the One has the answer to all of others questions. Apparently the One was widely known, the fame was spreading rapidly, because, some said, every time you ask the One a question, you receive in return not only the answer, but also a symbolical 2cents. And because there were so many people that wanted to ask questions, there was a simple rule: no one could ask more than a question each day. So there were people who stood for days at the One’s door, asking one question at a time. And sure enough, there were a lot who asked trick questions, trying to prove themselves more witty than the One Who Had All The Answers. But they never succeeded, they always got a good answer, so they all let it go. Today I go to the One with my question. It’s a simple question, not tricky or anything, just simple curiosity. The One opens the door and invites me to a cup of tea. On the little silver plate, there are also 2cents. So I go on and ask: <Great One, if YOU were to ask somebody who had all the answers a question, what would it be?> Smiling gently, the One said: <I would ask that someone: “What would be the question to which not even I had the answer?”>
I thanked politely and returned to my quiet and joyful life. I was happy to understand, that The One Who Has All The Answers, was also looking for something. But it’s not an answer, it’s a question. The One values greatly the questions that the others gave him. AND I've got my 2cents.
Morale: It may be hard to give good answers, but it’s even harder to ask good questions.
A.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
suminonA, I want to appeal your verdict on my ultimate question of "Why?"
On the charge that it is an Ultimate Basic Question, I would argue that being basic is an essential element to an Ultimate Question.
It is Ultimate becuase it is the only question that can be asked of any statement without resulting in eventual repetition. If you've ever had a conversation with a child about the age of 7 you'll understand what I mean. You can chase the question "Why?" to the limits of your curiosity, but it will always reach further, like the untouchable horizon. (ooh, how deep...)
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Juxtapose, there is no final verdict of the UQQ Jury (as yet). But your appeal is hereby taken into consideration
The “charge” of UBQ doesn’t contradict/exclude the validity as a UQ candidate. It’s just like being part of a special category, on top of being a valid question. So the jury agrees with your argument about the “basic” part being essential to an UQ.
Therefore the question “Why?” really deserves much consideration. [That is why the Jury has been called before!] But you seem also to argue that this should be THE UQ. You insist that this question can reach further and further (any reason can be challenged with a new “… but WHY?), and in my view, this is actually regressing to the Primal Cause, therefore I’d say it’s rather a PRIMAL Question. Or a Primal Basic Question…
Paradoxically the Primal Cause can coincide with the Ultimate Cause, just like the untouchable horizon in the West is actually the same untouchable horizon in the East.
And just to show you that “Why?” isn’t really the final UQ, here is a “better” candidate: “Why would be <Why?> the final UQ?”. So it doesn’t matter if you or anybody else find a good REASON for it to be the UQ, the better qualified question still remains
A.
(BTW, I understand the “child mentality/curiosity” you talk about, I still hope to have it somewhere inside. )
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:“Why would be <Why?> the final UQ?”
I'm having trouble parsing this. do you mean "Why would <Why?> be the final UQ?" Either way, I have class tomorrow and it's beddie-bye time.
Also, if I didn't have some of that curiosity still burning I probably wouldn't have joined a community devoted to discussion and debate, now would I? I think that's one of the main binding forces for the hatrack community.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Juxtapose, you are right, my parser went wrong. I mean "Why would <Why?> be the final UQ?"
Rest well
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
The UQ of the day: "Why do fools fall in love?"
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Will LOVE prevail?
A.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
The answers are "only fools fall in love because at some time we all play the fool" and "love will prevail it just might just not prevail in any one person but as a hole and a concept there will always be love in the world."
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Interesting thread. And a strange coincidence, to me, since I just finished reading The Religion War, by Scott Adams.
The Religion War is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. I'm predicting that eventually the two will share the same audience.
The religion war has the same kind of logic, except that is not twisted.
It's very amusing but entirely unfunny.
The story is entirely plausible.
The author's last name is Adams.
The Religion War provides the ultimate question. It is: "If God is so smart, Why do you Fart?"
But you have to read it in order to understand why the question is important. And the answer is not 42.
Scott Adams says you'll enjoy the book more if you read God's Debris first. The Religion War is the Sequel to God's Debris, but I haven't read it.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Do the ends justify the means?
Hold on. To the people who immediately answer 'no', I have to point out that the examples that support that usually seem to either have unintended consequences to the "means" in question, or fail to actually accomplish the "ends" desired.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
I’d like to address Sterling’s question [and add-on]:
“Do the ends justify the means?” is an example of moral question, and we know which “side” Machiavelli was on. The “paradox” is always about the “size of the picture” we are looking at, just like Sterling said. So let’s look at the biggest picture of them all. I mean this whole existence (the Universe and all). At a personal (human) level, it seems to end with one’s life (see KarlEd’s question). But I personally don’t agree (that is, I’ve chosen not to think like that). This existence is a bigger picture that human life, and even so, it is quite possible to have an END. And so I ask: what difference will it make what we do, and why we do it, if in the END everything is just going to END? Strangely enough, this question has the same answer as Sterling’s question.
Here is my “reasoning”:
In some incomprehensible way, we formed an opinion about good and evil, meaning that we make a difference between good deeds and evil ones. But this is only true at an individual level, it’s hard to get more people to agree to the definitions of good and evil, without imposing some coercion. And so, life in human society was and always will be a struggle between personal definitions of good and evil (quite dynamic in time) and the definitions formulated by the society as a whole (with a strong inertia over time). As long as the ego of the individuals separates them from the WHOLE, there won’t be “a perfect society” of humans (humans, as the only example of intelligent-yet-killing-for-pleasure beings). And so, the definition of a moral act (definition that comes from the society side of the struggle) is an act that doesn’t harm the society as opposed to the urge to please oneself. Why is this relevant to the point? Well, because of the answer:
<Our existence {all, not just one person’s life} exists only in order to experience something different than non-existence.>
So, the existence itself doesn't have to do with the morale at all. If there is no morale, there is no “limit” to what one “can” or “cannot” do. If one individual cares only about the personal ends, there is no point in asking to justify the means to get to them. But if the individual cares about the society around, then there is a need to justify not only the end, but then the means too.
Either way, the result is the same in the END. What is important (at a personal level of existence) is what the degree of the morale of each individual is. Nothing more, nothing less.
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Glenn Arnold, I have to do some reading and I'll come back to you on that.
A.
Posted by Geekazoid99 (Member # 8254) on :
My UQ: Is there a reason for us to be alive? If yes. What If no. what makes life important
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: Originally posted by 0range7Penguin:
"only fools fall in love because at some time we all play the fool"
I’m not sure what question were you answering… I mean, which one of the following? "Why do fools fall in love?" "Why do fools fall in love?" "Why do fools fall in love?" "Why do fools fall in love?" "Why do fools fall in love?" "Why do fools fall in love?" "Why do fools fall in love ?"
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Glenn Arnold, I did some reading, and it was a good reading. Nice of you to have posted that I think it is really pertinent to the topic.
Thank you,
A.
PS: if only the "reboot" business was as simple as that... Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yeah, I don't buy that part either. At least not on that time scale. Nor do I buy the existence of the Avatar. But the book raises interesting ideas.
Kind of interesting that in the introduction he SAYS that he wants his readers to look for flaws (in God's Debris, but the implication is that this extends to The Religion War by nature of the author)
Also, listing questions for discussion at the end. You'd think he wanted us to start a thread, woudn't you?
I'm sure there are, over at Dilbert.com.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: I’d like to address Sterling’s question [and add-on]:
(*head explodes*)
Posted by Son of Shvester (Member # 8489) on :
the question is....................... WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE QUESTION?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Son of Shvester, have you read the first post of this thread? Or the 5th?
Now that you are here, I challenge you to find an "original" question, that is, a question that didn't appear in this thread before (you'll find a list above, near the top of this page, that summarizes the first page of the thread )
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
* offers band-aids to Sterling *
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"Now that you are here, I challenge you to find an "original" question, that is, a question that didn't appear in this thread before."
Can the impact of your actions rippling into the future be considered an immortal soul?
(From the list of questions at the end of The Religion War. There's 7 more of them.)
Edit: I thought there were 10.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Glenn Arnold, why not present here all the questions?
The key question in “The Religion War” by Scott Adams is: “If God is so smart, why do you fart?”
Then, at the end of the book there are some
quote: QUESTIONS TO PONDER
1. If you suspected you were deluded, how could you find out for sure? 2. Are humans the product of a skilled or an unskilled designer? 3. Would an omnipotent being need to think in the way that people understand it? Or is thinking unnecessary for a timeless, indestructible being whose preferences are the same as reality? 4. Why would God be so unclear about what book or books he authored? 5. Is consciousness anything more than a continual process of imagining, acting, observing the impact of the action, and imagining again with new information? 6. The dictionary defines "faith" as belief without evidence. It defines "stupidity" as unreasoned thinking. Is belief without evidence a form of unreasoned thinking? 7. Can the impact of your actions rippling into the future be considered an immortal soul? 8. Could atheists and believers accept the same definition of God?
A.
PS: my UQ for the day: "Is the Ultimate Question a religious one?" [yeah, this is a meta-UQ]
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Kind of interesting that in the introduction he SAYS that he wants his readers to look for flaws (in God's Debris, but the implication is that this extends to The Religion War by nature of the author)
Also, listing questions for discussion at the end. You'd think he wanted us to start a thread, woudn't you?
I think that if Scott Adams would see this thread, he would be disappointed by at least two points:
1) This thread started without a direct connection to his book. I mean, at the time of the first post, suminonA didn’t even know about Scott Adams’ book. I know, because I was there.
2) Up to the point where Glenn Arnold posted about “The Religion War” book, the thread didn’t come very close to the questions proposed in the book (save the first question of the thread, which is suspiciously “close” to the question Glenn Arnold cited in his last post.)
A.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
quote: I’m not sure what question were you answering… I mean, which one of the following? "Why do fools fall in love?" "Why do fools fall in love?" "Why do fools fall in love?" "Why do fools fall in love?" "Why do fools fall in love?" "Why do fools fall in love?" "Why do fools fall in love ?"
A.
-Originally posted by suminonA.
Was that a joke? I dont get it. Im confused... Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
0range7Penguin, if you look closer, in my post, each question has (another) word in bold (except for the last one). If you look even closer, those question are different, when you stress one word of the question. If you are still confused, I'll post my own answers to those different questions too.
A.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
And if you read diagonally from upper left to lower right, it still says the same thing.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: And if you read diagonally from upper left to lower right, it still says the same thing.
Yeah, most of the times, the sum of the pieces is more than just the sum [here, instead of just 7 questions, there are 8]
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
UQ of the day: Is free will just a (useful) concept?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
If free will doesn't exist, then usefulness is meaningless.
Soo....
It's either not useful, or it's not just a concept.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Glenn Arnold, I suppose you know where does my last question comes form. [Subtle hint to the Destiny or Freewill thread ] There are so many questions...
UQ for today: "Will we be able to answer them all?" Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
o
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
-and it was supposed to still have the bolds. I noticed that and just didnt get it. When i copy-pasted it unbolded it. *shrug*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What is your name?
What is your quest?
What, is your favorite color?
What, is the average air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Those are the ultimate questions.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Is that an African or a European swallow?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
How do you know so much about swallows?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
What is your name?
What is your quest?
What, is your favorite color?
What, is the average air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
I have the answers to the first 3 questions. And so do you, for they are personal answers.
-and it was supposed to still have the bolds. I noticed that and just didnt get it. When i copy-pasted it unbolded it. *shrug*
Ok, it's happened to me before too. But you still didn't answer any of the 8 questions ...
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
What is my consciousness worth if I agree to the idea that I’m being manipulated by some unconscious (external) forces?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Hmm..here's a good one that bugs me:
If we are as ants to God, and we can't imagine living as an ant, How can God understand living as we do?
or, more succinctly,
Can knowledge understand ignorance?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"... and you wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick."
Likewise, teachers who have always been good students have a really hard time dealing with students that struggle with the material.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Juxtapose, sometimes, when the premises lead to contradictory conclusions, all we need to do is to change the premises
My latest question: Is ours the Ultimate civilisation?
A.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well alright, if pythonian questions aren't applicable to your survey...
What if God was one of us?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
The UQQ jury accepts to open new categories such as basic/pythonian/java-ish/fortranesque/cobolian/Perl-ish/etc Ultimate Questions. Our (non)specialists won't be able to answer them anyway, so there will be little difference from the true UQs
A.
PS: Lyrhawn, the question to your question is: "What if we were 'one' of the Gods?" Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Does humanity need a holy SAVIOUR?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Is the goodness and love in the world enough for us as individuals to put up with the vile, selfish, ignorant, stupid sh*t that humanity has to put up with on a day to day basis?
Or more simply:
Is it worth it?
Is freedom (in the absolute, freewill sense, not the political sense) a good thing when you see what people do with it?
Am I part of the problem or part of the solution?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Is the goodness and love in the world enough for us as individuals to put up with the vile, selfish, ignorant, stupid sh*t that humanity has to put up with on a day to day basis?
You seem to imply that each individual has to put up with the problems of the whole humanity. I’d say that the goodness and love in each individual should be measured against the vile, selfish, ignorant, stupid sh*t that each individual has to put up with on a day to day basis. This way, each individual could come up with a personal answer. My answer is YES.
As for the BIG picture, if the individuals cannot find enough strength to find the worthiness of their own lives, then the larger issue is almost meaningless.
quote:Or more simply: Is it worth it?
Or more simply: YES.
quote:Is freedom (in the absolute, freewill sense, not the political sense) a good thing when you see what people do with it?
The good/bad issue is once again to be judged at a personal level, and not by others. As long as X’s freedom doesn’t frustrate my own view of my freedom (including all that I care about), X is free to do whatever X wants with it.
quote:Am I part of the problem or part of the solution?
A well stated problem is already half-solved. (Sorry to give such a general answer, but it’s too a general question )
A.
PS: I really liked your questions Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: Does humanity need a holy SAVIOUR?
The way I see it, there are two ways to look at this question...
1. Is it necessary for humanity to be saved?
2. Is human nature such that they require a hero to look up to?
To the first one, I say no. We redeem or condemn ourselves with our own actions.
To the second, I say, apparently. I personally don't think it is necessary, I would much rather have a teacher than a hero, but if history is any guide, humanity as a whole hungers for a hero to set up on a pedestal and worship and if there isn't one around that's appropriate, they will invent one.
P.S. Thanks A!
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:To the second, I say, apparently. I personally don't think it is necessary, I would much rather have a teacher than a hero, but if history is any guide, humanity as a whole hungers for a hero to set up on a pedestal and worship and if there isn't one around that's appropriate, they will invent one. [emphasis added by suminonA]
I’d call that self-programming.
And BTW, there was even a third nuance to my question.
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Have I done anything worthy lately?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What have I done to improve my life today?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Will the exponential growth in technology ever stop?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Will our philosophy ever match our technology?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Is intelligence (strictly) hereditary?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Is life a journey or a destination?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Does an act have an inherent ethical value?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Does power corrupt everything/everyone?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Is it safe to suppose that making NO suppositons would solve a great deal of misunderstandings?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Is it against forum ethics posting so many times in a row?
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
What's with the Religious conversion?
A.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
About what God was up to before creating the universe: there's an assumption in that that time existed before the universe, so there was a "before." That doesn't match current theory.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
If your consciousness is formed by a rational external force (God), should you trust it?
If it was formed by irrational external forces (nature), should you trust it?
If it formed itself without reference to external reality, should you trust it?
How do you know that all human logic isn't fatally flawed, and we can't tell because we're all programmed the same way? There's evidence that the brain makes up stories to explain things if its memory of how they actually happen is suppressed.
How do you know that when people talk about God and science, they aren't really talking about oranges and shinbones, and you just don't understand what the rest of us mean?
I suppose if I had a serious ultimate question it would be, "Why isn't there nothing?"
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Will B, welcome to this thread
It’s been a while since anybody else wondered/wandered around here
I’d like to comment a bit on your UQs. It’s not that I have the (ultimate) answers, they’re just my present opinion: “If your consciousness is formed by a rational external force (God), should you trust it?
If it was formed by irrational external forces (nature), should you trust it?
If it formed itself without reference to external reality, should you trust it?”
It seems to me that these questions derive from a single one: “Should you trust something/somebody that you don’t completely understand?” Well, as long as the subject to understand is simple enough, I would rather understand it completely before trusting anything about or derived from it. That would be “reasonable trust”. But there are a great many subjects that I know I can’t completely understand (e.g. the definition of God as seen by others), yet in general the distinction between the comprehensible and incomprehensible ones is in itself a subject matter that I cannot fully understand/trust. No, I’m not trying to hide behind a paradox , my “solution” is to trust even some subjects that I can’t fully understand, with or without the hope of ever getting to complete understanding. Others call this “faith”, I’d call it “unreasonable trust” (with no negative meaning here).
“How do you know that all human logic isn't fatally flawed, and we can't tell because we're all programmed the same way? There's evidence that the brain makes up stories to explain things if its memory of how they actually happen is suppressed.” I don’t know if all human logic is fatally flawed. I even thing that if that is the case, it’s impossible to notice it by oneself (sounds like The MATRIX ). In any case, I really am impressed by the amount of (scientific) knowledge that the humans did reach!
”How do you know that when people talk about God and science, they aren't really talking about oranges and shinbones, and you just don't understand what the rest of us mean?” Same comment, nothing is sure, nothing is absolute, not even the total negation contained in this sentence.
"Why isn't there nothing?" Well, I find this to be fairly simple: because WE perceive something. Even if we can’t be quite sure if we perceive the same thing and the same way, we do get to communicate (as poorly as that might be) with one another. Even if this is just my imaginary (as in false/unreal) impression of a Universe, while I’m connected to a MATRIX, this impression is MY life and I alone can judge its value/sense/use/purpose for myself. Or at least I have the impression that I do.
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Are Science and Religion the two sides of the coin of Faith?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Is present (time) infinitely short in extension, or infinitely long?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Hmm..here's a good one that bugs me:
If we are as ants to God, and we can't imagine living as an ant, How can God understand living as we do?
or, more succinctly,
Can knowledge understand ignorance?
If we were to become an ant and live as one, we might be better able to understand ants.
Some theologians speculate that this was one of the reasons for the Incarnation.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If we were to become an ant and live as one, we might be better able to understand ants.
Would becoming an ant allow us to still remember what we know as humans? If not, what relevance would have the “understanding”?
A.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think you answered the question yourself. If that was a reason for the incarnation, then to achieve that purpose, it is likely he wouldn't have access to his all knowledge.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
I just have to admit that I love paradoxes
A.
PS: in the spirit of this thread, I'll also ask an (ultimate) question: "Will we ever be able to completely understand each other?"
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
*bumpy*
In the recent thread “If you had to ask and I had to answer…” there were some comments (thanks, mr_porteiro_head ) that pointed out a significantly different (and highly interesting) “tangent”. Something like:
If you could ask ONE question that you were granted the truthful and accurate answer to (“oracle” like), what would your question be?
Well, I almost started a new thread for it when I recalled this dear old(er) one that closely concerns this very idea: What is the Ultimate Question that you’d like to have the answer to?
Once again, if someone is interested in my answer, then the question above (in bold letters) is my answer.
A.
PS: I’m no oracle.
Posted by b boy (Member # 9587) on :
quote:If you could ask ONE question that you were granted the truthful and accurate answer to (“oracle” like), what would your question be?
Well, having just finished 3 Ender books, it WOULD have been "What is the key to world domination?" but I know the answer to that now.
....Registered Massage Therapy of course (duh). Anyone who can master being THAT good with their hands can get people to do ANYTHING for them. If you disagree, let me introduce you to my RMT, Patrick. Good thing he's not all world domination-bent.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by b boy: "What is the key to world domination?"
And why would you like to dominate the world?
A.
Posted by Mathematician (Member # 9586) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: *bumpy*
In the recent thread “If you had to ask and I had to answer…” there were some comments (thanks, mr_porteiro_head :) ) that pointed out a significantly different (and highly interesting) “tangent”. Something like:
If you could ask ONE question that you were granted the truthful and accurate answer to (“oracle” like), what would your question be?
Well, I almost started a new thread for it when I recalled this dear old(er) one that closely concerns this very idea: What is the Ultimate Question that you’d like to have the answer to?
Once again, if someone is interested in my answer, then the question above (in bold letters) is my answer. ;)
A.
PS: I’m no oracle.
That's easy: Are the axioms of ZFC consistent? I imagine I'm the only person in hatrack who cares, though.
To clue everyone else in: the axioms of ZFC are what (most mathematicians) build up ALL of mathematics from. A famous theorem of Godel tells us that any consistent sufficiently complex mathematical system (as in, strong enough to create the notion of "multiplication") can not prove it's on consistency. In otherwords, mathematicians will never know whether or not all of mathematics is a consistent system. To be honest, there are few (none?) who think it's inconsistent, and few who even care to think about it.
To respond to something on page one: the mathematical resolution of Xeno's Paradox is exactly what someone else posted - it's a convergent infinite sum.
Afterwards, he/she was asked about the sum 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + ...
This does not converge. It actually blows up to infinity. In fact, it is one of the slowest rising things that we know to blow up.
To see that it blows up, notice that the first term is bigger than or equal to 1/2, the next two sum to bigger than or equal to 1/2, the next 4 sum to bigger than or equal to 1/2,..., the next 2^n sum to bigger than or equal to 1/2. So, our whole sum is bigger than 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + ..., which clearly goes to infinity.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Mathematician, good question. Welcome to this thread. And nice screen name BTW
Oh, and thanks for the explanations about the sums ... Are you a Mathematician also by profession?
As for your concern about the axioms of ZFC, it reminds me of the “Hilbert Program”. My personal concern is: What would it change if they were demonstrably consistent (or not)? Is it still possible to find out that “something is wrong” and invalidate what we “know” about mathematics? I mean, in Physics there are theories (and not theorems). Those theories are never “final” because any day an experiment could bring new data that have to be “integrated” into (i.e. explained by) the present theories. They won’t be proven “totally wrong”, they would “evolve”, but they are surely not “final”. Is it the same in Mathematics?
A.
Posted by Solo Wing Pixy (Member # 9489) on :
Hi there, interesting thread.
Here's my two cents.
I was watching the new Battlestar Galactica: The Miniseries about a year ago and something Cmdr. Adama said has stuck with me to this day. He was saying something about how he and his fleet were going to survive the devastation caused by the cylons (robots made by man that went evil and out of control and nuked the heck out of known humanity). But then he paused and added thoughfully, (something like) "Do we, as humans, deserve to survive this?"
Back to reality. This got me thinking about real-life applications--self-destructive paths such as Nuclear war, Global Warming (though after State of Fear I'm having second thoughts), or some byproduct of our rapidly advancing technology might lead us on to such a path.
I don't exactly know what my point is, but in some way, this question altered my perspective on world events and humanity in general. It gave me a sort of faith in the fate of humanity; we -will- get through whatever event it may be because I beleive we are good enough and smart enough to get through it. And if we don't get through it--well then, we didn't deserve to.
Unless, of course, it's a huge natural disaster (see meteor thread lol). That's in God's hands.
Do we deserve to live if we destroy ourselves? But if we destroy ourselves, I guess it doesn't really matter at that point, now does it?
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
my UQ:
Who was born where, and was called what by whom?
(Please take note that this a translation, it's likely it doesn't work as well in English...) Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo: my UQ:
Who was born where, and was called what by whom?
(Please take note that this a translation, it's likely it doesn't work as well in English...)
Now I'm curious how was this question in its original language
A.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
Wie werd waar geboren en door wie werd hij hoe genoemd? - At your service...
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Solo Wing Pixy: Do we deserve to live if we destroy ourselves? But if we destroy ourselves, I guess it doesn't really matter at that point, now does it?
The thing is that humanity is so incredibly egocentric that people rarely stop to ask such questions. We manage to be somehow the most important species in the Universe. So we think that we have an inalienable “right” to be here even if we are not able to respect ourselves, nor the others. Maybe the dragonflies are thinking: “Who do these humans think they are, building stuff and destroying our swamps? They must be a plague that the Earth would be better off without!”
I’m not able to know what dragonflies are actually thinking, but in my egocentric view I think I might.
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo: Wie werd waar geboren en door wie werd hij hoe genoemd? - At your service...
I did a bit of research and found out that it is really Dutch (note: when there is something that I don't understand, and is clearly not Chinese, I use to say it's "Dutch"!) Then I looked for an answer to it (on Dutch forums) and all I found was: “Wat is het antwoord?”, which I thought was a clever answer in form of a shorter question. I was wrong, the Dutch speakers (and those that can use altavista babelfish) will easily understand.
A.
Edit to add: Thanks Eduardo St. Elmo! Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote: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?"
<nitpick>Actually, it was "What do you get when you multiply six by nine?"</nitpick>
Here's my UQ: Huh?
And if "Why?" just goes back and back and back, thereby making it the primal question, then it's obvious that the Ultimate Question has to do the opposite. So I propose "What is the result of that?" as the ultimate question. Or at least the penultimate question.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gwen: So I propose "What is the result of that?" as the ultimate question. Or at least the penultimate question.
I'm not sure if this is the Unviversal UQ, but a "Unviversal answer" (i.e. at a Universal scale) would be: "The result is what you see: The Universe around you".
A.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Mathematician: Yeah, I answered the series questions way back when. It's been four years since I've done any serious math, and I didn't take the time to calculate the second series. Good call.
SuminonA, my answer is much like yours. Whatever the question is, the answer is "it is what it is". There are no higher truths, there's no prime cause or ultimate goal. If you cannot determine the answer by looking, accept that you don't know. Seriously, how boring would life be if EVERYTHING was known?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: Seriously, how boring would life be if EVERYTHING was known?
Incidentally, this question is my strongest reason against the "utility" of the existence of an "omniscient" entity. How boring that existence must be!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.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![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
Not even philosophy? ![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)