posted
suminon, you're right, physics can ask that question. But it doesn't. This is the difference between physicists and mathematicians.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.”
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.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?”
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?”
posted
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?Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ultimate question is "do I have to get up know or can I sleep some more," followed by "Is the coffee done yet?"
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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...)
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. )
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
"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 ?"
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 )
posted
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]
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.)
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... Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?" Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
-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*
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is my consciousness worth if I agree to the idea that I’m being manipulated by some unconscious (external) forces?
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
Not even philosophy? ![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[yeah, this is a meta-UQ]
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
