posted
"... 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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?" Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
Is it safe to suppose that making NO suppositons would solve a great deal of misunderstandings?
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?"
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
PS: in the spirit of this thread, I'll also ask an (ultimate) question: "Will we ever be able to completely understand each other?"
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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?
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
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! Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
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".
posted
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?
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
