Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Questions we'll never solve? Challenge accepted.

A friend recently linked me with an article containing 8 questions that were dogmatically decreed to be UNANSWERABLE. Since I'm not a fan of religious dogma, I decided to take a stab at solving these allegedly complex riddles to see whether or not they lived up to there article's name: "8 Great Philosophical Questions That We'll Never Solve."
"1. Why is there something rather than nothing?"

The key word here in this question is the term "is". The copula "is" signifies EXISTENCE in this case, resolving the question to: "Why does something exist, rather than nothing?" The answer of which is simple: things exist by definition. No further explanation is required, as I will rationally justify below. The term "exist" can only rationally (consistently) refer to THINGS with LOCATION. So it follows that it is IMPOSSIBLE for "nothing" to exist, as it would contradict the definition of existence. The question, "What if nothing existed." or "It's possible that nothing at all existed at some point in time." makes no sense because it contradicts itself at the conceptual level.

"Why is there all this stuff in the universe, and why is it governed by such exquisitely precise laws? "

The universe is not governed by laws. Reality has NO LAWS. Laws are tautologies invented by MAN for utility. In reality, there are only objects physically interacting with each other. All we can do as humans is conceive of these relations between objects and understand them. There are no laws in reality, only objects.

"And why should anything exist at all?"

Existence is not subject to explanation. Existence can only be defined, not explained. Explanations provide physical mechanisms for events and phenomena, and phenomena always entails two or more objects interacting with each other, by definition. Therefore, existence is already assumed in ANY explanation. So the demand to "explain" existence makes no sense.

" 2. Is our universe real?"

The universe is a concept referring to matter and space and "real" is a concept referring to objects with location (i.e. matter). If an object has a location, then it is by definition real and part of the universe.

" how do we know that what we see around us is the real deal, and not some grand illusion perpetuated by an unseen force (who RenĂ© Descartes referred to as the hypothesized ‘evil demon')? More recently, the question has been reframed as the "brain in a vat" problem, or the Simulation Argument.

Imaginary sim people cannot possibly be conscious. Simulations are CONCEPTS not matter how detailed or complex they are, and concepts cannot come alive, be conscious, or even move! To say that a simulation is performing it's own actions is irrationality on par with saying a shadow puppet or illustration in a book can come alive. But even if you were in a coma and your whole life was a dream or hallucination, this still doesn't solve the conceptual problem of defining fundamental concepts such as existence, the universe, object, ect. In other words, it wouldn't stop us being able to critically reason.

Here's a video where I refute the Simulation Theory in detail:

" 3. Do we have free will?"

If we define free will, then we can determine whether or not such a concept applies to humans. Here's the way I see it: imagine you are a giraffe trying to get some leafs... "Free will" is deciding to stretch for a leaf- "Determinism" is having a long neck.
" 4. Does God exist? Simply put, we cannot know if God exists or not. Both the atheists and believers are wrong in their proclamations, and the agnostics are right."
This is incredibly arrogant, as they do not justify such a conclusion in the slightest. Do they really have the explanation as to HOW God created something from nothing in ZERO TIME without moving a finger? Nope! They CANNOT, and DID NOT justify their claim that God is possible, as they so pretentiously assert. God does not exist because creation out of the void is impossible. There are some key arguments that justify that conclusion, linked below.


" 5. Is there life after death?"

This question could only be confusing to those who refuse to critically reason what the term life refers to. Life refers to the independent motion of an object against it's environment. When you die, your atoms stop moving independently, against it's environment. So the Q: "Is there life after death" is exactly the same as saying, "Does my brain move by itself after my brain decays and stops moving by itself?" It's total nonsense. No life after death.

"6. Can you really experience anything objectively?"

Nope! Experience is dependent upon observation and the term "subjective" refers to concepts which require an observer. Conceptualization, or analysis, on the other hand, can be OBJECTIVE (i.e. independent of observers). All of Science is conceptual, or analytical, and meant only for understanding because that is the only OBJECTIVE and RATIONAL (i.e. non-contradictory, unambiguous, and observer independent) method we have for reaching conclusions.

" 7. What is the best moral system?"

This is probably the only objectively unanswerable question on the list because morality is a subjective (dependent upon an observer) concept. Morals = opinions. There is no other way to rationally define the concept of morals. This question may as well be, "What is the best flavor of ice cream?" Best is always relative to an observer.

" 8. What are numbers?"

LOL I find it hilarious that mathematicians still haven't figured out what a number is, yet they claim to be professionals. A number is a concept referring to none other than the action of COUNTING. Check out this quote from Bill Gaede:

"For the purposes of Science, a number is a concept. A number is a relation. We cannot understand 5 without 1 or 4 or 6. Thus, a number is more appropriately defined as an adverb. If counting is what a number is, a specific number tells us how many times we must move our hands up and down to count something.
The mathematicians have assigned symbols such as 1 or 5 or 10 to distinguish these iterations. The number 5 does not say anything about the structure of a chair or of a rock. The number 5 is a qualifier that tells you that you must move your hand up and down one more time than 4 and one less than 6. The number 5 is a symbol that tells you HOW far you've counted. For the purposes of Science, all 'hows' are classified as adverbs. [source: youstupidrelativist.com]

Numbers are concepts (relations) between observers and objects. Numbers do not have a standalone shape or presence. They do not exist somewhere- there is no set distance between my NOSE and the "number 5".  Where could it possibly be located? Heaven? The number 5 is always a concept relative to other numbers and refers to HOW MUCH you have counted. Numbers, in reality is really "numbering" or "counting"- an action. Numbers do not exist, they refer to a verb or an adverb, (i.e. actions of objects).

In conclusion, these questions CAN and MUST be answered if people want to think rationally about reality.  If people took the time to think critically about these concepts so as to formulate non-contradictory and unambiguous definitions of the key terms being used, then the actual meaning of the question can be deciphered and analyzed and rational conclusions can be reached, as I have demonstrated above. Thanks for reading.


Post a Comment