Sunday, April 28, 2013

8 Great Philosophical Questions That We'll Never Solve



Philosophy goes where hard science can't, or won't. Philosophers have a license to speculate about everything from metaphysics to morality, and this means they can shed light on some of the basic questions of existence. The bad news? These are questions that may always lay just beyond the limits of our comprehension.

Here are eight mysteries of philosophy that we'll probably never resolve.

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

Our presence in the universe is something too bizarre for words. The mundaneness of our daily lives cause us take our existence for granted — but every once in awhile we're cajoled out of that complacency and enter into a profound state of existential awareness, and we ask: Why is there all this stuff in the universe, and why is it governed by such exquisitely precise laws? And why should anything exist at all? We inhabit a universe with such things as spiral galaxies, the aurora borealis, and SpongeBob Squarepants. And as Sean Carroll notes, "Nothing about modern physics explains why we have these laws rather than some totally different laws, although physicists sometimes talk that way — a mistake they might be able to avoid if they took philosophers more seriously." And as for the philosophers, the best that they can come up with is the anthropic principle — the notion that our particular universe appears the way it does by virtue of our presence as observers within it — a suggestion that has an uncomfortably tautological ring to it.

2. Is our universe real?

This the classic Cartesian question. It essentially asks, 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 René 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. And it could very well be that we're the products of an elaborate simulation. A deeper question to ask, therefore, is whether the civilization running the simulation is also in a simulation — a kind of supercomputer regression (or simulationception). Moreover, we may not be who we think we are. Assuming that the people running the simulation are also taking part in it, our true identities may be temporarily suppressed, to heighten the realness of the experience. This philosophical conundrum also forces us to re-evaluate what we mean by "real." Modal realists argue that if the universe around us seems rational (as opposed to it being dreamy, incoherent, or lawless), then we have no choice but to declare it as being real and genuine. Or maybe, as Cipher said after eating a piece of "simulated" steak in The Matrix, "Ignorance is bliss."

3. Do we have free will?

Also called the dilemma of determinism, we do not know if our actions are controlled by a causal chain of preceding events (or by some other external influence), or if we're truly free agents making decisions of our own volition. Philosophers (and now some scientists) have been debating this for millennia, and with no apparent end in sight. If our decision making is influenced by an endless chain of causality, then determinism is true and we don't have free will. But if the opposite is true, what's called indeterminism, then our actions must be random — what some argue is still not free will. Conversely, libertarians (no, not political libertarians, those are other people), make the case for compatibilism — the idea that free will is logically compatible with deterministic views of the universe. Compounding the problem are advances in neuroscience showing that our brains make decisions before we're even conscious of them. But if we don't have free will, then why did we evolve consciousness instead of zombie-minds? Quantum mechanics makes this problem even more complicated by suggesting that we live in a universe of probability, and that determinism of any sort is impossible. And as Linas Vepstas has said, "Consciousness seems to be intimately and inescapably tied to the perception of the passage of time, and indeed, the idea that the past is fixed and perfectly deterministic, and that the future is unknowable. This fits well, because if the future were predetermined, then there'd be no free will, and no point in the participation of the passage of time."

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. True agnostics are simply being Cartesian about it, recognizing the epistemological issues involved and the limitations of human inquiry. We do not know enough about the inner workings of the universe to make any sort of grand claim about the nature of reality and whether or not a Prime Mover exists somewhere in the background. Many people defer to naturalism — the suggestion that the universe runs according to autonomous processes — but that doesn't preclude the existence of a grand designer who set the whole thing in motion (what's called deism). And as mentioned earlier, we may live in a simulation where the hacker gods control all the variables. Or perhaps the gnostics are right and powerful beings exist in some deeper reality that we're unaware of. These aren't necessarily the omniscient, omnipotent gods of the Abrahamic traditions — but they're (hypothetically) powerful beings nonetheless. Again, these aren't scientific questions per se — they're more Platonic thought experiments that force us to confront the limits of human experience and inquiry.

5. Is there life after death?

Before everyone gets excited, this is not a suggestion that we'll all end up strumming harps on some fluffy white cloud, or find ourselves shoveling coal in the depths of Hell for eternity. Because we cannot ask the dead if there's anything on the other side, we're left guessing as to what happens next. Materialists assume that there's no life after death, but it's just that — an assumption that cannot necessarily be proven. Looking closer at the machinations of the universe (or multiverse), whether it be through a classical Newtonian/Einsteinian lens, or through the spooky filter of quantum mechanics, there's no reason to believe that we only have one shot at this thing called life. It's a question of metaphysics and the possibility that the cosmos (what Carl Sagan described as "all that is or ever was or ever will be") cycles and percolates in such a way that lives are infinitely recycled. Hans Moravec put it best when, speaking in relation to the quantum Many Worlds Interpretation, said that non-observance of the universe is impossible; we must always find ourselves alive and observing the universe in some form or another. This is highly speculative stuff, but like the God problem, is one that science cannot yet tackle, leaving it to the philosophers.

6. Can you really experience anything objectively?

There's a difference between understanding the world objectively (or at least trying to, anyway) and experiencing it through an exclusively objective framework. This is essentially the problem of qualia — the notion that our surroundings can only be observed through the filter of our senses and the cogitations of our minds. Everything you know, everything you've touched, seen, and smelled, has been filtered through any number of physiological and cognitive processes. Subsequently, your subjective experience of the world is unique. In the classic example, the subjective appreciation of the color red may vary from person to person. The only way you could possibly know is if you were to somehow observe the universe from the "conscious lens" of another person in a sort of Being John Malkovich kind of way — not anything we're likely going to be able to accomplish at any stage of our scientific or technological development. Another way of saying all this is that the universe can only be observed through a brain (or potentially a machine mind), and by virtue of that, can only be interpreted subjectively. But given that the universe appears to be coherent and (somewhat) knowable, should we continue to assume that its true objective quality can never be observed or known? It's worth noting that much of Buddhist philosophy is predicated on this fundamental limitation (what they call emptiness), and a complete antithesis to Plato's idealism.

7. What is the best moral system?

Essentially, we'll never truly be able to distinguish between "right" and "wrong" actions. At any given time in history, however, philosophers, theologians, and politicians will claim to have discovered the best way to evaluate human actions and establish the most righteous code of conduct. But it's never that easy. Life is far too messy and complicated for there to be anything like a universal morality or an absolutist ethics. The Golden Rule is great (the idea that you should treat others as you would like them to treat you), but it disregards moral autonomy and leaves no room for the imposition of justice (such as jailing criminals), and can even be used to justify oppression (Immanuel Kant was among its most staunchest critics). Moreover, it's a highly simplified rule of thumb that doesn't provision for more complex scenarios. For example, should the few be spared to save the many? Who has more moral worth: a human baby or a full-grown great ape? And as neuroscientists have shown, morality is not only a culturally-ingrained thing, it's also a part of our psychologies (the Trolly Problem is the best demonstration of this). At best, we can only say that morality is normative, while acknowledging that our sense of right and wrong will change over time.

8. What are numbers?

We use numbers every day, but taking a step back, what are they, really — and why do they do such a damn good job of helping us explain the universe (such as Newtonian laws)? Mathematical structures can consist of numbers, sets, groups, and points — but are they real objects, or do they simply describe relationships that necessarily exist in all structures? Plato argued that numbers were real (it doesn't matter that you can't "see" them), but formalists insisted that they were merely formal systems (well-defined constructions of abstract thought based on math). This is essentially an ontological problem, where we're left baffled about the true nature of the universe and which aspects of it are human constructs and which are truly tangible.
Images: Banner: Luc Perrot | 1 | 2 Lightspring/shutterstock | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Jeffrey Collingwood/shutterstock | 7 | 8
Originally posted on: io9.com


62 comments:

  1. Numbers are expressions of quantity.
    And there's alot hidden in the incalculated digits of any irrational number, because while we don't know them, they still take part in shaping (the laws that run) the Universe. Maybe God is hidden there too, maybe that's his realm.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What Stefan closed his statement with above....i really like that statement. Makes you think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aha. You sound high. Not to say that you are, necissarily.

      Delete
  3. question 9 what is thought?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pretty much energy, picking up energy from other people, or from feelings, thoughts are not organic parts of you, and you are not required to listen or follow them.

      Delete
  4. LIFE STARTS AFTER DEATH, TILL THEN ITS ILLUSION WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY LIVING.
    By the way, nice article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a Muslim belief. You must be Muslim.

      Delete
    2. To live is Christ, to die is gain. Philippians 1:21

      Delete
  5. 1 Cause there is no such thing as nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you ever consider how we can talk about it then? hmmm

      Delete
  6. this article sums up everything i have been asking myself about ..tq

    ReplyDelete
  7. There are actually some answers to the questions posed here. The first question is probably the toughest, although nothing in the universe suggests that it came into being with a predetermined purpose, so asking WHY there's something rather than nothing might not ever be answered. If one wants to know HOW there is something rather than nothing, I'd suggest reading A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

    On the free will question, we know now that there is no such thing as conscious will. One does not chose the time or place in which one is born, one does not chose their parents, their genes, or the connections their neurons make in the development of their brains, one doesn't chose what one is going to think or see or hear in the next second, one does not control who they meet or what circumstances arise in their lives, and as the little blurb after the question states, our subconscious mind arrives at conclusions before we even realize it consciously, so where does the conscious will part come in?

    On the existence of god - there's no evidence for his or her or its existence, so there's no reason to believe in one, and all of the claims by religions are categorically false, so if you are still inclined to believe in a prime mover, it's not wise to follow the advice of its earthly representatives who know no more than you about the mind of this supposed being.

    On life after death - it has been postulated by some scientists that there could be some element of consciousness that could exist outside of the physical body, but there's no evidence to that effect, so as of yet, there's no reason to think that when the lights go out, consciousness stops and that's it.

    On numbers - a poster above got it right: numbers are a designation of quantity.

    Some of the questions do not yet have answers, and most of the answers I provided are not totally, completely, 100% verified, so there's certainly room to disprove a lot of what I've said. However, it seems that most of the questions asked here are already pretty-easily answerable. Maybe try a tougher question like "how can science account for singularities in a universe that allows no infinities?" Otherwise, good article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *there's no reason to think that when the lights go out, consciousness mystically continues in some celestial theme park, one nice and one nasty.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, we got it all figured out now. Those "philosophers" and "scientists" better take do their homework... not!

      i admit there are harder questions than these, and some of these provoke easy answers in people that know where they stand, but the fact that you didn't even comment on the ultimate futility of some of these questions and prefer to stick with "why should i look for an answer if i have some nice thoughts that allow me not to do so?" tells me there is much to learn for us here.

      Our answers don't count until we have checked them against most (all?) other answers that exist on the topics out there. That will reveal some of our own thinking errors and make us either appreciate the question or be satisfied with the idea that all answers are doomed to fail... or keep us looking.

      The problem is, we seem to always take the "there's nothing beyond" approach. Before someone broke the sound barrier, we'd say "why would anyone say it is possible if science tells us it is not?" Before we break the light barrier, we say "Science says it can't be done, so we can't do it". But then someone finds a way to do it... and there we are. No, not by breaking the laws of relativity, but by finding a way around them.
      Before we found quantum physics, we'd say "why assume such things if there is no reason to?", but then we found there are such things.

      The point is, there is *always* something beyond. That's the purest and truest lesson from science, there is *always* something we haven't thought of yet, and something we haven't discovered yet. Why have a materialistic view if we know there is more to the universe? Why not leap ahead and realize a metaphysical mind makes more sense than a simple biochemical machine? Why not see that all the dimensions science tells us to exist interact with each other? Yeah, it's not proven. The fact that water and ice have the same chemical formula was not proven at a time. That shouldn't stop us from believing it.

      Such a mindset limits us as much as any other to dogmatism and blindness. If i have learned anything from history, then it's that the people saying "There is nothing of interest here. Why would you ask such a silly question?" are on the wrong side every.single.time. Why would you try to make gold from osmium? Because i hold the universe, in all its diversity, hostage until it gives up its secrets. Why would you ask (any of the above)? Same reason.

      Is there life after death? There most certainly is - look at the universe, it is one big life machine, and all of it is alive. There is dust, then rocks, then planets, then stars, then clusters, then galaxies - then life. Life will always go on, its very nature will only cease to exist when the last particle will fall into the last black hole. Is my answer any more right or wrong than yours? Since when does life equal consciousness anyways? And if consciousness seems to have no real purpose, why not assume that maybe it is consciousness that comes to inhabit "life", rather than to assume the "there's nothing beyond"? Imho, Occam's Razor implies that we have to accept this.

      Materialism is to ignore at least 9 other dimensions that are at least as complex as the ones related to matter, merely because those are the ones we are most familiar with.

      i'm seriously not trying to fight with you, just lending some perspective. A closed mind is a wasted mind. Don't waste your mind, you seem smart enough. And saying "i'm not going to answer the question, because ..." is not answering the question.

      Delete
    3. Addl, very well put.

      Delete
    4. *laughs* Not to say you're right or wrong, but as you assert that God isn't likely, and as I began to read "on life after death", I knnnew that you were going to give some proposition to being in favour of an afterlife. It shows humanity's (your) fear and frailty of our unavoidable and permanent end. Its best to just think things will work out, because if they don't, we'll never know anyway.

      Delete
    5. The first is the ultimate question. Rather than why, what interests me most is how. What else interests is where the buck stops. If this universe is the product of something else, that something else might be a product of another something else and so on. At some point something had to come from nothing. Even if you believe in the bearded guy that created it all. Where did he come from. Either way, what happens if you keep going back in time. Was there a before time, how could eternity be possible. Our minds are quite incapable of understanding any of this, perhaps purposely so.

      Reality of the universe
      Depends entirely upon on what your definition of reality is.

      Free will
      Simply because many of our actions and thought are not the product of free will, does not mean free will cannot exist alongside these. We are after all able to make decisions.

      Existence of god.
      The argument that god might exist but we just do not or cannot know it is not relevant in the same way that the argument that the tooth fairy might exist but we just cannot know. This is idiotic reasoning to say the least.

      Life after death.
      The question is actually wether we exist as separate entities that do not die when our physical entity dies. I have to say this is true. We do exist before and after our lifetimes, but that entity is not who or what we think we are, at all. That is my experience, although it might be argued that it could only be my experience in my mind.

      On numbers, there appear to be a number of ways that humans have fashioned symbols, both those of letters and numbers and on some brilliant occasions using both to create what i would term manipulative thought patterns. How these came about, when and why is still a mystery. That they are used in ways unbeknownst to most humans also.

      Delete
    6. Anyone who claims to have "answers" almost certainly does not. I don't think any of us have any answers. Even when stuff is considered "fact" or is "proven"...hundreds of years later a new "truth" is revealed. Like when we used to think the world was flat.

      Also, some people actually DO believe that we chose our parents, time of birth, etc.

      Delete
  8. I find it amusing that todays 'advanced' civilization wrestles with such questions. My traditional peoples of Turtle Island (North America) have known and understood about these matters for centuries. Sometimes science creates more problems than answers i presume. #Spirituality#

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Science does create more questions than answers. This is what makes science so great, it progresses. The device you are using to read this is the culmination of many answers and questions from science. 10 years from now you may be using a very different device because people asked more questions.

      Delete
    2. Your getting a bit ahead of yourself there, actually most of the biggest questions in life were first thought off from philosophers without them scientists would not have even have known were to look.

      Delete
  9. Great, great, truly great job my brother and estimated friend. I love to see all this questions soooo smothly together put and so frankly, so free of desire to express your mind. Its a work that holds any view and supports all. Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  10. Only an atheist would think these questions or thoughts have answers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so you as a what ever religious ideology have the answers, please ...enlighten me

      Delete
  11. islam provides answets to most of your questions!!
    O seeker of truth come forward and take a dip in the sea of islamic sciences. you would find peace and life would be free of confusions.
    May Allah guide you to truth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no it doesn't.... same as with any other religion.

      Delete
    2. Islam is a deceptive ideology build on primitive and ridiculous lies, just like most other ideologies. Islam gives answers - with the footnote "and if you dare to question my answer, i'll chop off your head". Yeah, that will bring us enlightenment. Certainly.

      Delete
    3. The things that's common with Muslim's worldwide is that they will say Islam's the answer for every question, no matter what, but they have never understood in Islam you have the least amount of freedom especially for women and children, the readiness to kill over what they 'believe' to be true, terming people from all other religion as kafirs, and imposing their Dogma on others. Their refusal to adopt to changing times is what has currently put the world in such a crisis. and more so how much it has been misinterpreted in the last 150 years.

      Delete
  12. Consciousness is created by chemical reactions in the brain. Brains rot. The talk of life after death is desperate, contrived, and simply childish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good point. I believe the only problem with your argument is that other people, plants, and animals are born daily. It comes down to the question, "where do we come from?". Are souls recycled, or do they randomly arise from genetic variables? And for that, I have no answer. But I don't think you do either.

      Delete
    2. What do you mean by souls?

      Delete
    3. i respect your point but in an infinite timescale everything will happen, so you will have conciseness again at some point due to one thing or another.

      Delete
    4. Wow what children's science book did you get that from? don't you think if that were true we could recreate it in the lab then hmmmmm. Please tell us all how chemical reactions in my brain help me make music or art and give me an awareness that there is a me in my head then!

      Delete
  13. This is great. It seems to me that most of these questions eventually lead to the conclusion that everything is a paradox. Light is both a particle and wave. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are both correct from different scientific perspectives. Determinism is correct when viewing the past, free will is correct when looking into the future. Life can only be understood looking backwards, but must be lived forwards...

    ReplyDelete
  14. (My tuppence worth) - regarding the question "why is there 'something' rather than nothing?" i believe our human system of language is an important factor here because the word 'nothing' always refers to the absence of 'something' that could be present in some sort of 'greater container'. This is the case for every physical thing we know of EXCEPT the universe itself (which ironically already includes every physical thing we know of). I guess what i'm trying to say is that this question is 'invalid' (for lack of a better word).

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why what did it say?

      Delete
  16. The most qualified people who can opine on the nature of human consciousness are psychedelic explorers. The filters limiting the perceptions of the mind need to be lifted. Then and only then can meaningful opinions be offered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would agree with that to an extent; if guided properly then the altered perspective caused by certain chemicals can reveal some 'obvious truths'. But to quote another philosopher: "my method is science, my aim is religion". Following the scientific method, you wouldn't be able to explain your results to someone that doesn't already understand them. In other words, I can't prove to a skeptical person that I understand Homer, unless I also teach him Greek. Then that person would have the same responsibility to the next person he told, and so on. Not to mention that I'm of the opinion that all truth, allow reality is a matter of perception. So the qabala will make sense to someone who wants to see meaning in the numerocal connections, and believing in a flying spaghetti monster is perfectly reasonable to someone who chooses to believe that.

      Delete
  17. I have been a student of religion and spirituality much of my life and the sole conclusion I have reached is that the souls of all living beings are constantly being recycled, with each taking their life experiences with them, albeit subconsciously. Otherwise, if we each start fresh, with no prior "spirit" experience, how can you explain how two people with similar backgrounds and upbringing can be so inexorably different --- sometimes horribly evil and sometimes living a life of good intentions? I have no answers, I'm afraid, only more questions....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The simple explanation could be tipping points - starting off on a mountain top, on one side "evil", on the other "good". Let's take some identical twins. It may just take one single experience to put them on opposite roads down the mountain. One feels treated injust, and reacts by vengeance, while the other pities the vengeful one. There you go, rest is probability.

      But then, there might be much more to it. Just saying that alone is not a good argument imho.

      Delete
  18. Replies
    1. another turtle here too

      Delete
  19. A Christian critique: http://kuyperiancommentary.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/questions-science-will-never-solve/

    ReplyDelete
  20. This is one of the stupidest and idiotic article on earth, neither the basics of Philosophy nor the basics of Metaphysics is known to the author whose intellect is so low that it has to be picked up from a gutter . Kindly do not post such rubbish things just to impress a whole lot of people with intellects so common and average that they would rather be classified as worms , than human beings .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The truly intelligent: Do not stoop as you have done.

      Delete
  21. Re: Does God exist?

    In: Deut.18:18-19 NIV.
    “18 I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.”.

    - God had spoken before in Deut.18:18-19 about a ONE prophet whom will He send like Moses, whose mouth He will place His words (which means the chosen one will not study the Bible on his own as God Himself will instruct him about His words ) AND will send to speak in His Name or to reveal His Name-

    This means that when it comes to the word of God, especially about His Name- there is only ONE man given who was given authority by God to speak about it and this is the ‘prophet like Moses’ whom God spoke about in Deut.18:18-19.

    This prophecy in Deut.18:18-19 has now come in the person of Maestro (teacher) Eraño Martin Evangelista of the website: thename.ph. Kindly visit the said website as he had already revealed God's message most especially His true Name as written in the Bible not from his personal research but according to what was revealed to him by God IN the Bible.

    Since the word of God in Deut.18:18-19 about a prophet like Moses came to be fulfilled through Maestro Erano Evangelista, then it follows that Moses did existed and so what God did during the Exodus. However
    Since what God had spoken in Deut.18:18-19 about a coming prophet was fulfilled through Maestro Evangelista's Bible-based revelation of the one true Name of God, it is evident now that the God of the prophets of the Bible exists. This means that no intelligent man or woman may say anymore that there is no God; and no one can say now that the God of Moses and the prophets-The God of gods (Psalm 95:3) does not exist and to know and understand the word of God in the scriptures, it is the prophet like Moses, Maestro Evangelista whom we should listen to and not the religions.


    Whether you accept the 'Prophet like Moses'-Maestro Evangelista's Bible revelations in www.thename.ph or not is not important -what is important is you have been informed of God's true message. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only problem with that is, the Bible was written, translated and translated again by... man. Anyone who claims that God spoke through them, can't be proven or disproven. So, if we go simply by facts, without faith, we are back at Square One.

      Delete
  22. Chicken or Egg? Hard to believe that fundamental one didn't make the list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. egg came first, the chicken was a mutation

      Delete
  23. I thought this article was great. It compiled a lot of questions that have consistently stumped a lot of people- but I am here to tell you that I accepted the challenge and have answers to all 8 questions.

    When you take the time to define the key terms and really understand the underlying premises of these questions, you can see that most of them are flawed and easily answered. Here it is:

    http://www.integratedpost.com/2013/05/questions-well-never-solve-challenge.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. Unanswerable questions, answered.

    ReplyDelete
  25. nothing means something .. when you want to know something .. go to the place where you do nothing ..

    ReplyDelete
  26. -to quote the modern metaphysician and scholar, kid rock, "you can look for answers, but that ain't fun.. now get in the pit and try to love someone".

    ReplyDelete
  27. The need for answers is naught. The need for acceptance that there are, and never will be answers is great...or the dream to surpass all human and existential thought and ability is what we desire, and will eventually come to...for where the focus goes, the energy flows. Everyone here is pushing the envelope on life and love and existence PERIOD. I love all of you people with such passion for the uncharted. :)
    JOSH HINDMAN

    ReplyDelete
  28. uhg, been there done that I was 16 and it was fun, but now it's time to grow up and be adults. Be Here Now.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Title is cynical garbage, of course we'll solve them! What kind of downtrodden view of human potential does the author have?

    ReplyDelete
  30. My take on this: http://beingchinmayjoshi.blogspot.in/2013/08/philosophical-questions-that-we-will.html

    ReplyDelete
  31. "God created everything from nothing, but the nothingness shows through." Paul Valery.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 2: I'm in a camp that anything having coherent laws can be counted as real, also computer simulations. But I cannot rule out the possibility that our universe is a computer simulation.

    3: I really do not know. As I nowadays believe in the existence of souls, I have a door open for the possibility of free will. However, I have difficulties grasping the concept of an event that is not either probabilistic or causal (or some combination of these), so I am inclined to answer 'no'.

    4: The concept of a god is so anthropocentric that it would indeed be a really odd coincidence, if something in the extension of that man-made concept really existed. However, I cannot rule out the possibility.

    5: As I believe in the existence of souls, I think it is possible, if not likely, that the soul continues its existence after the body dies.

    6: Objectivity is not a yes-no -question. It is a matter of degree. Probably nothing is absolutely objective.

    7: To say that some moral system is "best", you already must have subscribed to a moral framework inside which you have "best" defined. Moral systems can be evaluated only inside other moral systems, not by some objective standards.

    8: Natural numbers are an unending sequence of objects, any such sequence will do, but it is customary to use 1,2,3,... as the sequence.

    ReplyDelete
  33. some of these ideas are really different. Especially about the eyes, if you did not have site you would be bump into everything. The biggest thing with supernatural is just believing. Having sight is a beautiful thing. No way is it a evil demon.

    ReplyDelete