A Question That Has No Answer

[Ol' Fighter]

Lately I have been arguing with myself about this and it's about a question that has no answer, not a trick question but an actual question that has no real absolute answer...

My question...

Do you think there's such a thing as a question with no real absolue answer?

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Lonley Fighter']Do you think there's such a thing as a question with no real absolue answer?[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]The thing I like about that question is the phrase "do you think", which can be restated as "in your opinion". In essence, the entire question has been made relative to one's own point of view. From [I]my[/I] angle, the two possible anwers ('maybe' doesn't count, as it's not absolute) enter one into a logical paradox as long as one thinks only of this question.

My answer:

[indent]Yes, but it's not this one.[/indent][/FONT]

[The13thMan]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]In my mind whenever a question of absolutes comes up you must also delve into religion, unfortunately. You see, the way i see it is that with a god there is an absolute, that being his word; without a god there can be no absolutes. So without divine influence there is no such thing as an absolute.

I'm agnostic so whenever the question of absolutes come up i can never take an absolute side, which is a little funny sometimes.

I used to think if anything was absolute it was math...but there are ways around that. Math is only a representation of our world, a means to understand it, like science. But if our world changes then so does our math. So if you say math is absolute you must also state that our world is absolute, in a sense. Uhm...yeah, that's a bit confusing to me even though it makes perfect sense? Yeeaaah, nevermind.

Anyways, i usually take the side of relatives. I don't believe in absolutes, for the most part. I simply believe that absolutes are a possibility. I just lean away from it.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
[quote name='Allamorph']Yes, but it's not this one.[/quote][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Ok, then which one is it?

Later.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Rachmaninoff]

[QUOTE=Allamorph][FONT=Arial]The thing I like about that question is the phrase "do you think", which can be restated as "in your opinion". In essence, the entire question has been made relative to one's own point of view. From [I]my[/I] angle, the two possible anwers ('maybe' doesn't count, as it's not absolute) enter one into a logical paradox as long as one thinks only of this question.

My answer:

[indent]Yes, but it's not this one.[/indent][/FONT][/QUOTE][QUOTE=The13thMan][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Ok, then which one is it?

Later.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]Actually if the original question is relative to one's own point of view, he can't answer that and tell you what the question is as it has to be one that would be relative to your point of view and not his. Unless I misunderstand Allamorph's explanation.

In the end, I don't really believe in absolutes and it ties into what The13thMan was saying in regards to religion. If you believe then there are absolutes, but at the same time I'm thinking that our belief or non-belief in God is in itself a non-absolute question since in the end we lack the means to prove it. So that in itself is an non absolute question from my point of view because I don?t think anyone can say absolutely that God exists.

[DeadSeraphim]

[size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]"What is delicious?"[/font][/color][/size]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DarkRed][QUOTE=Lonley Fighter]Lately I have been arguing with myself about this and it's about a question that has no answer, not a trick question but an actual question that has no real absolute answer...

My question...

Do you think there's such a thing as a question with no real absolue answer?[/QUOTE]No need to argue over something like that. Just take a look at all the questions centered around religion to see that they can't agree on an absolute answer to just about anything. So my answer to your question is yes. ;)[/COLOR]

[Hanabishi Recca]

[quote name='indifference][COLOR=DarkRed']No need to argue over something like that. Just take a look at all the questions centered around religion to see that they can't agree on an absolute answer to just about anything. So my answer to your question is yes. ;)[/COLOR][/quote]

Well, even that question will have an answer in the future, right? I mean, we will see which side is right. I mean, if nothing happends from God then we will know if he exists or not.

Do I think that there is a question with no absolute answer... Everyone has a thought and a opinion (as Allamorph said in a different way). So, there is an absolute answer in everyones minds of the subject or not. I would believe that there is a answer in everyones minds. About religion, I probably have a different standpoint than others. But I believe that I am right, and they believe that they are right. There is a absolute answer in their minds.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Aaaaall [I]right[/I]-y then! Time for me to play Professor Man.
[quote name='The13thMan][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]In my mind whenever a question of absolutes comes up you must also delve into religion, unfortunately. You see, the way i see it is that with a god there is an absolute, that being his word; without a god there can be no absolutes. So without divine influence there is no such thing as an absolute.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
Unfortunately is right, and the reason is simple. If we disavow the divine, [U]all[/U] laws and rules must be man-made in origin, rendering them subjective to interpretation, since no one of us is any better or has any more right to impose their rules on people than does any other. The divine, being naturally above the human race, is able and has the right to set a standard to hold us to and for us to follow, and thus absolutes actually function.
[quote name='The13thMan][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I'm agnostic so whenever the question of absolutes come up i can never take an absolute side....[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
I'm terribly sorry. :p
[quote name='The13thMan][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I used to think if anything was absolute it was math...but there are ways around that. Math is only a representation of our world, a means to understand it, like science. But if our world changes then so does our math. So if you say math is absolute you must also state that our world is absolute, in a sense. Uhm...yeah, that's a bit confusing to me even though it makes perfect sense? Yeeaaah, nevermind.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
Well, perhaps if you explore that idea a little more, it will make more sense. I would love to see the rationale.

Still, # # + # # # = # # # # # . Whether you call it two, dos, deux, zwei, or whatever, it holds, and I am unsure what is relative about it.
[quote name='The13thMan][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Anyways, i usually take the side of relatives. I don't believe in absolutes, for the most part. I simply believe that absolutes are a possibility. I just lean away from it.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
Right then, so you say that absolutes [I]may[/I] be possible? :animesmil I'm terribly sorry about this as well, but that statement feels more like a cop out then an actual belief, like you just want a way to get out of talking about the issue more than you want to actually believe something. Whether or not that's actually true of you is not the point ? you still sound wishy-washy. It would probably benefit you a great deal to pick a side, right or wrong, and hold to it. If you offend people with your stance, then so be it; they probably would have been offended anyway, so I woudn't worry about it.
[quote name='The13thMan][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Ok, then which one is it?[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
As to that question, ....

"The category is [U]Absolutely[/U] [U]Relative[/U], for $200. And the answer is: 'A question that has no absolute answer.' "

*[I]buzz[/I]*

"[COLOR=DarkRed]DeadSeraphim[/COLOR]?"
[quote name='DeadSeraphim][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][COLOR=Indigo]"What is delicious?"[/COLOR][/FONT'][/SIZE][/quote]

Thank you, man. That was great.
(He's right, though. Deliciousness is a concept that varies from person to person.)
[quote name='Rachmaninoff']Actually if the original question is relative to one's own point of view, he can't answer that and tell you what the question is as it has to be one that would be relative to your point of view and not his.[/quote]
The original question was only relative because it asked for the answerer's opinion. With my answer, all that is required is that I provide a question where my answer is different from his is different from yours is different from John Doe's is different..., etc., etc., yada yada yada. Make sense? Oh, and DeadSraphim did a fantastic job of providing just such a question.

The beauty of the absolute is that it does not depend on one's belief in it. It exists if you (or I) think is does or think it does not.[/FONT]

[Guest Phaedrus]

Has anyone ever had an answer without a question?

I have.

Relativity is absolute, for human beings, that is.

Absolution is within you, and all around you. Absolution is the fact that all things are one thing, yet also many things which are one thing.

That which is absolute is not science, because science concerns human understanding. Which humans assume to be absolute, due to them being relative and assuming their relativity to be absolute.

That which is absolute is within your mind; simply destroy any thought, image, or idea which stains your mental mirror, and the Real Self shall be revealed.

That which is absolute cannot be specified. Once generalized, it is vague and ununderstandable, except via experience. Our experience is relative. The essence of experience is generality, which is a threaded stitching of specific moments; experience is a broad, gestalt stroke of the mind's paintbrush.

Simply tap into the potentials of your mind, and the absolute shall be realized to you, relatively. Yet your understanding will be more than relative in that instance, and in every moment thereafter if you so decide it.

[Rachmaninoff]

[QUOTE=Allamorph][FONT=Arial]The original question was only relative because it asked for the answerer's opinion. With my answer, all that is required is that I provide a question where my answer is different from his is different from yours is different from John Doe's is different..., etc., etc., yada yada yada. Make sense? Oh, and DeadSraphim did a fantastic job of providing just such a question.

The beauty of the absolute is that it does not depend on one's belief in it. It exist if you (or I) think is does or think it does not.[/FONT][/QUOTE]Ah, in other words like DeadSeraphim's response, which was relative to everyone and therefore not absolute. Or rather the answer would vary depending on who answered it.

I guess the [I]does God exist[/I] could fall under that category, but the other question is a better example. One that is less likely to spark a debate since others aren't so quick to get upset if someone doesn't think something is delicious where the implication that God doesn't exist tends to get people worked up. ;) Well at least the people where I live that is. I don't know about the rest of you.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Lonley Fighter']Do you think there's such a thing as a question with no real absolue answer?[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Yes, but as Allamorph has already pointed out, any question which begins with "Do you think" is open to multiple interpretations from different people. As has already been stated a few times, religious matters are often the subject to questions with no absolute answers, the existence of the Divine being the most argued. [/SIZE]

[Azarath]

There is such thing as a question an answer.There are hundreds in fact.

[Fasteriskhead]

[SIZE=1]Interrupting my vacation briefly to make a long and rather rambly post...

To try to address this question, it might be useful to quote the last few passages from the [i]Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus[/i] of the (relatively) famous philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. I don't necessarily agree with them, but they can be used to illustrate the issue well. They read:

[quote][SIZE=1]6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it.

6.51 Scepticism is not irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical, when it tries to raise doubts where no questions can be asked. For doubt can exist only where a question exists, a question only where an answer exists, and an answer only where something can be said.

6.52 We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer.

...

7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.[/SIZE][/quote]Trying to answer questions about the basic possibilities of questions and answers has to start with an understanding of [i]language[/i] that is fairly well-established. Wittgenstein understands language in a basically scientific sense, which is today probably the most common interpretation. Understood like this, language is a way of communicating facts about the world. A statement or proposition takes one or more of these facts and converts them into a set of symbols, which (if the language is working right) can be understood in such a way that understanding the statement amounts to the same thing as understanding the fact. For example, when I yell to someone that "there's a spider in my room!" they will, assuming they know what I'm talking about, then understand the basic fact (that there's a spider in my room) in the same way that I do. Language can vary in terms of how exact it is ("there's a spider in my room" versus "at 4:34 pm today I saw a tarantula on the floor in the northwestern corner of the master bedroom in the townhouse at 123 Pine St."), but the purpose of all language is still basically to point to facts in the world.

Going by such an interpretation, a question like "Do you think there's such a thing as a question with no real absolue [sic] answer?" has to be answered "no," assuming it's even a real question (remember, questions can only be asked about facts in the world - asking a question about the nature of questions is a no-no). Also, keep in mind that language here is meant to describe [i]facts[/i], not just [i]things[/i] - if statements could only be made about things, then saying something like "I have no children" is impossible because there wouldn't be any children to talk about (but it's perfectly fine if the lack of my children is just taken as "how things are"). Any question about x requires that x is either the case or not the case. Any statement ("x is the case") has to be capable of being shown to be either true or false, and anything else said is simply misuse of language. If I ask an artist whether he has ever drawn a circle with exactly four sides, I am not asking a real question: a circle with four sides could never be drawn nor (in a certain sense) could it ever [i]not[/i] be drawn, so the question is nonsensical. The same is true if we're ever talking about facts that, by some necessity, could never be put into words. These facts may [i]exist[/i], but if they cannot be put into words then by definition they have no place in scientific language. My saying that "there is a fact x, and x can never be said" is flat contradiction.

Recent science, particularly physics, has had to wrestle with these problems. Most infamous is the "uncertainty principle" of Heisenberg which (without going into it deeply) states that getting a complete measurement of one property of a particle (let's call this a) makes it impossible to know another property (b). It's important to note here that this isn't simply saying that we can know a, and b is something that we "might" be known but which currently escapes this. That wouldn't have given anyone any headaches at all. Rather, the simple fact of knowing a makes b [i]unknowable by its basic nature[/i], hence very much like the four-sided circle. This seems to be totally opposed to what we said above, because if I know a, then I have to say that "b cannot be said" - which is not a scientifically cogent statement. Much of the difficulty of quantum physics comes as a result of trying to find strict ways of describing these particles within a scientific outlook that understands language as communicating facts. Most quantum physics now simply refuses to speak of the existence or nonexistence of particles prior to their being measured; only at the point where a or b are [i]known[/i] can they be said to "be" at all. Instead, one speaks of the objective existence of [i]waveforms[/i] of possibilities, all of which "collapse" at the moment of measurement when a or b become known.

In any case what's really interesting is that here, in the most strict science of all, the basic fact of human knowledge has become a question. Human measurement isn't just "observation," it actually coincides with [i]objective changes[/i] in the facts. So, what is the [i]nature[/i] of this being that is able to know facts and to use language?

This sounds like a question about "subjectivity." It's no accident that, coinciding with the rise of a way of understanding language as describing facts, there was also a parallel [i]artistic[/i] tradition. That tradition understood all art, and that included language-art, as the [i]expression[/i] of an artist. "Personal taste" was quickly understood as the polar opposite of scientific facts, something which has nothing to do with objective "reality" but which only expresses a fact about the observing subject (Hume was, as far as I know, the first to think this way). This understanding, usually called "romanticism," has no problem with saying things that are scientifically nonsensical, as long as they mean something "personally." And in fact, "questions with no real absolute answers" become very important here: "what is the meaning of life?"; "is there a God?"; "what is the soul of man?" are good examples. What's important here is the sensitivity, the expression, and the personal life of a subject - which is in direct contrast to a scientific expression which tries to "iron out" subjectivity as much as possible. For the past three centuries at least, these two interpretations of language (as scientific expression or as personal expression) have gone almost entirely unchallenged.

On the surface, then, it seems like a total upheaval of this state of affairs to have physics asking about human nature. This is actually to misunderstand where both understandings of language come from. Scientific expression and personal expression are different, yes, but they are grounded in the same thing, as both derive from the much-quoted motto of the philosopher Rene Descartes: [i]cogito ergo sum[/i], "I think therefore I am." Descartes, seeking for an unshakeable rock upon which he could build all natural science, found it in the certainty of his own thinking. Any "subjectivity" or "objectivity" in the modern sense has to take for granted that [i]the first object is the subject[/i]. I think, I am a subject = I am, my existence is an objective fact. Whenever there's a "subjective" personal expression (say, admiration of a piece of art) it is also taken as a fact about a unique "object" (the admirer); whenever there's an "objective" scientific fact (say, measurement of an electron's spin), it secures itself on the basis of its observability by a "subject." Modern physics hasn't become more "subjective," it's just gone back to the origin of both subject and object.

Whatever else the question "Is there such a thing as a question with no real absolute answer?" does, it assumes a understanding of [i]language[/i] and of the relationship of human beings to the world that is based on the subject-object pair. A question is something posed by a subject capable of representing facts in his consciousness (this is even true in solipsism) regarding objectively existent states of affairs (which include not only world-facts, but also self-facts). An answer brings some relevant fact to the subject's consciousness to resolve the question. To say there is a question with no answer is to say, "there is no fact capable of resolution." But the unanswered question itself, as well as its unanswerability, are themselves facts - not world-facts but [i]self-facts[/i] about the subject, i.e. the fact that someone asks this question and that it has a certain "subjective effect" on him. This completes anything that could possibly be said on the topic.

Regardless of whatever else is taken by this rather meandering post, I will simply say 1) that whether there are questions without answers is an issue secondary to how we understand the sense of "asking questions" and "seeking answers" to begin with, and 2) that the subjective-objective conception is a [i]historical[/i] one. By no means are the relations of question and answer - and that also means between language, human beings, knowledge, and the world - understood [i]only[/i] in this way. Homer thought differently; the writer of Job thought differently; Lao Tzu thought differently. Dismissing this by saying that they just have different "worldviews" obviously skips the question by assuming from the start that everything is subjective interpretation of objective facts, "worldview" being just one particular fact which is the product of human consciousness. What is needed, for my money, isn't [i]answers[/i] to deep and impressive-sounding questions (including questions about unanswerable questions), but to examine whether we are absolutely clear on how and why we are asking those and other questions. The same Wittgenstein as above also said, "A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations." I don't necessarily agree with how he understands "elucidation," but I share the sentiment.[/SIZE]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Ooh, a challenge. I thank you for sharing your thoughts, and I have a few questions about them I would like to ask. First, though, I shall use this post to address some of the previous statements.

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']Ah, in other words like DeadSeraphim's response, which was relative to everyone and therefore not absolute. Or rather the answer would vary depending on who answered it.[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote name='Rachmaninoff']I guess the does God exist could fall under that category, but the other question is a better example. One that is less likely to spark a debate since others aren't so quick to get upset if someone doesn't think something is delicious where the implication that God doesn't exist tends to get people worked up. Well at least the people where I live that is. I don't know about the rest of you.[/quote]
I really don't think it matters where you are inside the States, there will always be people who are offended by religion. I would hazard that Christianity is the bone of contention with almost all of them; I have yet to see someone fired up and ranting about Buddha. Interesting, that.
[quote name='Azarath']There is such thing as a question an answer.There are hundreds in fact.[/quote]
Although I'm glad we agree, I must say that any assertion without so much as a hint of thought to back it up comes off as incredibly lacking ? you have nothing for anyone to support or counter, so, aside from this statement of mine, you're probably going to end up being ignored. :( Sorry.

Now to the main event.
[quote name='Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1]Also, keep in mind that language here is meant to describe [U]facts[/U], not just [U]things[/U']....[/SIZE][/quote]
I am not entirely sure how to approach that statement; I suppose my hesitation is due to wondering what exactly you mean here by [I]things[/I], and how you (or Wittgenstein) would define [I]ideas[/I].

Also, you restricted yourself in the rest of your post, as in that sentence, to only talking about 'facts'. The only thing that bothers me there is that you said [I]"...not [B]just[/B] things...."[/I] This phrase indicates to me that language is not solely intended to communicate 'fact' either, but both in tandem, and possibly others besides, whatever others there might be.

I say this because of one of your later statements:
[quote name='Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1']A question is something posed by a subject capable of representing facts in his consciousness (this is even true in solipsism) regarding objectively existent states of affairs (which include not only world-facts, but also self-facts). An answer brings some relevant fact to the subject's consciousness to resolve the question. To say there is a question with no answer is to say, "there is no fact capable of resolution."[/SIZE][/quote]
The one item you failed to address is the question [I]"Why?"[/I]. This question only concerns facts in that it is probing their purpose. E.g.:
[QUOTE][I]"Dad, why is the sky blue?"
[right]"It involves light refraction. Light enters our
atmosphere and passes through little water
droplets in the air, and the angle we see
the light at tints the color blue."[/right]
"Yes, I know that, but why [U]blue[/U]?"[/I][/QUOTE]
Obviously the father in this scenario could go on about wavelengths and other such rot, but he'd still be missing the point: what was the purpose for that particular color? And all preexisting items, and even questions about them, are subject to the probing of the question [I]"Why?"[/I]. I would like your take on the [I]"Why?"[/I] aspect.

Then there is the last part of that statement: [I]To say there is a question with no answer is to say, "there is no fact capable of resolution."[/I] That was not what was stated. What was intended was "there is a question with no [B]one[/B] answer," or in your words, " 'there is no [B]one[/B] fact capable of resolution."

--------------------

I realize that you used the HUP in a purely demonstrative sense, but I would like to make some additional statements in its regard. Heisenberg said that, of two conjugate variables ("a" and "b"), the more accurate our measurement of "a" becomes, the more uncertain our measurement of "b" becomes. However, another (rather irritating, from my perspective) property of measurement in science is that there can be no completely accurate measurements. Since there then is no possibility for a definite "a", there is no im-possibility about "b", and thus no contradiction.

--------------------

Other than that, I have nothing else to add or pick at. Your post was very mentally provocative, and I thank you for it.

-A[/FONT]

[Fasteriskhead]

[SIZE=1]Allamorph: thank you for the wonderful reply! You've exposed a number of hasty mistakes on my part, and in many ways put my points better than I did.

[quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial]I am not entirely sure how to approach that statement [langauge describes facts, not "just" things]; I suppose my hesitation is due to wondering what exactly you mean here by [I]things[/I], and how you (or Wittgenstein) would define [I]ideas[/I'].[/FONT][/quote]I think this is just poor wording on my part. With the "just" there I'm not saying that a scientific, subject-object kind of language describes things [i]and also[/i] facts - "just" means "merely," in the sense that language deals with things (or non-things) ONLY through their presence in states of affairs. Otherwise, they are nonsensical. Things are dependent on their place in facts, not the other way around. Wittgenstein: "Only facts can express a sense, a set of names cannot." A round-up of mere "things" means nothing. This is already implied in the fact that objects, properly understood, have no meaning outside of the capacity for a subject to understand them - any "object" that falls outside of this relation is not an object at all.

As for ideas, ever since Descartes they have been understood simply as the representation of an exterior fact by a thinking being within its consciousness, or more radically as concepts and their synthesis of sensible intuitions (Kant) - there have been a few really weird exceptions to this (Spinoza and Berkeley come to mind), but for the most part this understanding has held steady. In this case, the only appreciable difference between ideas and other facts is that ideas can only be facts about one particular kind of object, i.e. the subject - that is, facts about what the subject "experiences." Of course, this is totally different from what Plato meant when he first used the word "idea" in a philosophical sense, but no one much worries about this...

[quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial]The one item you failed to address is the question [I]"Why?"[/I]. This question only concerns facts in that it is probing their purpose. E.g.: [I]"Dad, why is the sky blue?" "It involves light refraction. Light enters our atmosphere and passes through little water droplets in the air, and the angle we see the light at tints the color blue." "Yes, I know that, but why blue?"[/I] Obviously the father in this scenario could go on about wavelengths and other such rot, but he'd still be missing the point: what was the purpose for that particular color? And all preexisting items, and even questions about them, are subject to the probing of the question [I]"Why?"[/I]. I would like your take on the [I]"Why?"[/I'] aspect.[/FONT][/quote]And here you perfectly pick out the basic problem with understanding everything in terms of subjectivity and objectivity, and why I think it is so important to consider these kinds of issues. What, first of all, does this kind of an understanding have to say about something like "blue," or even just the "blueness of the sky"? Answer: "blue" is a sign that has meanings within various propositions that describe facts. You miss, I think, the obvious rejoinder to your question: "When the child asks why the sky is blue, she's actually asking about the [I]meaning[/I] of the blue sky [I]for her[/I] - or, even more widely, for 'mankind' as a whole." This seems to make perfect sense - provided that we completely miss the point that [I]this is not a statement about "blue"[/I], only a statement about a subject or group of subjects that [I]sees "blue" in a particular way[/I]. "Blue" here only has meaning when it is part of a state of affairs. This is not only true of this situation, but of all situations in general: all subject-object understandings are [I]incapable[/I] of grasping things except in terms of their relations to other things in states of affairs. Wittgenstein again: "Propositions can only say [I]how[/I] things are, not [I]what[/I] they are." Almost no one has given much thought to the glaring fact that subject-object understanding, which (connected to scientific research) has produced the most precise, far-ranging, and technologically powerful culture in history, is completely at a loss when it comes to the simple act of trying to understand what "blueness" is. Somehow we can put people on the moon and produce atomic fusion, but a blue sky is beyond us. The only thing to be done is to throw one's hands up in frusteration and dismiss this kind of talk as the deviant and confused ramblings of subjects who are misusing language.

You may notice that I haven't directly answered your question about what "why?" means. I plead limitation of time on this one. But it's worth noting that the question "why is there anything at all rather than nothing?" - which I would consider "why?" at its most extreme - is taken by the "philosopher" Martin Heidegger (a guy to whom my more rambling posts are completely indebted to) as the most basic "leading" question of metaphysics (that is, philosophy). This doesn't mean that all philosophy tries to [I]answer[/I] this question, rather that genuine philosophy is [I]grounded[/I] in this question and works within the space it creates. I'm writing very vaguely, I know. But at the very least I should try to point out that a question like "why is the sky blue" immediately leads to issues of [I]methodology[/I] - that is, of [I]how[/I] the "thereness" of the blue sky can be clarified in its essence and if this is really possible.

[quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial]Then there is the last part of that statement: [I]To say there is a question with no answer is to say, "there is no fact capable of resolution."[/I] That was not what was stated. What was intended was "there is a question with no [B]one[/B] answer," or in your words, " 'there is no [B]one[/B'] fact capable of resolution."[/FONT][/quote]I didn't read the question this way, but in any case I don't think this requires great change to my characterization of subject-object understandings. The totality of all possible facts that could resolve a question is itself a kind of fact.

[quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial']I realize that you used the HUP in a purely demonstrative sense, but I would like to make some additional statements in its regard. Heisenberg said that, of two conjugate variables ("a" and "b"), the more accurate our measurement of "a" becomes, the more uncertain our measurement of "b" becomes. However, another (rather irritating, from my perspective) property of measurement in science is that there can be no completely accurate measurements. Since there then is no possibility for a definite "a", there is no im-possibility about "b", and thus no contradiction.[/FONT][/quote]Thank you for catching me on this! I try not to let my illustrations lead me into these kinds of stupid mistakes, but it still sometimes happens. Yes indeed, the relationship between two measurements a and b in the uncertainty principle is [I]inverse[/I], and [I]not[/I] mutually exclusive as I described it. I would put the second part of your point (starting from the "however") in more mathematical terms by saying that if I'm measuring a with a great deal of certainty, then the possibility of reaching certainty with b infinitely approaches zero asymtotically but never quite reaches there (in the same way that I never measure a "exactly").

Despite my error I think the point I make still stands, although I have to get to it differently. A really strict kind of "natural science" (using the word as Wittgenstein does) describes facts, that is, states of affairs. A fact can either be true or false, "the case" or "not the case." Insofar as the measurements of a and b under the HUP are "uncertain" not merely in the sense that some observing subject "doesn't know what they are," but are [I]basically[/I] uncertain by definition, natural science doesn't know how to deal with them because it doesn't deal in halfways and maybes. This leads to the (initially counterintuitive) result that the [I]statistical possibilities[/I] are, strictly speaking, the things that really are or are not the case before the moment of measurement, and not the particles themselves. I leave anything more specific to people who are actually competent in physics, as I've already made enough of a fool of myself in the area.

[quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial']Your post was very mentally provocative, and I thank you for it.[/FONT][/quote]The same to you! (although I would change the compliment to simply read: provocative, period)[/SIZE]

[Ol' Fighter]

Wow...it looks like I have created a monster that thrives on perceptions of things but to to add to the bowl they say that the brain is the reason why we know what this or that is and if you think about it what really is what the brain thinks it is (I know this sounds really messing but bear with me), like for example the brain feels the sensation of heat and registers it as moderatly warm to hot but how exactly do you really know and object is hot or cold?

To simplify this...is everything that we feel and see actually real or just an illusion of the mind? :animeknow

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Lonley Fighter']To simplify this...is everything that we feel and see actually real or just an illusion of the mind? :animeknow[/quote][COLOR=maroon]Well, if nothing else, everything that we feel and see is at least an "interpretation" of the real world. We have different systems for "detecting" reality, such as smell, touch... uh... and the other three senses. Anyway, all these forms of detection are ultimately transformed into a common form of information: electrical. One that the brain can interpret and submit to you, the conscious being.

There's a condition whose name escapes me simply because it hurt my tongue. I remember agreeing to call it "syntaste" since that's so much friendlier to my mouth. It's a condition where one sees sounds and hears colors. Basically, the detection or processing parts of the two senses are switched, and... wikipedia it.[/COLOR]

[Ol' Fighter]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=maroon]Well, if nothing else, everything that we feel and see is at least an "interpretation" of the real world. We have different systems for "detecting" reality, such as smell, touch... uh... and the other three senses. Anyway, all these forms of detection are ultimately transformed into a common form of information: electrical. One that the brain can interpret and submit to you, the conscious being.

There's a condition whose name escapes me simply because it hurt my tongue. I remember agreeing to call it "syntaste" since that's so much friendlier to my mouth. It's a condition where one sees sounds and hears colors. Basically, the detection or processing parts of the two senses are switched, and... wikipedia it.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Whoa...I know I'm moving away from my original topic but that is really interesting (and my computer is on the frits and couldn't complete the search) exactly how in the world does that work...being able to see sounds and hear colors...just thinking about this is driving me nuts.