Timeline for Some questions can't possibly have an answer
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2017 at 21:45 | vote | accept | Jean Leroi | ||
| Jun 15, 2017 at 0:13 | answer | added | user9166 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 14, 2017 at 20:22 | answer | added | Alvaro | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 14, 2017 at 6:06 | answer | added | Nanhee Byrnes PhD | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 25, 2017 at 7:52 | comment | added | Richard | I had a thought last night based on conflating numerpus posts on this forum. We can show that infinity exists, and evidence suggests the universe is only some 15bn years old. Surely this proves that our 4 dimensions are not all that exists. | |
| May 25, 2017 at 7:41 | comment | added | Swami Vishwananda | God does not think. If He is God, what is there for Him to think about - is He not all-knowing? Everything that is known or thought about the universe is from the perspective of those within the universe. All thoughts and knowledge - and questions - are within the universe. God is beyond the universe. It is a super-sensual realm. There is no 'why' or 'how' there. | |
| May 24, 2017 at 23:02 | comment | added | Richard | Number Theory might be your best area of research. They have been concerned with why integers exist for a long time. And i think it is time itself that allows logic, and arithmetic etc. | |
| May 24, 2017 at 22:16 | comment | added | Conifold | "What makes logic true?" is better than "why is X true?", at least we can make sense of X now. It is still problematic though, there are ways to explain what makes particular choices of logics reasonable for particular purposes, but "true" presupposes logic, and more, already in place. And the analogy does not work here, you could ask what makes the universe serve God's purposes or how God knows things about it (because he created it, presumably), but I do not see any meaningful question to which we can tell that he can not have an answer. | |
| May 24, 2017 at 21:54 | comment | added | Jean Leroi | You can't prove logic is true using logic. But it makes sense to consider why logic is true at all . If the question "what makes logic true " doesn't have sense ,then what predicate do I need to apply so that it makes sense ? I am trying to understand,not to be cocky. | |
| May 24, 2017 at 21:43 | comment | added | Jean Leroi | Why do you think "true" does not apply as a predicate to X ?Suppose X has a predicate about the world ,what logical context makes the predicate of X true ? | |
| May 24, 2017 at 21:40 | comment | added | Conifold | That some questions can not have an answer is trivially true, for instance "what is the color of π?" or "is this sentence false?" Such questions often contain category errors, they attempt to apply predicates to objects to which they do not apply. Your " frame of reference (?) X, which contains truth about everything" already does that, but "why is X true?" is even more overtly so, "true" does not apply to "frames of reference". And surely not even God can have answers to meaningless questions. | |
| May 24, 2017 at 20:58 | comment | added | Bridgeburners | Maybe there need not be a Y. It's possible that you're appealing to an intuition of causality, that something must have a cause or explanation, when in fact, causality need only be a trait existing within a universe, but not necessary to explain the universe as a whole. It's possible that something could just be. There's no reason to think that the same mechanism we use to explain things happening within the universe can coherently be applied to the universe itself. | |
| May 24, 2017 at 20:29 | comment | added | Richard | 42.. there's the answer. Yes, I'm quite certain. | |
| May 24, 2017 at 20:27 | comment | added | Richard | why would you need answers that can only have meaning outside the frame of reality? | |
| May 24, 2017 at 20:09 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 19, 2017 at 3:09 | |||||
| May 24, 2017 at 19:50 | comment | added | Not_Here | We have formal proofs that some questions are not answerable/have no answer, see independence and undecidability. However, this question is not an actual question it is more along the lines of "am I correct?" which is explicitly off topic on this SE. | |
| May 24, 2017 at 19:49 | comment | added | Not_Here | This is reminiscent of Cantor's Paradox as well as Tarski's definition of truth in relation to the object language vs meta language. Yes, you cannot define truth in the object language you need a metal language, how do you define truth in the meta language? You need a meta meta language, and so on. | |
| May 24, 2017 at 19:49 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | most of the questions can't possibly have an answer | |
| May 24, 2017 at 19:41 | comment | added | Jean Leroi | Because X can't have itself as element of the frame otherwise it would be just another element as the rest of the others and not the frame that contains it all. | |
| May 24, 2017 at 19:39 | comment | added | user26625 | Why do you believe that Y is outside of X? | |
| May 24, 2017 at 19:34 | history | asked | Jean Leroi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |