I was involved in a debate with my friend a few days ago.
He proposed that the most logical answer for questions that can't be judged with science, logic and reason should be polar, i.e., either 'Yes' or 'No'. For example, he insisted that the logical answer to the question "Do you think humans will be immortal in the future?" should be either "Yes" or "No".
On, the other hand, I insisted that the most logical answer to such an extraordinary and unfathomable question should be "No Comment". I think that nobody should assign any sort of weight in important arguments (only) to such questions which can't be reasoned, rationalized and analyzed statistically. Opening doors to a wild speculative answers about such a question should be restricted.
In a similar manner, I attempted to provide a counter argument when he didn't back down. This argument has been inspired by the theory of Simulated Reality . The question is: "Do you think the Earth will exist after a billion years?". Please notice and remember the bold emphasis on the words "the Earth" in the previous question. His answer was "either Yes or No". I stepped on the wildly speculative platform that he constructed and asserted a paradox. If we found out that our earth has been a simulation all along and our earth was one of the many billions of other simulated earths out there, we don't know where the real Earth is because every time we discover an earth after our own, it turns to be a simulation again. Since we can't fathom, quantify and assert infinity *and* we aren't able to the find "the Earth" that we referenced to in our question earlier, the correct answer turns out to be "Uncertain" or "No Comment". You may also visit this link and listen to the argument made immediately as the video starts playing. Every question is not a meaningful question and such questions don't deserve an answer.
Do you agree with what I have to say? If, yes then leave your comments. If no, then leave your reviews on my question.