I have a dumb question • page 3/5 • Off-Topic Discussion • lichess.org

Tae7 edited

@shadow1414 Your argument is paradoxical!
Is an unanswerable question a question at all? On the basis that a question implies that there is an answer to it.
How can you give a legitimate answer to a question that has ‘no answers’?

@shadow1414 Your argument is paradoxical! Is an unanswerable question a question at all? On the basis that a question implies that there is an answer to it. How can you give a legitimate answer to a question that has ‘no answers’?

shadow1414 edited

@Tae7. "How can you give a legitimate answer to a question that has ‘no answers’?" I'm starting to wonder if you read my posts;). I don't think you can "give a legitimate answer to a question that has ‘no answers’" but I do think you can give a legitimate answer to the question of WHY does this unanswerable question NOT have an answer? Like for example "what's better dubbed or subbed anime?" or "what is fun"? Or "what is the meaning of life" those things are "subjective" and therefore don't have an OBJECTIVE answer. That's the answer:). "Is an unanswerable question a question at all?" no. I'm pretty sure I never implied that. "Questions that you KNOW have no answer to them are dumb because they are unanswerable. But asking WHY they don't have answers isn't". Your response?

Tae7 edited

@shadow1414 There are separate categories of questions. An example in one such category would be ‘the answer to this question is a secret,’ this means nobody can know the answer but that doesn’t mean to say there isn’t an answer. So there are certain statements that can be made the answer to which is both true and false at the same time. It depends how you choose to do the answering.

Excuse the late response, I was busy this afternoon ;)

@shadow1414 There are separate categories of questions. An example in one such category would be ‘the answer to this question is a secret,’ this means nobody can know the answer but that doesn’t mean to say there isn’t an answer. So there are certain statements that can be made the answer to which is both true and false at the same time. It depends how you choose to do the answering. Excuse the late response, I was busy this afternoon ;)

shadow1414 edited

@tae7. "So there are certain statements can be made the answer to which is both true and false at the same time" what on earth did you just say?. I don't mind. Answer when you are ready.

Tae7

@shadow1414 Its the inadequacy of words as a tool to provide meaning.

Tae7

‘Questions that you KNOW have no answer to them are dumb because they are unanswerable’

Not everything could be validated yet but that doesn’t mean that its not worth asking or that it won’t be in the future.

‘Questions that you KNOW have no answer to them are dumb because they are unanswerable’ - Not everything could be validated yet but that doesn’t mean that its not worth asking or that it won’t be in the future.

shadow1414

@Tae7. I have no idea what your last two posts are supposed to mean. Please explain in further detail? #26 is saying "what about questions that we don't know the answer to yet but might in the future? Are they dumb?" correct?

TKSBHMBenjamin

Magnus Carlsen aka gm DrNykterstein has over 100k followers

krasnaya

@shadow1414 said (#22):

I don't think you can "give a legitimate answer to a question that has ‘no answers’"

@shadow1414 said (#20):
Questions that you KNOW have no answer to them are dumb because they are unanswerable.

Actually i have read your postings but i also have read one or two books and hence i'd like to call BS on that nonsense. In fact thinking about questions known to have no answer is one of the most fundamental and intriguing endeavours of modern science.

For instance, one of the books i read it the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein. And he said 1):

6.522 There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.

and further:

6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way:
he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless,
when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them.
(He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up
on it.) He must surmount these propositions ; then he sees the world
rightly.

But we shouldn't indulge in logical positivism, it is hardly a topic fitting for beginners of philosophy. Let us start with something really simple instead - what i fell to be the base misconception:

@shadow1414 said (#22):

Or "what is the meaning of life" those things are "subjective" and therefore
don't have an OBJECTIVE answer. That's the answer

What?? Oh, dear old Epicurus 2), you have lived and thought and written in vain. I will break it down simply for you:

The "meaning" of something is a measure of value which exists in relation to the observer: the "meaning" of a i.e. a book might be the fact that it can be read and by this transmits some thoughts. For someone else it might be that the book is made of paper and it will burn and provide heat for some time. Both these meanings are relative and exist only in relation to the person using the book. From this two things follow: first, the absolute (or "objective") "meaning" of the book exists, but its value is indefinite. And second, to assess the meaning (even a relative one) of the book we need to take a POV outside the book, i.e. the POV of the respective person using it. To do the same with life and hence come up with a "meaning of life" we would need to take a stance outside of it, which is empirically impossible. (As an aside, this is the reason why all those people with invisible friends, who claim that their "god" gives their lifes a "meaning" are as delusional as the people believing Elvis is alive and he told them that.

@shadow1414 said (#22):

"Is an unanswerable question a question at all?" no. I'm pretty sure I never implied that.

Really? Unanswerable questions are no questions? It is really cute to hear Kurt Gödel rotate in his grave, who came up with the "Incompleteness Theorem" by proving that in any complex enough axiomatic system (he cited Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and Peanos axioms as examples) propositions can be constructed so that the proposition is correct but stating its own incorrectness. The question wether they are correct or not are by definition not answerable - and (the second Incompleteness Theorem) even if you extend the axiomatic system to make the sentence decidable it is possible to again find another sentence which is again not decidable within the system. An infinite recurse. A practical example would be the Continuum Hypothesis: Gödel himself proved ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory plus the Axiom of Choice) + CH to be consistent (but not provable within ZF), whereas Cohen 4) proved ZFC - CH to be consistent either (but also not provable within ZF). Other similarly undecidable problems are i.e. Turings halting problem or Shelahs proof for the undecidabilty of Whiteheads problem.

So you have the minimal honour of having revisited most of modern mathematics, logic, computer science and philosophy with that statement. What a pity that it is nonsense. It would have made the jobs of may scientists much easier.

krasnaya

I use the english-german concordance by Routland & Kegan Paul, London, here, 8th impression, 1960
See "Life and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers" by Diogenes Laertius, quoting Epicurus extensively
"On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems". The only english translation i have access to is the one by Bernard Meltzer (Basic Books, 1963), which, as i understand, is not very good.
"The independence of the continuum hypothesis", Proc. of the national Acaademy of Sciences of USA, vol 50, p1143-1148
" "The independence of the continuum hypothesis, II", Proc. of the national Acaademy of Sciences of USA, vol 51, p105-110

@shadow1414 said (#22): > I don't think you can "give a legitimate answer to a question that has ‘no answers’" @shadow1414 said (#20): Questions that you KNOW have no answer to them are dumb because they are unanswerable. Actually i have read your postings but i also have read one or two books and hence i'd like to call BS on that nonsense. In fact thinking about questions known to have no answer is one of the most fundamental and intriguing endeavours of modern science. For instance, one of the books i read it the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein. And he said 1): > 6.522 There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical. and further: > 6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: > he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, > when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. > (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up > on it.) He must surmount these propositions ; then he sees the world > rightly. But we shouldn't indulge in logical positivism, it is hardly a topic fitting for beginners of philosophy. Let us start with something really simple instead - what i fell to be the base misconception: @shadow1414 said (#22): > Or "what is the meaning of life" those things are "subjective" and therefore > don't have an OBJECTIVE answer. That's the answer What?? Oh, dear old Epicurus 2), you have lived and thought and written in vain. I will break it down simply for you: The "meaning" of something is a measure of value which exists in relation to the observer: the "meaning" of a i.e. a book might be the fact that it can be read and by this transmits some thoughts. For someone else it might be that the book is made of paper and it will burn and provide heat for some time. Both these meanings are relative and exist only in relation to the person using the book. From this two things follow: first, the absolute (or "objective") "meaning" of the book exists, but its value is indefinite. And second, to assess the meaning (even a relative one) of the book we need to take a POV outside the book, i.e. the POV of the respective person using it. To do the same with life and hence come up with a "meaning of life" we would need to take a stance outside of it, which is empirically impossible. (As an aside, this is the reason why all those people with invisible friends, who claim that their "god" gives their lifes a "meaning" are as delusional as the people believing Elvis is alive and he told them that. @shadow1414 said (#22): > "Is an unanswerable question a question at all?" no. I'm pretty sure I never implied that. Really? Unanswerable questions are no questions? It is really cute to hear Kurt Gödel rotate in his grave, who came up with the "Incompleteness Theorem" by proving that in any complex enough axiomatic system (he cited Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and Peanos axioms as examples) propositions can be constructed so that the proposition is correct but stating its own incorrectness. The question wether they are correct or not are by definition not answerable - and (the second Incompleteness Theorem) even if you extend the axiomatic system to make the sentence decidable it is possible to again find another sentence which is again not decidable within the system. An infinite recurse. A practical example would be the Continuum Hypothesis: Gödel himself proved ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory plus the Axiom of Choice) + CH to be consistent (but not provable within ZF), whereas Cohen 4) proved ZFC - CH to be consistent either (but also not provable within ZF). Other similarly undecidable problems are i.e. Turings halting problem or Shelahs proof for the undecidabilty of Whiteheads problem. So you have the minimal honour of having revisited most of modern mathematics, logic, computer science and philosophy with that statement. What a pity that it is nonsense. It would have made the jobs of may scientists much easier. krasnaya _______________ 1) I use the english-german concordance by Routland & Kegan Paul, London, here, 8th impression, 1960 2) See "Life and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers" by Diogenes Laertius, quoting Epicurus extensively 3) "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems". The only english translation i have access to is the one by Bernard Meltzer (Basic Books, 1963), which, as i understand, is not very good. 4) "The independence of the continuum hypothesis", Proc. of the national Acaademy of Sciences of USA, vol 50, p1143-1148 " "The independence of the continuum hypothesis, II", Proc. of the national Acaademy of Sciences of USA, vol 51, p105-110

BedWarMCGirl

maybe the mods/moderators