Sunday, September 29, 2013

Great philosophical questions that we created forever to debate

Great Philosophical Questions That We'll Never Solve:

Let me add my opinions. Note that I don't plan to solve them. I am expressing my two Zimbabwe cents worth of opinion.

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

Because we exist. Anomaly encountered by another. Ans the wording "there is something" and "nothing" are defined by us.

Our "nothing" is purely a conceptual understanding. For an example there is "nothing" called fairies.

Anything that is pseudo-real as your physical body is, there, because the term "nothing" has no association to it. We only know something either because it does exist [referring to the pseudo-real presence like your body] or it is a concept defined by us. There is no "existence of nothingness".

2. Is our universe real?

Universe shows signs to think that it is "infinite" in every means. Its size, its time, its granularity and all. Human has nothing to relate himself with infinity. Amount of neurons, brain capacity, lifetime, capabilities they are all finite. So it is quite likely to be just impossible for latter to fully comprehend prior.

Latter can always build a model of prior which has a "precision" of accuracy. And that is why we have a serious problem of "understanding anything beyond our level of understanding".  :)

3. Do we have free will?

No. But yes. We do not have a free will that is not governed by any external fact. But within the constraints and influences of external facts [including our of genetic and memetic heredity] we have a pseudo-free will. I am failing to understand why this was a major philosophical question. Does that mean that there are those who think that we have an absolute free will?

The question of "Causality and Randomness" is a genuine one. It is questioning the mere mechanics of events, whose series is simply all about what we call universe. As I previously explained an absolute free will is the only thing that may be challenged in Causality vs Randomness debate.

4. Does God exist?

If you are referring to G-O-D by the religious test books, most agnostics themselves would be saying that 0.000000.. is not equal to 0 theoretically. In other words GOD of another human's description, may not exist although we're unable to prove it.

But if you are asking the general question of the possible creator whom we have no idea about, it is a genuine agnostic stand point for me. It relates to Q2 above. Simply we're unable to say.

5. Is there life after death?

There are records of near-death and re-incarnation stories. This is not something we can throw away as total bullshit. Yet there is no proper depth scientific analysis. In my understanding we have no evidence to stand firm either way.
But if anyone thinks that life "essentially" needs to be transferred because the complex thing called life cannot purely be material, that is pure inability to understand complex theories like emergence. Life does not necessarily need anything external. Materialism/Physicalism is not at all dead.

6. Can you really experience anything objectively?

I think "objective experience" is a human definition. There can be no explanation for anything beyond what humans can. We do not even have a single other life form that can explain the universe different to us. So be it objective or not, what we experience is the only known experience. 

However the experience of our individual brain tallies with million others. There is no difference in understanding of universe by humans. Across the world, in totally distant communities, the "world experience" is the same. So the level that human experiences in definitely a level "close-to-real" [whatever it means] than what we dream or imagine.

Religions like Buddhism talks about objective reality because it discusses something above this average human experience. The sammuthi sathya human experience of zero-ness or emptiness is contrasted with paramathatha sathya of nibbana which is said [as per my understanding of Buddhism] as absolute. Nibbana is a part and parcel of a religious philosophy, right or wrong of which is beyond this discussion.

Without such an idea there is no point of talking about anything "beyond human experience". 
Simply put "understanding anything beyond our level of understanding" is an oxymoron.

7. What is the best moral system?

Morality is not absolute. Morality is not complete. For that reason morality cannot be comparable. Morality is improving within itself and generalizing among themselves, which is good. But there is no "good moral system" and "bad moral system" in general. Feature-wise you can compare. Maybe we have some very very bad and primitive moral systems in practice. But in theory, 
you can never compare incomplete and genuinely different two systems for their absolute ranking.

8. What are numbers?

Numbers depend on our understanding of fullness. That means we have singularities of 100% with rest of space with 0%. A rock is a rock because it is entirely [or so accepted nearly] a rock, and out of its surface there is no rock remaining to a measurable distance. This is a genuine macro experience which is debatable at quantum level.

Numbers are our way to work with multiples of such singularity. If the singularity is accepted I see nothing wrong with numbers.

No comments:

Post a Comment