• ucarr
    254
    1. What is gravity? (interrogative)Agent Smith

    equation template v1, where to be ⇒ =

    2. Define gravity. (command)Agent Smith

    implied equation

    3. Gravity is a _________ (fill in the blank)Agent Smith

    equation template v2

    4. Gravity is (MCQ)
    a. A type of apple
    b. Einstein's cat
    c. A force
    d. All of the above
    e. None of the above
    Agent Smith

    conjunctive proposition ⇒ equation, with variables X₁, X₂, X₃, X₄, X₅

    What have the five above instances in common? They juxtapose the known & the unknown within a field wherein the two states cohere as an interactive couplet.

    From here I see that question is a platform that makes known/unknown work together to isolate an equivalence (identity).
  • ucarr
    254
    ↪ucarr You asked for me "reconfigure" my previous expression of "a question" into a "paradox" – thus, the question-mark. Paradoxical, no?180 Proof

    So, you think question-of-question is, metaphysically speaking, paradoxical.
  • Ciceronianus
    2.4k
    Let us, then, recede context, with all of its hubristic self-importance, including sub-textual intentions, into the background for the moment.ucarr

    We can certainly do so, if we choose to, but I think we should recognize that in that case we don't consider how questions are used in our ordinary discourse. It would be like trying to understand or define language without considering irony, sarcasm, exaggeration, nuance, etc.
  • ucarr
    254
    We can certainly do so, if we choose to, but I think we should recognize that in that case we don't consider how questions are used in our ordinary discourse. It would be like trying to understand or define language without considering irony, sarcasm, exaggeration, nuance, etc.Ciceronianus

    I have no intention to ignore, ultimately, the many applications of question in context, with multiple grammatical_syntactical variations etc. Lawyers, rhetorical actors, couldn't thrive (or even function) in the courtroom without these accoutrements, nor could dramatic actors upon the stage.

    For explanation, let me say that here I'm trying to deconstruct the complex & great edifice of English in order to examine closely its foundation & frame through the lens of epistemology's greatest messenger, Lord Question.

    King Language & Lord Question have a diplomatic relationship of exquisite protocols outfitted with lavish filigree (to which you are wed).

    What are some essential features & functions of the platform (question) that transfers information intra-linguistically? (You provide a telling example of the messenger role of Lord Question by stressing how he conveys meaning (including equivalence) even when stripped clean of his diplomatic credentials.)

    The upshot is just what I said at the beginning; What's the metaphysical status of a question?

    I like my focus here because you, and many others, are completely focused on the application of question, whereas I wish to focus on the innate form & behavior of question.
  • Agent Smith
    5.2k
    I like where you're going with this! Please don't let me cramp your style. Proceed! I'm just gonna watch. :up:
  • ucarr
    254
    Premise --

    A question, if it's pertinent to the answer it seeks, shares a link with said answer that is a variant of the transitive property.

    Question is a platform that makes known/unknown work together to isolate an equivalence (identity).


    Let’s look at an example that articulates the details of my premise.

    3+x=5

    3 & 5 = known (underlined)

    x = unknown (no underline)

    Question - What do 3 & 5 have in common?

    Answer – 3

    Question, shuttling sequentially, discovers what 3 & 5 have in common, 3, thus linking them.

    Question – What do 3 & 5 have not in common?

    Answer – 2

    We can say that these two questions, taken together, demonstrate known & unknown, each expressing one in terms of the other.

    After 3 & 5 each express in terms of the other, both as known & unknown, x, the unknown, becomes isolated, thus x = 2.

    Once the common ground between 3 & 5 i.e. 3 is established (transitive property) the disjunction separating 3 & 5 , the separator, 2, becomes isolated.

    Now, x = unknown, becomes 2 = known.

    So, 3 + 2 = 5

    All of the terms are now known & equation of identity, linking two different expressions of one position on the number line, gets expressed.

    We see here that Question, in its essence, functions as the messenger RNA, or shuttle diplomat, establishing, via the transitive property, the common ground linking both sides of the equation, thus isolating the unknown, who now, become known, enables the equation to express an identity across known values.
  • Agent Smith
    5.2k
    Meno's paradox?

    If you know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is unnecessary.

    If you don't know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is impossible.

    Ergo,

    Inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.

    1. Known unknowns (unanswered questions)
    2. Unknown unknowns (unasked questions)
    3. Unknown knowns (memory read failure)
  • ucarr
    254
    If you know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is unnecessary.Agent Smith

    If you don't know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is impossible.Agent Smith

    As you again attack with Occam's Razor, I'll make bold & declare that logic_math_science operate meticulously, expansively & successfully between the above two razor's edges.

    A quick review of humanity's empirical experience shows that inquiry starts with partial information about what's to be discovered. This is clearly demonstrated in my example. The abundance of partial information experimentation, the axiomatic starting point for logic_math_science discoveries, being something common you fail to register here, suggests you fundamentally misunderstand inquiry.

    Ergo,

    Inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.
    Agent Smith

    The above razor cut reads dramatically on paper, however, within the empirical world, it excludes only an extremely acute angle: cases at the polar extremes. These amount to nothing more than straw man arguments that misrepresent real inquiry_discovery.
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    So, you think question-of-question is, metaphysically speaking, paradoxical.ucarr
    Semantically speaking ...

    What is the metaphysical status of a question?ucarr
    This question still doesn't make sense to me after two thread pages.
  • ucarr
    254


    Metaphysical, as I'm using it here = essential, invariant identity.
  • Agent Smith
    5.2k
    Partial information! :up:

    The point to Meno's paradox is a question is either a student's or a teacher's, one is impossible (unknown unknowns) and one is unnecessary (known knowns).
  • ucarr
    254


    How do you perceive the metaphysical?
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    How do you perceive the metaphysical?ucarr
    Categorically.
  • ucarr
    254
    How do you perceive the metaphysical?
    — ucarr
    Categorically.
    180 Proof

    If you can elaborate, please do so.

    What is the metaphysical status of a question?
    — ucarr
    This question still doesn't make sense to me after two thread pages.
    180 Proof

    Have any thoughts about the geometry inhering within a 4-space environment?
  • ucarr
    254
    Confiteur I don't know how to extricate myself from the loop formed by definition & question in re questions.

    What is a question? is an impossible question - to ask it, one must know what a question is but it also indicates the questioner doesn't know what a question is. This is the paradox.
    Agent Smith

    I begin my closing statement by claiming What is a question? is not an impossible question. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

    Let me start with my first counter-narrative. Re: the claim asking a question necessarily implies knowing question makes me yell: "Wait a minute!" By parallel argument I can claim driving a car necessarily implies knowing cars. Really?

    Curiously, I can use my own ignorance as part of this argument. When I started the conversation, I didn't know What is a question?, in parallel with This sentence is false., expresses a paradox. But I nonetheless raised the question didn't I? So, seems to me asking a question can come from the mouth of ignorance re: knowing that What is a question?, in particular, is a paradox. I can scarcely claim to have known the state of being of that question at the time of my asking it.

    If a parrot repeats some of my phrases, do we have evidence the parrot knows what it's saying?

    Asking a question does not necessarily imply knowing the state of being (nature) of question.

    I continue with my best counter-narrative. What is a question? is not an impossible question because...

    Premise -- paradox = higher dimensional entity in collapsed state

    Henceforth, I will try to examine the vertical relationship between cubic space (3D) & tesseractic space (4D).

    The core concept says in 3D space, sequential time inheres & thus one thing occupies one position at a time as two positions by one thing requires movement across a time interval always positive.

    In contrast, in 4D space, non-sequential time inheres & thus one thing occupies multiple positions as simultaneous multiple positions by one thing are supported by non-sequential time.

    Consider two parallel boxes.

    In cubic space, binary logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can be in one box or the other.

    In tesseractic space, hyper-logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can simultaneously inhabit both boxes.

    In 3D space, paradox expresses the hyper-logic of 4D space in its collapsed state, as the fourth spacial dimension required for expansion of hyper-logic is absent.

    Hyper-logic, in its collapsed state, expresses as an undecidable, timeless switching between two "contradictory" positions that cancel.

    In its expanded state, hyper-logic expresses as simultaneity of multiple positions in non-sequential time i.e. non-locality. The "contradictory" switching in 3D space becomes non-locality in 4D space.

    I don't know if the human brain, in its current state of evolution, can directly experience the non-local simultaneity of multiple positions of entities in the 4D of hyper-space.

    At any rate, as you are seeing here, the strangeness of QM can be navigated with some ease of comprehension by shuttling across the vertical relationship between 3D & 4D space.

    I close this section with a category title I suggest as a label for examinations like the one above: Boundary Ontology. At the core of this category is study of geometric forms preserved across topological shuttling between 3D & 4D versus geometric forms expanded/collapsed across 3D & 4D spaces.

    In the next chapter, I will try to examine some key attributes inhering within the hyper-space of tesseract.
  • Agent Smith
    5.2k
    What is a question?ucarr

    This is a stupid question! :snicker: Falls under @180 Proof's category of Unknown knowns i.e. you know but you don't know that you do...know!

    I hope 180 Proof will be gracious enough to provide a link to a post of his which elucidates the points (it involved Donald Rumsfeld in case you forgot 180 Proof).
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    "What is a question?" shows – one cannot say unquestionably – what a question is.
  • Agent Smith
    5.2k
    unquestionably180 Proof

    Most interesting! — Ms. Marple
  • ucarr
    254


    Did you read my 4D statement just above your

    This is a stupid question!Agent Smith

    statement?
  • Agent Smith
    5.2k
    The chicken-and-egg problem is one that appears to be temporal in character as in before x, y but, sadly, before y, x!

    If time can be eliminated from the equation, all bets are off, oui? It's hard for me to conceive of an atemporal universe. Is it just me or is it the same for everybody? I dunno! I would love to analyze this interesting topic but I don't even know where to begin.
  • ucarr
    254
    "What is a question?" shows – one cannot say unquestionably – what a question is.180 Proof

    The above implies What is a question? encompasses a spectrum of possible identities.

    Please list some members of this spectrum, especially those members that are non-questions.
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    I don't understand what you're asking.
  • ucarr
    254
    I don't understand what you're asking.180 Proof

    If I cannot state, without doubt, the essential nature of a thing, and yet, there is no doubt I'm looking at & contemplating the nature of an existing thing, then, it follows logically, that that thing being contemplated supports a range of speculations about what it might be.

    I'm asking you to list some (or all) of the members of the range (set) of speculations about what What is a question? might be. I want you to take special care to include members (reasonably accurate WRT the apparent identity of the thing) that are non-questions.

    It follows that a putative question finally undecidable as such might actually be not a question at all but, instead, a declaration, command, exclamation, expletive etc.
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    I'm asking you to list some (or all) of the members of the range (set) of speculations about what What is a question? might be.ucarr
    This link is to an old post I guess might answer what you're asking for

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/343418

    which I've already provided here (down 2 more links) on page 1 of this thread. I'm also still sticking with my stipulative "essence"
    a question is an expression that consists of a variable.180 Proof
    for the sake of this discussion, even though my very short survey of question-types shows that question is more of a family resemblance concept (like "games") than not.
  • ucarr
    254


    Do you understand metaphysics as Aristotle understood it? He thought it was a label, as a part of a classification system, when he coined the word right? To him it was "after the physical," meaning, the not strictly physical stuff. An example is human perception. Like scientists of today, he thought metaphysics was an emergent property, arising from the physical. This view is consistent with monism-physicalism, right? Is this something like your view?
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    Aristotle's students / archivists coined the term "tà metà tà physikà biblía" which he never used (in his works). I do agree with his conception of philosophia primathe categorical principles necessary for rationally interpreting the whole of nature. I differ from Aristotleans/Thomists insofar as I conceive of 'categorical principles' via negation ("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals) instead of via positivity (i.e. "X is Y" ~ the real defined by positing reals) because, whereas the latter makes it intractably difficult to reach a philosophical concensus, the former, IME, makes philosophical disagreement – the devil's, of course, in the details – self-contradictory. For instance (a sketch with a link to more ... links ... sketches):

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/584132
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.