Are there unanswerable questions?

[SkepticalScience]

(did I just ask one?. . j/k)

Is there such a thing?

My wife (a Catholic) and I (an athiest) were talking about religion, and she sprung that question to me. She claims we will *never* know the cause of the Big Bang, that it is an unanswerable question.

I'm not sure how I feel about that phrase, but am wondering if anyone on this forum can give me some thoughts.

Thanks!

[A_Feeble_Mind]

My thought is that questions can be unanswerable, but only for a time. Right now we cannot definitively say what caused the big bang, but I would imagine that theories are being generated, evaluated and tested and that, some day, this question may be answered.

It seems like a pretty obvious "some-things-you-must-take-on-faith" sort of statement.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
My thought is that questions can be unanswerable, but only for a time. I think that would be a question unanswered, not unanswerable. Unanswerable would be a question that can not be answered ever.

My response would be that an undefined or incomplete question is unanswerable. For example, what is the result of dividing a number by zero? You can approximate an answer, but the question itself is undefined and unanswerable.

edited to add:
An incomplete question might be something like: "Why?" (Why what?)

[SkepticalScience]

wow, that was a damn good answer upchurch.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
wow, that was a d*mn good answer upchurch. Hey, thanks!

[cosmic]

It seems that all questions have answers... but all answers are not created equal.

Perhaps the questions is "Are there any questions that will remain unsatisfactorily answered?”

But what does statifactory mean here? The criteria for adequacy of an answer seems to be a moving target in science. Occam's razor is helpful in making this call, as is falsifiability, but after reading up on it I can't find any consensus on this.

Perhaps an important question for skeptics: By what criteria do we find answers acceptable, and why? Perhaps there is a thread on this already.

But back to the question... Seems dangerous to write off any question as unanswerable. Used to be "did the universe have a beginning?" looked unanswerable, now we've moved to, "what started it?"

[xouper]

Gödel and Turing both proved there are unanswerable questions.

[cosmic]

Hofstader "Godel, Escher, Bach" gives this def of Godel's incompleteness thm (GIT):

"All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions"

So yes, with in the axiomatic system there may be no answer to some questions... but how do we know the axioms are correct?

Is his incompleteness thm applicable to inductive questions where the axioms are never absolute?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I cannot imagine how we will ever answer the question "Is there a reason there is something rather than nothing?"

~~ Paul

[geni]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience


My wife (a Catholic) and I (an athiest) were talking about religion, and she sprung that question to me. She claims we will *never* know the cause of the Big Bang, that it is an unanswerable question.

The answer to this one is easy. The quiestion doesn't make sence. For there to be cause there would have to be a time before the big bang. Since time started at the big bang you can't ask that question in any meaningfull way.

As to whether there are unanswerable question my understanding is that maths shows that the answer is yes. Trying to work out the precicse value of omega for example (this may be completely wrong maths is not my area).

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
My wife (a Catholic) and I (an athiest) were talking about religion, and she sprung that question to me. She claims we will *never* know the cause of the Big Bang, that it is an unanswerable question.
Search the MAD.SCI Network (http://madsci.wustl.edu/MS_search.html) for "big bang", you'll be treated with more information that you'll ever need.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I cannot imagine how we will ever answer the question "Is there a reason there is something rather than nothing?"

~~ Paul That one's easy. No.


Trust me.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
Is there such a thing? Sure -- plenty of them, mostly trivial.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I cannot imagine how we will ever answer the question "Is there a reason there is something rather than nothing?"

~~ Paul That one's easy. No.


Trust me.

[T'ai Chi]

Do you mean to ask if there are things that can't be proved or disproved?

[evildave]

All questions can be answered!

It's easy!

What caused the "Big Bang"? GOD!

Why is the sky blue? GOD!

What makes flowers grow? GOD!

What makes a computer work? GOD!

How to bring about world peace? GOD! (I mean, just see how well it's worked for the last 5,000 years of recorded history!)

After all, God has all the answers! I read it on a billboard over the highway. It must be true. The tobacco posters never lied, either.

So there you go! No matter how ill formatted the question, or illogically posed it was, just answer "GOD!", and you have all the wisdom and "truth" and such you'll ever need.

[athon]

There are always answers. We just might not possess the means to either a) discover it, or b) comprehend it.

We cannot comprehend an infinite answer, for instance, but it does exist. We might never have the means to fully know how the universe began (best guess is all we can ever approxiamate) but there is an answer.

Athon

[LuxFerum]

What is the answer for the unanswerable question?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
(did I just ask one?. . j/k)

Is there such a thing?

My wife (a Catholic) and I (an athiest) were talking about religion, and she sprung that question to me. She claims we will *never* know the cause of the Big Bang, that it is an unanswerable question.

I'm not sure how I feel about that phrase, but am wondering if anyone on this forum can give me some thoughts.

Thanks!

If something happens then there were causes and conditions behind it so answers exist. So to say anything that has happened is unanswerable is illogical as there is an answer and so it is answerable.

To say or believe “we” will not or can not or never know would be a better way to state such a belief but in reality would also be illogical, as she can not know all things or beings to come.

Now if she could Randi has a rather large check for you.

[Dorian Gray]

There are no questions that are unanswerable. I think what you want to ask is whether there are questions that cannot be answered correctly.

What is the result if you divide by zero? Blue.

[toddjh]

How about "What is a sentence which is not a response to this question?" The question is not only unanswerable, it also has an infinite number of correct answers. :)

Jeremy

[xouper]

toddjh: How about "What is a sentence which is not a response to this question?" The question is not only unanswerable, it also has an infinite number of correct answers. :)How do you figure your question is unanswerable?

Dorian Gray: There are no questions that are unanswerable. I think what you want to ask is whether there are questions that cannot be answered correctly. What is the result if you divide by zero? Blue.Your point seems to be about the definition of the word "answer". I don't think nonsense answers count as answers, otherwise it is meaningless to ask if there are unanswerable questions.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
My thought is that questions can be unanswerable, but only for a time. Right now we cannot definitively say what caused the big bang, but I would imagine that theories are being generated, evaluated and tested and that, some day, this question may be answered.


You should bear in mind that the question why there is something rather than nothing is not a scientific one. You need a Universe to begin with in order to apply scientific theories. So why there was a Big Bang might well be unanswerable.

Indeed, arguably all philosophical questions are unanswerable.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I cannot imagine how we will ever answer the question "Is there a reason there is something rather than nothing?"

~~ Paul

Sorry Paul, didn't realise you'd already raised this before my post just above.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by xouper
How do you figure your question is unanswerable?

Anything you answer will be incorrect, because it is a response to the question. Yes, you can get around it by padding the answer with commentary, but only a spoilsport would do that. :)

Jeremy

[epepke]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
(did I just ask one?. . j/k)

Is there such a thing?

My wife (a Catholic) and I (an athiest) were talking about religion, and she sprung that question to me. She claims we will *never* know the cause of the Big Bang, that it is an unanswerable question.

There are undecidable questions, such as the Entschidungsproblem. But these tend to be mathematical.

Here's an easy example. Some words describe themselves. For example, "short" describes itself, as five letters is short. "Polysyllabic" describes itself. There are also words that don't describe themselves, such as "monosyllabic," "long", "green," and "potato." We'll allow hyphenated words.

Does "self-descriptive" describe itself? You can answer either yes or no and have it be consistent with the rules. Therefore, whether "sellf-descriptive" is self-descriptive or not is undecidable.

You can have even more fun with "non-self-descriptive."

From a scientific standpoint, however, there is in general no way to tell the difference between an unanswerable question and a question that simply has not yet been answered.

[xouper]

toddjh: Anything you answer will be incorrect, because it is a response to the question.Perhaps your question is not worded the way you intended? :)

Your question is, "What is a sentence which is not a response to this question?" Most sentences can be divided into two sets, those that are a response to your question (set A) and those that are clearly not (set B). And then in answer to your question, I can say a whole lot about the nature of any of the sentences in set B, without moving any of those sentences into set A. My answer to your question will by definition be in set A, but you didn't ask "what is" about my response. You asked "what is" about the sentences in set B, which is an answerable question.

[Graham]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
(did I just ask one?. . j/k)

Is there such a thing?

My wife (a Catholic) and I (an athiest) were talking about religion, and she sprung that question to me. She claims we will *never* know the cause of the Big Bang, that it is an unanswerable question.

I'm not sure how I feel about that phrase, but am wondering if anyone on this forum can give me some thoughts.

Thanks!

It doesn't seem impossible to me that we will someday learn both the how and the why of the Big Bang.

Assuming our information gathering and analysis equipment continues to improve as it has done, it seems more likely to me that we will one day be in a position to understand these things.

Or, at the very least, to much better support our theories (or some alternate theory devised at a later date).

If it is a matter of science, IMO, there are no unanswerable questions - only unanswered questions.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Graham

[toddjh]

Originally posted by xouper
Perhaps your question is not worded the way you intended? :)

Your question is, "What is a sentence which is not a response to this question?" Most sentences can be divided into two sets, those that are a response to your question (set A) and those that are clearly not (set B). And then in answer to your question, I can say a whole lot about the nature of any of the sentences in set B, without moving any of those sentences into set A. My answer to your question will by definition be in set A, but you didn't ask "what is" about my response. You asked "what is" about the sentences in set B, which is an answerable question.

You can define abstract concepts like "set A" and "set B," sure. But just try to define the contents of set B. Or just answer the question...what is a sentence which is not a response to this question?

Jeremy

[xouper]

Graham: If it is a matter of science, IMO, there are no unanswerable questions - only unanswered questions.Does this include questions involving Heisenberg Uncertainty?

[xouper]

toddjh: You can define abstract concepts like "set A" and "set B," sure. But just try to define the contents of set B. Or just answer the question...what is a sentence which is not a response to this question?Answer: The first sentence in Randi's December 12 Commentary is not a response to your question. That sentence is clearly a member of set B. Maybe you need to rephrase your question if you are looking to pose a paradox?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by xouper
Answer: The first sentence in Randi's December 12 Commentary is not a response to your question. That sentence is clearly a member of set B. Maybe you need to rephrase your question if you are looking to pose a paradox?

No, that's what I meant when I said you could get around it by adding commentary (e.g., referring to the sentence instead of simply stating it). Come on, you know what I'm getting at...do we really need to go through the semantic nitpicking? :)

Jeremy

[Ruby]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
(did I just ask one?. . j/k)

Is there such a thing?

My wife (a Catholic) and I (an athiest) were talking about religion, and she sprung that question to me. She claims we will *never* know the cause of the Big Bang, that it is an unanswerable question.

I'm not sure how I feel about that phrase, but am wondering if anyone on this forum can give me some thoughts.

Thanks!

I certainly don't have any answers....but I'd like to think I'll have them one day!!:D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by evildave
All questions can be answered!

It's easy!

What caused the "Big Bang"? GOD!

Why is the sky blue? GOD!

What makes flowers grow? GOD!

What makes a computer work? GOD!

How to bring about world peace? GOD! (I mean, just see how well it's worked for the last 5,000 years of recorded history!)

After all, God has all the answers! I read it on a billboard over the highway. It must be true. The tobacco posters never lied, either.

So there you go! No matter how ill formatted the question, or illogically posed it was, just answer "GOD!", and you have all the wisdom and "truth" and such you'll ever need.

:dl:

[xouper]

toddjh: No, that's what I meant when I said you could get around it by adding commentary (e.g., referring to the sentence instead of simply stating it). Come on, you know what I'm getting at...do we really need to go through the semantic nitpicking? :)Actually, I do know what you are trying to say. Your intended paradox involves a play on semantics, which makes it fair game for picking at semantic nits. :)

A truly elegant paradox is the following well known example:

"This sentence is false."

Let's label that sentence P. An obvious question, is P true or false? At first it looks like an unanswerable question, but the answer is P is neither true nor false.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by xouper
Actually, I do know what you are trying to say. Your intended paradox involves a play on semantics, which makes it fair game for picking at semantic nits. :)

A truly elegant paradox is the following well known example:

"This sentence is false."

Yes, I have studied Godel and read my Hofstadter. :)

Let's label that sentence P. An obvious question, is P true or false? At first it looks like an unanswerable question, but the answer is P is neither true nor false.

Mu.

Jeremy

[xouper]

toddjh: Yes, I have studied Godel and read my Hofstadter. :)I suspected as much. I was just yankin' yer chain because, well, because it was there and had some slack in it. :p

[Dorian Gray]

How about "What is a sentence which is not a response to this question?" The question is not only unanswerable, it also has an infinite number of correct answers. You are infinitely wrong.

Anything you answer will be incorrect, because it is a response to the question. Yes, you can get around it by padding the answer with commentary, but only a spoilsport would do that. I think you are confused. You yourself said that there were an infinite number of correct answers to your question.

what is a sentence which is not a response to this question? Anyone can say any sentence at all, and it wouldn't necessarily be a response to your question, unless you are extremely arrogant. For example, this sentence: "No, because I am refuting your claim right now." is not a response to your question "what is a sentence which is not a response to this question?" - It's a response to this question: "do we really need to go through the semantic nitpicking?"

Your point seems to be about the definition of the word "answer". I don't think nonsense answers count as answers, otherwise it is meaningless to ask if there are unanswerable questions Answers are answers. It is meaningless to ask if there are unanswerable questions - that's why I changed the question.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Upchurch
An incomplete question might be something like: "Why?" (Why what?) But surely that's an answerable question. I can answer "Because." Of course, you can object by pointing out that this is an incomplete answer, but if we're willing to accept an incomplete question as a "question" for purposes of this inquiry, then we have no reasonable basis not to accept an incomplete answer as an "answer" for the same purposes.

How about an unasked question?

[Dorian Gray]

Unvoiced answer.

Next.

[xouper]

Dorian Gray: There are no questions that are unanswerable. I think what you want to ask is whether there are questions that cannot be answered correctly. What is the result if you divide by zero? Blue.

xouper: Your point seems to be about the definition of the word "answer". I don't think nonsense answers count as answers, otherwise it is meaningless to ask if there are unanswerable questions.

Dorian Gray: Answers are answers. It is meaningless to ask if there are unanswerable questions - that's why I changed the question.To me, your re-wording of the question is redundant. But, if you want to play semantic games, fine. To me, the following two questions are equivalent

Are there questions that cannot be answered correctly?

Are there questions that cannot be answered.Why would anyone ask the second question if incorrect answers are allowed?

That the answers should be correct, is assumed. Otherwise, why ask the question.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Unvoiced answer.

Next. Bingo. That took less time than I thought.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
If something happens then there were causes and conditions behind it so answers exist. So to say anything that has happened is unanswerable is illogical as there is an answer and so it is answerable.

...I disagree. If something happens then there were causes and conditions behind it. If the process is "reversable" then answers exist. For example, suppose we do a nice complete high temperature burning of a history book. The ashes that result may well tell us that they were once a book, but it would be impossible to ever regain the words that were written there in.

Now, say we find that the universe is a series of big-bangs followed by big crunches. The process of heating and such at a big crunch is going to erase the "history book" of the proceeding universe. We may find that the big bang is the result of a big crunch in our search for beginnings, but the precise nature of the universe that crunched may not be assertainable.

This is a long way of saying that there are some processing that result in true loss of information. Sometimes a present effect may be a possible result of different past causes.

So some historical questions may be unanswerable.

Walt

[Dorian Gray]

To me, your re-wording of the question is redundant. But, if you want to play semantic games, fine. To me, the following two questions are equivalent

Are there questions that cannot be answered correctly?
Are there questions that cannot be answered.

Why would anyone ask the second question if incorrect answers are allowed?

That the answers should be correct, is assumed. Otherwise, why ask the question.
If you did assume that the question only allowed correct answers, then the two would seem redundant to you. The two questions are redundant/equivalent only if they are asking the same thing. I didn't assume that they were, as no clarification was made. I don't assume anything - so I narrowed the scope of the question.

Subject to the approval of the original poster, of course - it's his/her thread, and I still wouldn't assume what he/she meant.

[c4ts]

Is there a God? Purple!
What is the meaning of life? Monkey!
Are we alone in the universe? Camera!
How do we determine what happened if a process is irreversible? Spleen!
What is the sound of one hand clapping? Ernest Bortnine!
Who shot JFK? Antidisestablishmentarianism!

Every question has an answer. That's why we have religion.

[Dorian Gray]

And hallucinogens.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
I disagree. If something happens then there were causes and conditions behind it. If the process is "reversable" then answers exist. For example, suppose we do a nice complete high temperature burning of a history book. The ashes that result may well tell us that they were once a book, but it would be impossible to ever regain the words that were written there in.

Now, say we find that the universe is a series of big-bangs followed by big crunches. The process of heating and such at a big crunch is going to erase the "history book" of the proceeding universe. We may find that the big bang is the result of a big crunch in our search for beginnings, but the precise nature of the universe that crunched may not be assertainable.

This is a long way of saying that there are some processing that result in true loss of information. Sometimes a present effect may be a possible result of different past causes.

So some historical questions may be unanswerable.

Walt

Greetings Walter Wayne


I disagree.

I respect that and ask you allow me to express my thoughts and opinions or your thoughts and opinions.

If something happens then there were causes and conditions behind it.

yes that was what I said and of course a reality in all case regardless of any and all beliefs.

If the process is "reversable" then answers exist. reversible? I am not sure what you mean here so will read on.

For example, suppose we do a nice complete high temperature burning of a history book. The ashes that result may well tell us that they were once a book, but it would be impossible to ever regain the words that were written there in.

I understand what you are saying here but allow me to again post the base question as to what I had responded to.

The base question:
Are there unanswerable questions?

First to my point then to your example. The reality is every “thing” action, event etc has behind it causes and conditions as you agree and so has facts, truth data as to the “thing” action, event. By such there is “something to know” regarding this “thing” action, event.

By such by the reality of the existence of the facts, truth, data about this “thing” action, event the facts, truth data CAN be known.

That is my point as to how the question
Are there unanswerable questions?
Is stated.

As your example:
For example, suppose we do a nice complete high temperature burning of a history book. The ashes that result may well tell us that they were once a book, but it would be impossible to ever regain the words that were written there in.

The “words” which I am sure you mean how the words were used to form or explain the ideas of the writer or the facts contained inside.

As to any facts contained in the book they are and were and will always be facts so “Can” be known.

If it was a fiction story it was known by the writer, the editor, the printer, the writers friends and family any reader of the book before it was burned, it is unlikely there was only one book printed etc.


Remember we are still finding relics long “ lost”.


Simply too many variables and possibilities that can not be known for that it is not possible to say it is “lost forever” but also back to my point it exists or existed so it can be known.

This man not totally relate but ss to the book further and not the words contained, the Matter and energy will again change forms and while none make be found in “book” it may and in reality there is no thing called “book” but that is another dissuasion. .lol




The knowledge was there the writer, the printer any readers etc read it. The story told may have been passed from one person to another for generations.



Now, say we find that the universe is a series of big-bangs followed by big crunches. The process of heating and such at a big crunch is going to erase the "history book" of the proceeding universe.

The information still exist the facts still exists concerning all the events, all causes and conditions. Remember the base question is Are there unanswerable questions?.

As to this question the answer is no. May you or I or any human know this fact or that perhaps no and likely no but the reality is anything “Can” be known as the “known” exist the knowing may not occur but the facts are there.

It is like a single fish in the ocean living at the deepest point with a tiny star shaped birth mark with your name in it. The fish does exist in a school of a million fish in the deepest most remote part of the ocean.

Can this fish be found and caught, seen? Yes will it most likely not.


We may find that the big bang is the result of a big crunch in our search for beginnings, but the precise nature of the universe that crunched may not be assertainable.

I think you mistake “understood” and ascertainable. The reality if it can not be understood it is the inability or flaw in the “observer” not the fact. The fact is perfect and exist just as the “thing” it is about does.



This is a long way of saying that there are some processing that result in true loss of information.

There can be no loss of the information greatly so if you are looking at the “thing” the flaw again is in the “observer’s” inability to understand, trace back etc.

My point is if something exist the facts concerning it also exist and “can” be known it is the knowing as to the “person” that is flawed. But again far too many possibilities.


Sometimes a present effect may be a possible result of different past causes.

True but Still tracing back to the causes and conditions behind the base or root.


So some historical questions may be unanswerable.

We will have to agree to disagree.


Be Well Walt.

[DialecticMaterialist]

This is similiar to my answer concerning the "unquestionable answers" thread, but the rationale is different.

In literal terms of course there are no "unanswerable" questions. Like CEO said, I could say something like "Because" for example, or something irrelevant as an "answer" to literally any question.


Whether all answers are meaningful or correct however is disputable. That is not because I think some answers are "axiomic" as an axiomic answer imo, is still an answer albeit one justified intrinsically not extrinsically.

It is because some questions are senseless, and some presuppose an incorrect statement (so-called loaded questions). The latter usually requiring a dismissal of a part of the question itself.

For example, what color is three?

How triangular is a square?

Where is everywhere?


Have you stopped beating your wife?

[Dorian Gray]

Have you stopped beating your wife? This question is only a problem if you answer 'yes' or 'no', and depending on the person, sometimes not even then. It is loaded, but valid and not senseless.

[Dorian Gray]

Have you stopped beating your wife? This question is only a problem if you answer 'yes' or 'no', and depending on the person, sometimes not even then. It is loaded, but valid and not senseless.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
This question is only a problem if you answer 'yes' or 'no', and depending on the person, sometimes not even then. It is loaded, but valid and not senseless.

Thank you for clarifying this issue. I was aware of this, which is why I stated:

It is because some questions are senseless, and some presuppose an incorrect statement (so-called loaded questions). The latter usually requiring a dismissal of a part of the question itself.

Thus it is true that a "yes" or "no" answer does not apply, but this means in ways that a very premise of the question should be dismissed.


Perhaps to clarify, I should have rephrased the question to say:

"Since you beat your wife, when will you stop?"


Sorry for the confusion.

:)

[Dorian Gray]

OH! In that case, how about next Thursday?

By the way, if you allow questions to be answered with questions, all questions can be answered.

[Some Friggin Guy]

What is the meaning of life? Monkey!

I've nothing to add to this conversation, but this is going in my signature.

[Soapy Sam]

Is "God did it" an unquestionable answer?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Is "God did it" an unquestionable answer?

Until one proves God, yes. So the answer is yes and no.

[Soapy Sam]

Thank you. That clarifies everything.:)

[The idea]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
there are some processing that result in true loss of information. Sometimes a present effect may be a possible result of different past causes.

So some historical questions may be unanswerable.

Yes, for example, suppose I buy a deck of cards and spend about an hour shuffling the cards in various complicated ways. Then I put the deck of cards into a safety deposit box and keep it there for a month. Then I remove the deck, burn it to ashes in a pot, thoroughly mix the ashes, and flush the ashes down the toilet.

Question: when the deck of cards was in the safety deposit box, what was the sequence of cards?

If no record was made of that information, then the question is unanswerable.

[ceptimus]

Answer this one truthfully please. (PM me to find where to send the money after you do).


Question: Are both the statements below false?

A. One, and only one, of the statements A or B is true.
B. You will not give me $1 million.

[xouper]

ceptimus: Answer this one truthfully please.

Question: Are both the statements below false?

A. One, and only one, of the statements A or B is true.
B. You will not give me $1 million.
B is true, since I will not give you $1 million.

A is one of those self-referential conundrums that is neither true nor false.

Therefore, the answer to your question is no, they are not both false.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by xouper

B is true, since I will not give you $1 million.

A is one of those self-referential conundrums that is neither true nor false.

Therefore, the answer to your question is no, they are not both false. Ah! some one answered!

You said they are not both false, so either:

1. Both statements are true. But that it is not possible, since statement A is then self-contradictory.

2. Statement A is true and B is false - in which case you must send me the million.

3. Statement B is true, and A is false, but if A is false then we have either:

3a. Neither statement A or B is true which leads to a self contradiction.

3b. Both statements A and B are true which again is self contradictory.

So you can see, given your answer, option 2 is the only self-consistent result. PM me and I will send you my mailing address, so you can get the cheque in the post.

Other people may still answer the question - I can use additional funds, even now I am a millionaire.

[xouper]

ceptimus: You said they are not both false, so either:

1. Both statements are true.
2. Statement A is true and B is false
3. Statement B is true, and A is false,You forgot

4. Statement B is true and A cannot be assigned a truth value.
[edited to fix a typo in #4]

Which was my answer to your question.

There is no logical requirement that if a statement is not false then it must be true. It can be neither. Therefore option 2 is not the only possible answer. So I win and don't have to send you the money. :)

Some statements simply cannot be assigned a truth value (true or false). However, while all not-false statements are not necessarily true, a case could be made that all not-true statements are necessarily false, which would include assigning false to all contradictions.

Consider, for example, the opposite of the Liar's paradox:

"This statement is true."

It could be either true or false, and therefore it's claim to be true is a contradiction and therefore false.

[edited to add: this kind of truth value, assigning false to all contradictions, seems to me to be a meta-truth value, not a direct truth value.]

In this case, another answer to your question is

5. Statement B is true and A is a contradiction and therefore false.
[edited to fix a typo in #5, since I had it wrong before]

A reference: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

[Dorian Gray]

If no record was made of that information, then the question is unanswerable. Not necessarily. I can think of several ways that the question could be answered.

Here's one: I could give you an order of the 52 cards. If you said the order was incorrect, the burden of proof would be on you - but you could not refute the claim absolutely, as the only way to know would be to know the order, and if you knew that, it would have been recorded.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
OH! In that case, how about next Thursday?

By the way, if you allow questions to be answered with questions, all questions can be answered.


That answer is (hopefully) not correct.

In any case I already said one could literally answer each question. That is not being disputed.


What I also said however is not all questions can be answered meaningfully.

Some questions literally do not make sense, and some do not have a correct answer (which doesn't involve dismissing the question in whole or part.)

[The idea]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
I can think of several ways that the question could be answered.

Here's one: I could give you an order of the 52 cards. If you said the order was incorrect, the burden of proof would be on you - but you could not refute the claim absolutely, as the only way to know would be to know the order, and if you knew that, it would have been recorded.
I can tell you what TENYEARS had a vision of on December 1st, 2003. The vision was of an earthquake that would strike the city of Bam, Iran at 05:27 am local time on December 26, 2003 and kill at least 10,000 people.

If you were to say that is incorrect, then the burden of proof would be on you. You would have to tell us exactly what vision TENYEARS had on December 1st, 2003.

[Dorian Gray]

I can tell you what TENYEARS had a vision of on December 1st, 2003. The vision was of an earthquake that would strike the city of Bam, Iran at 05:27 am local time on December 26, 2003 and kill at least 10,000 people.

If you were to say that is incorrect, then the burden of proof would be on you. You would have to tell us exactly what vision TENYEARS had on December 1st, 2003.

Before I say anything, the burden is on you to prove that you had the capability of knowing absolutely and infallibly the contents of TENYEARS' brain on December 1, 2003, or alternately that you have the capability of determining absolutely and infallibly whether or not TENYEARS is lying.



(edited to add the quote)

[cosmic]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist



That answer is (hopefully) not correct.




But isn't that the beauty of science- that every question we answer raises more questions?

Not that I deny that the answers and new questions lead to overall progress...

I'm suggesting the real difference between science's answers and "other ways of knowing" answers is that former are never final or complete and are limited (with stated margins of error).

To agree on wheather there are unanswerable questions, don't we need to agree on what acceptable forms an answer might take?