Is This A Question?

[Pro]

Is This A Question?

[Pro]

It's pretty much impossible for me to rewrite the protheory.com topics in full as I'd end up just making it too complicated so for now please just take a look at this original archive from my website and then you can ask me any questions below here

Is this a question?



Introduction

This paradox questions (no pun intended) our assumptions about words.



Paradox

The title is the paradox itself.

Is this a question?



Exam

I once heard that this was a question on a philosophy exam at a very famous English university.



Answer

Apparently the accepted answer was "Only if this is the answer."



Summary

The answer is open to interpretation.



The Problem

Is this a question?



The Answer



Everything

Everything has three simultaneous possibilities regardless of what words are used.



Answer

"Only if this is the answer" is intended as a singular statement and therefore it cannot be a truly accurate representation of three possible potentials.



Same

Words are relative and as such they will always be subject to three simultaneous potentials in the same way that everything else is.



Question

The answer to the question "Is this a question?" is that there is the possibility for three simultaneous answers.



Is this a question?

1. This is a question.

2. This is not a question.

3. This is neutral.

Simultaneously.



Am I wrong?

I simultaneously oppose, agree with, and neutralise all criticism ad infinitum.

My point is literal.

There is no point creating a theory of everything that doesn't work.

[SeanTheLight]

Can you meet the requirements for each of your 3 potentials to be true with a defined subject?

"is this a question?"

Using the noun "this" implies a known subject, otherwise "this" can be any thing at all and still be accurate. Since the subject is assumed to be known, then it has a value of true or false relative to the subject.

If I point at a question written on the blackboard and say "Is this a question?", then yes it is. If I then point at almost any random object, and ask again "Is this a question?", then no, that subject is not.

Having left the subject as "this", leaves an unknowable state unless the originator lets us know the subject, or we are able to infer it from the information available.

As I understand it, an unknowable state is not true or false.

[Pro]

Originally Posted by SeanTheLight Can you meet the requirements for each of your 3 potentials to be true with a defined subject? "is this a question?" Using the noun "this" implies a known subject, otherwise "this" can be any thing at all and still be accurate. Since the subject is assumed to be known, then it has a value of true or false relative to the subject. If I point at a question written on the blackboard and say "Is this a question?", then yes it is. If I then point at almost any random object, and ask again "Is this a question?", then no, that subject is not. Having left the subject as "this", leaves an unknowable state unless the originator lets us know the subject, or we are able to infer it from the information available. As I understand it, an unknowable state is not true or false.

Yes, an unknowable state would seem to imply that it's neither knowable as 100% positive or negative as with Schrödinger's Cat etc. It just means I think that it's not definite or finite or anything at all because we can't know it so it's ultimately neutral.

This is of course going along with the general premise that 'to know' means, reasonably at least, to 'know if a thing exists or not' or 'to know if a thing or situation is true or false...' When we have no way of knowing anything we have no way of saying or proving that a thing is more one opposite than the other, like this emoticon, constantly in flux:



As I think I wrote in the posts above the original answer to the title of this topic was "only if this is the answer" or so my friend informed me. Not a bad answer really, and although I treat this question in my usual three pronged manner I still like this answer as well.

[SeanTheLight]

The line of reasoning that leads to the answer "Only if this is the answer" seems to me more truthfully answered by stating "Only if that question itself was it's subject".

Why leave the subject "this" as arbitrary, without defining it as neutral? It seems to intentionally ignore perspective.

[SeanTheLight]

Originally Posted by Pro It just means I think that it's not definite or finite or anything at all because we can't know it so it's ultimately neutral. This is of course going along with the general premise that 'to know' means, reasonably at least, to 'know if a thing exists or not' or 'to know if a thing or situation is true or false...' When we have no way of knowing anything we have no way of saying or proving that a thing is more one opposite than the other, like this emoticon, constantly in flux:

Originally Posted by SeanTheLight Why leave the subject "this" as arbitrary, without defining it as neutral? It seems to intentionally ignore perspective.

I may have missed your statement the first time through.

If "Is this a question" is neutral, how is it also positive and negative?

Which got me to thinking...If something is provable as unchangeably positive or negative (for instance, something that has already happened), does it still have the potential for positive, negative, and neutral?

[Pro]

Originally Posted by SeanTheLight I may have missed your statement the first time through. If "Is this a question" is neutral, how is it also positive and negative? Which got me to thinking...If something is provable as unchangeably positive or negative (for instance, something that has already happened), does it still have the potential for positive, negative, and neutral?

That's a good question as it seems like I've said it's only neutral. I don't mean it's 100% unchangingly neutral as such, just that to all reasonable and general purposes its potential is neutral or undecidable.

This question can theoretically be positive, negative and importantly neutral simultaneously. There's a couple of ways to get into this I think. First off I didn't mean that the answer was 100% neutral, meaning specifically that I don't discount the possibility (no matter how arbitrary) for an opposite and neutral potential to everything. All questions included. In this case an opposite would be not-neutral as we're talking about neutrality.

Secondly, neutrality is the point between opposites and so it could conceivably go either way, like a game of football started from the half way line, either side (either opposite) could win but they couldn't really say "we are the unchangingly best team in the world" because they won't live forever and also things can change.

I'm not making clear points here, sorry

My original answers to the 'question' Is this a question? were as follows:

This is a question.

This is not a question.

This is neutral.

Simultaneously.

All I'm saying is that there is not really any method of proving anything as an unchanging singularity, no matter what the question is. This kind of thinking has many implications and people press me for qualifications (degrees etc) and ask me to 'prove' my theory singularly all the time on YouTube.

I get a lot of general "you obviously don't know anything about physics and mathematics..." comments on my videos but this isn't really important to me any more. I've just got an idea, it's open and free for everybody to debate. I've been watching a lot of debunking footage of psychics and magicians today as I've been rained off work and it comes down to a test.

This theory if it is a TOE must literally be able to explain everything, no matter what it is. It must never fail (which is singular) and it must simultaneously take account of past, present and future, mathematics, physics, paradoxes, evolution and everything else.

The trouble is that when I say these things people say "ok, so what about this math problem then? Ha!" and when I reply with three potentials they variously accuse me of clever word play, or of inventing some paradoxical logic with no applicable value.

I just carry on debating, as I said with the test for my theory being a TOE, I'll link you to my first real hardcore logic and debating test in public:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...heory-com.html

I'm going to have to test this link but as you'll see, when you look closely, they attacked at first, then accused me of being un-knowledgeable then gave up. If you look on my profile on this site you'll see all the threads and posts I've made about Pro theory on this fully public and famous forum. I went in boldly saying "this is my TOE prove me wrong..." and you can see what happened.

I haven't got any opinions, I just like everyone and think a lot

[Pro]

This was the very first reply

Re: protheory.com - 09-22-2006, 01:34 PM Protheory; With about 30 more years of studying physics while attempting to answer your own questions, you may become aware of the more simplistic nature of the universe. For the most part you are asking the right questions but are providing yourself with the wrong answers. So; “are you wrong?” ---- YES.

[SeanTheLight]

I hope that my willingness to debate, is not taken as smugness, I enjoy the topic. Heres a few questions I am interested in seeing answered.


Pro, have you ever told someone what you believe to be a lie?
Pro, have you ever told someone what you believe to be the truth?
Pro, can protheory be proven true?
Pro, can protheory be proven false?

Or the funny ones (in some people's opinion).

Pro, do you stink?
Pro, do you like wearing women's clothing?
Pro, do you think your theory is stupid?

Each answer carries weight, and can be fleshed out individually for debate. I try to be a big picture guy. I am trying to grasp the extremes and implication of your theory so that my debate is more meaningful and helpful.