So you answered 'no' to "is it possible to think of a question so difficult that not even you could answer it?"

If its possible for you to think of an answer to every question but impossible for you to think of a question that you can't answer (as you've admitted) then you admit to being limited in your knowledge. In particular, its impossible for you to know of a question that you can't answer.

Thus my next question is:

Do you admit to being limited in your knowledge?

A person cannot answer (in a legitimate i know it and we can verify it sense i mean) a question they do not understand or a question that in order to answer they need to have access to something that cannot be calculated in this universe.


Example;

What is the answer of adding up the first 10^(10^100) prime numbers?

Yes, or...you can just take OP on his word, and (through dialogue and consensus) still arrive at the fallacy of omniscience.

Actually i have a technical problem with that. You ask him if he can think of a question he cant answer. He said no. That means he cant think of such question. That doesnt mean the question exists and he cant think it (unless you find an example like i did which still one may argue requires a little bit more rigor in establishing that indeed this universe cant represent the process to deliver the answer even if current physics would agree on that but then an infinite universe and unbounded time left in it may be another story).

So technically you cant claim he has limited knowledge, limited by lacking that answer because his answer was no he cant think it, so it is either limited knowledge because he cant think it while it exists or he cant think it because it doesnt exist in which case his knowledge is not limited, his answer was no because no such question exists. So you havent cornered him yet.

To corner him you can demonstrate one of his answers is wrong though or to indeed find one he cant answer or even begin to answer.

His answer to Pi (22/7) is wrong for example also.

In fact we need to force an example he cant answer but which exists. Since he never claimed he has the correct answer always. But if one cant prove able to know the question itself then he cant be able to answer it in a legitimate sense (how?). So one thinks of a problem that requires as input to form the question an answer to a process that cannot be completed in our universe.

of course

I'm not sure its entirely necessary but I'll indulge this.

Can he know for certain whether or not his knowledge was imparted to him by some higher being that gave him all the knowledge in the universe (or the capability to acquire such knowledge) except for two tiny bits of knowledge: (1) that there's a higher being; (2) that all his knowledge and/or abilities to acquire knowledge were imparted to him?

As you can see, its not too difficult to think of questions that demonstrate limitations in knowledge-ability.

I am a physicist in a real universe. In fact its all we have and even our abstract math are represented by elements of that universe. I have no way to know yet if what you are describing as fictitious situation is actually self consistent in this universe so that i can trust where you are going with this. By that i mean a self consistent universe may be screaming loud and clear through other observations and arguments the very things you are forcing him not to know, so refusing he can known them at construction may not be correct (ie self consistent) until we have solved that universe.

All i can ask him for now (as one example) is give me the 10^23 th digit before the end of the decimal expansion of the sum of all primes up to 10^(10^100). Good luck with that. The answer is 0 to 9 but what is it?

Also notice the issue here is not to construct simple systems that have limits in how much they know. That is very easy. The problem is that i do not know his system in order to apply this logic to him that way (like eg put me in a box and roll a dice outside and ask me to tell you what it was). Otherwise i can roll a dice right now and ask him to tell me what it was, same thing. I can film the throw and post it on a secure location with proof of time stamp of posting and then we can verify his answer later. He never argued his answers will be correct by the way and in principle the universe itself knows my result (in a physics information sense causality, reconstruction of all steps etc). But what i am trying to do is find a way that no matter what he is, as long as he is from this universe, it is impossible for him to know what i ask him, rendering the entire effort/claim inconsistent because he cannot even understand the full question (the details of the final question are part of the project he can never complete in this universe) in order to show faith in delivering an answer even a wrong answer. I mean i can construct things that cannot be answered so we know from the start that we do not even have to test his reply, its meaningless to event try because we know he cant deliver it and it now doesnt matter what or who he is.

What rules of physics rule the mind? Under which circumstances does the mind start existing? Does the universe have consciousness in a way that we are part of it's consciousnesses just like our cells?

Is the flow of time an illusion; have it always flow and after infinite events we are here or has it spontaneously started with absolutely no cause?

"x" is not a question.

It's there ready if somebody would happen to be there. Just the absence of an observer at the moment isn't enough for negating it totally, imo.

But maybe you can answer your own question yourself?

There is no such a thing as universe. Everything is mind

God.

Even God isnt (dont want) to be perfect. Perfection requires a 10, let say, from one to ten. God is 9.999999 periodic, always improving, but never perfect.

It is 3. or 6. Or 3 6 9, wich is 9. Its a triangle.

Also, i have a friend who studied and have degree on psychics.

Science can go only to certain point. The rest is Faith


Exactly

Time is this: Eternal and one at the spiritual plane. One and changing, vibrating, on the mental plane. And starts and finish with our body in the phsysic plane. Thats the time




Either you or i is wrong

As i said. there is no point on nothing not being observed

The rest is faith indeed. Faith in a better future version of science!

We must know. We will know.

You may as well say a tree doesn't fall if nobody is there observing it. If you see a fallen tree it's fair to think it has fallen at some point.

Does a question exits before someone asks the qustion?

Does an answer esist before the quesiton has been asked?

yes

yes

At least it exists in the askers brain before coming out his/her mouth.

You answered my question with a question, "why you wanna do that"

And it is not even a good question, are you asking why I want to heat the brake drum, or why I want to install a bearing race in it?

So if you had all the answers to anythnig that could be asked, how many answers would you have?

Everyones

The heat death of the universe wouldn't make an infinite universe impossible? How do you reach some event if you have to go through an infinite never ending succession of events?

I am happy to hear you're doing well.

I've been busy lately with mundane and not-so-mundane things plus Christmas with family etc. Just so all know that I would have deleted OP sooner but will now simply close the thread. This is SMP, not other topics, or PU nor a forum for self-aggrandizement, nor a forum for random 16-year old bipedal hominids to expound on "everything". There are limits for the sake of having a workable forum and set subject matter and reasonable standards.

Thread is close. Will delete by fiat if needed. OP is ask to refrain from posting on SMP in the future - infractions, like lighting, will be forthcoming. Consider this a public warning.