Is Any Question Truly Unanswerable?

[madness]

As a child I thought that the question "why is the sky blue?" was unanswerable. As it turns out, this question is commonly answered using refraction in the atmosphere etc. However, if you now ask, "why is the night sky black?", the best answer you will get is Olber's paradox - it's black because it's not light. Therefore it seems that the real question of why the night sky is black is not answerable.
So my question is, how do we know which questions can be answered and which are meaningless? It seems as though the question "why is the day sky blue" is answerable whereas "why is the night sky black" is unanswerable.

 

[Martini]

I would say that there is no such thing as a true meaningful question.
Meaningful can be different things to different people.

 

[madness]

Yes I suppose this is a problem if I don't properly define the term "meaningful". I mean meaningful in a similar way to answerable. Does the question have an objective (as far as objective can be) answer.

 

[kote]

Yes I suppose this is a problem if I don't properly define the term "meaningful". I mean meaningful in a similar way to answerable. Does the question have an objective (as far as objective can be) answer.

It sounds like you are asking how you can know if a question has a satisfying answer or not. "Why is the sky blue" and "why is the sky black at night" both have answers, it's just that for some reason one of the answers is satisfying to you and one is not . Talking about refraction still doesn't explain why blue is blue instead of some other color. You can always trace a question back to unanswerable levels. In science and philosophy we attempt to explain these questions on increasingly deeper levels, but there will always be a dead end where we just can't answer "why."

Whether or not a question has meaning in philosophy generally has to do with whether or not it makes sense to ask at all. It is meaningless to ask, for example, "is the number 3 happy or sad." Numbers don't have emotions - the question doesn't make sense.

 

[madness]

Is there no general rule to see if a question might be meaningful? I think the logical positivists discussed this. The thing with the answers of refraction and Olber's paradox is they are really answering different questions. Perhaps neither actually answers "why is the sky blue/black", which has the answer "our brain perceives this wavelength/no light as blue/black".

 

[Sorry!]

Is there no general rule to see if a question might be meaningful? I think the logical positivists discussed this. The thing with the answers of refraction and Olber's paradox is they are really answering different questions. Perhaps neither actually answers "why is the sky blue/black", which has the answer "our brain perceives this wavelength/no light as blue/black".

We see colour by using the Cones in our eyes. The night sky appears black because there is not enough light coming into our eyes to register the colour. In reality though the sky during the night time is blue. Same as the day. Go out into a empty field far away from city lights and look up to the moon and the sky is definitely blue. Why does it look black? Well because of the lower intesity of moonlight vs. sunlight we are able to see into outerspace. Which is black for an answer on that go to NASAs website.

Moonlight is something like 10 million times less bright than sun light.
Do a google image search for nighttime pictures with a full moon. I assure you the ones that look like they were taken in the daytime were taken during the night.

This is not a meaningless question at all.

Meaningless questions in my opinion are ones that serve no purpose. As long as there is a purpose to the question then it is meaningful to someone... I.e. Someone said that 'How does the Number 3 feel.' was a meaningless question.
Sure it's a meaningless question to YOU because you say numbers have no feelings. What about other people who don't know if numbers have feelings? Imagine your child asked that and you said 'Don't ask meaningless questions' Does the kid leave the situation knowing that meaningless means numbers have no feelings? Or does he leave the situation thinking its meaningless because obviously numbers have feelings and the number 3 is always happy...

 

[kote]

Is there no general rule to see if a question might be meaningful? I think the logical positivists discussed this. The thing with the answers of refraction and Olber's paradox is they are really answering different questions. Perhaps neither actually answers "why is the sky blue/black", which has the answer "our brain perceives this wavelength/no light as blue/black".

The positivists did discuss it. The positivist stance was that it is meaningless to ask questions like "what is real?" or "is murder bad?" because the answers cannot be tested scientifically. This is not a generally accepted view in current philosophy.

I would also disagree that referencing our brains provides a final and unquestionable answer. I can ask, "are my thoughts actually reducible to functions of my brain?" or "how do signals in my brain make me see this blue color?" There are also quantum physicists who would disagree with you on your assumption that wavelength is any more basic than color.

The general rule is that if a question is just nonsense, it's meaningless. Besides that, it's an open debate.

 

[kote]

Meaningless questions in my opinion are ones that serve no purpose. As long as there is a purpose to the question then it is meaningful to someone... I.e. Someone said that 'How does the Number 3 feel.' was a meaningless question.
Sure it's a meaningless question to YOU because you say numbers have no feelings. What about other people who don't know if numbers have feelings? Imagine your child asked that and you said 'Don't ask meaningless questions' Does the kid leave the situation knowing that meaningless means numbers have no feelings? Or does he leave the situation thinking its meaningless because obviously numbers have feelings and the number 3 is always happy...

A general explanation of meaning in this context is that statements with truth values are meaningful. "The number three is happy" is neither true nor false; it is meaningless. Numbers, by their standard definition, can't be happy or unhappy. It is perfectly reasonable to wonder about and debate which statements have meaning.

Making fun of a child for asking if "3" is happy would be ridiculous. It would also be (logically) ridiculous to answer, "yes, 3 is happy today."

 

[Sorry!]

A general explanation of meaning in this context is that statements with truth values are meaningful. "The number three is happy" is neither true nor false; it is meaningless. It is perfectly reasonable to wonder about and debate which statements have meaning.

Numbers don't have feelings is truth (by definition of numbers); it is not meaningless.

Because something looks so simple and easy to answer to you does not imply it's a meaningless question (objectively). Although it sounds to me like you're trying to say truths are objective and everyone knows them a priori.

Again go ahead and tell a child that "the number three is happy" and see if he figures out if it is neither true or false.

If YOU asked 'How does number 3 feel' then yeah it's probably meaningless because you're asking it without a purpose.

 

[madness]

The question "are my thoughts actually reducible to functions of my brain?" seems unanswereable to me. In fact I am convinced they are not, but I see no way to objectively show this to another person. If I see the question as meaningless and you see it as meaningful, is there no way to settle the matter?
To complicate things I could add a distinction between meaningless and unanswerable. We might assume that the question "does God exist?" has an answer but that we can never know. In this case it would be meaningful but unanswerable.

 

[Sorry!]

The question "are my thoughts actually reducible to functions of my brain?" seems unanswereable to me. In fact I am convinced they are not, but I see no way to objectively show this to another person. If I see the question as meaningless and you see it as meaningful, is there no way to settle the matter?
To complicate things I could add a distinction between meaningless and unanswerable. We might assume that the question "does God exist?" has an answer but that we can never know. In this case it would be meaningful but unanswerable.

You should go and read my post before you go around spreading misinformation about the sky being black at night any more. lol :)

 

[kote]

Numbers don't have feelings is truth (by definition of numbers); it is not meaningless.

That's exactly what I said above. Not sure what your point is here. I also never claimed that truth can be known at all. A person can be happy. It is therefore meaningful to ask, "is Tom happy?" Number cannot be happy. It is therefore meaningless to ask, "is 3 happy?"

I also never claimed that it is simple to figure out which questions are meaningful and which are not.

We're talking about questions themselves. "Is Tom happy?" has one meaning and only one meaning, regardless of who asks it. Words have definitions and when you put words in sequence you get a statement with a single defined meaning.

Whether or not a person asks what they are trying to ask or knows how to accurately use language is irrelevant and does not change the meaning of the words they actually use.

 

[Sorry!]

That's exactly what I said above. Not sure what your point is here. I also never claimed that truth can be known at all. A person can be happy. It is therefore meaningful to ask, "is Tom happy?" Number cannot be happy. It is therefore meaningless to ask, "is 3 happy?"

I also never claimed that it is simple to figure out which questions are meaningful and which are not.

We're talking about questions themselves. "Is Tom happy?" has one meaning and only one meaning, regardless of who asks it. Words have definitions and when you put words in sequence you get a statement with a single defined meaning.

Whether or not a person asks what they are trying to ask or knows how to accurately use language is irrelevant and does not change the meaning of the words they actually use.

No... you said the number 3 is HAPPY is meaningless. I would answer numbers don't have feelings so therefore my answer is MEANINGFUL how can a question have a meaningful answer yet be meaningless?

EDIT: Noticed you editted your post like 3 times after I quoted it lol hmm... I never implied making fun of a child. The fact of the matter is that they can ask that question and it is meaningful. You are just giving a blanket answer saying questions like those are meaningless. I disagree and think it has to do with the purpose and intent of the question to the individual asking it. A person knows if a question they asked is meaningless to a situation no one else can say whether or not it is meaningless though.

Eg. For me the question 'do meaningless questions exist?' is a meaningless question and I wouldn't ask it because I have no purpose/intent with your answer. This can of course change over time...

And just because a question has one meaning does not mean the answers are all the same. Eg. What colour the majority of this dress:

 

[kote]

Nice dress .

I agree that a child can ask a meaningless question and receive a meaningful response that helps enlighten them about their original question. I do not think that the utility of a question has anything to do with whether or not it is meaningful.

I think I am using the word "meaning" in a more axiomatic logical sense. I don't agree that truth is relative and one question can have more than one correct answer. Two people can give two different answers about what color the dress is, but at least one of them is wrong.

 

[kote]

'do meaningless questions exist?' is a meaningless question

So... meaningless questions do exist, since you've just given an example of one? Oh wait, if meaningless questions exist then 'do meaningless questions exist?' itself is meaningful, and then then it's no longer a meaningless question...

My head hurts.

 

[Evo]

What colour the majority of this dress:

It's chartreuse.

Color coordinates —
Hex triplet #DFFF00
RGBB (r, g, b) (223, 255, 0)
Source unsourced
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

 

[WaveJumper]

I don't agree that truth is relative and one question can have more than one correct answer. Two people can give two different answers about what color the dress is, but at least one of them is wrong.

All Truth is relative in as much as it can only be derived through our own human experience(whatever its nature). This relative truth is descriptive of how we perceive things, not of how they fundamentally are or might be. If the universe is deterministic, our truth is relative to how we were pre-determined to react to its manifestation. Hence the Ultimate/Absolute Truth might be that a scientist from an advanced civilisation or some god or other unknown mechanism had laid out all of reality and its history for us.

 

[kote]

All Truth is relative in as much as it can only be derived through our own human experience(whatever its nature). This relative truth is descriptive of how we perceive things, not of how they fundamentally are or might be. If the universe is deterministic our truth is relative to how we were pre-determined to react to its manifestation, and thus the Ultimate/Absolute Truth might be that a scientist from an advanced civilisation or some god or other mechanism had laid out all of reality and its history for us.

So you're saying it's not necessarily true that my red shirt is red?

 

[Sorry!]

So... meaningless questions do exist, since you've just given an example of one? Oh wait, if meaningless questions exist then 'do meaningless questions exist?' itself is meaningful, and then then it's no longer a meaningless question...

My head hurts.

It's subjective to me. Selectively quoting and claiming I said something other than what I actually said will probably hurt your head. I said 'For me the question...'

What I've been saying in all my posts that you've probably missed is that meaning is a subjective term. So the reason I say it's a meaningless question is because I believe that meaning comes from the individual person. Which isn't directly the OPs question but I'm needing to argue out my point :) I still stand by what I said initially a meaningless question is one that has no purpose. Purpose is also subjective.

The colour of the dress is a good example. First you say that each word has a DEFINITIVE definition btu then you say people might give different answers? It's true that the dress is in fact only one colour but the subject perceptions each individual has will change. For instance Evo gave an answer I've never encountered with this type of question. She says chartreuse.

This answer is not wrong. Nor would be someone calling it 'highlighter yellow' or 'electric-lime' or just saying yellow or saying yellow-green. These are all good answers and all which I received in my philosophy class. Some people even went into neon colour descriptions. Thats how they PERSONALLY saw the colour. Of course we can go into the colour co-ordinates and determine its exact characteristics. I'm sure if we did this though you would find this dress is not chartreuse as Evo suggests although that's probably the closest resemblance of an answer I've gotten before.

 

[WaveJumper]

So you're saying it's not necessarily true that my red shirt is red?

It is. But it's relative to your human point of view(and the human interface/body), which is a limiting factor(as long as you are able to recognise that).

 

[Sorry!]

So you're saying it's not necessarily true that my red shirt is red?

The whole point of what people are saying here is that regardless of what you think is the absolute truth its LIMITED by your perspective. This would call for an entire new thread though.

 

[kote]

The whole point of what people are saying here is that regardless of what you think is the absolute truth its LIMITED by your perspective.

No, it's limited by my definitions. If you disagree with me then we aren't talking about the same things. If you accept my definitions, then you have to agree with me. That's how logic works. 2+2=4, by definition.

Note that I'm not saying all meaningful questions are decidable. We can fight all day over whether or not humans evolved in Africa, and we may never be able to find out for sure. There is still an absolute truth to the matter... either we did or didn't.

 

[Sorry!]

Do you read philosophy? I'm just wondering.

 

[JoeDawg]

Note that I'm not saying all meaningful questions are decidable. We can fight all day over whether or not humans evolved in Africa, and we may never be able to find out for sure. There is still an absolute truth to the matter... either we did or didn't.

False dichotomy.

It depends on how, and how well, you define human, as well as 'human evolution'. There are many who would claim that species are less than absolute categories. Also, does human evolution include things like tool usage, superficial racial features, and language development? And further, Africa is also an artificial designation, are you referring to the land above sea level, or the tectonic plate?

I'm not just being pedantic here, truth is a 'value', we place on things, it doesn't exist outside our brains. Its a label, and it involves understanding and perspective. And it involves generalizations. Nothing absolute about it.

The absolute truth, is not something I think you can honestly say you, or anyone else, have access to.

 

[Hippasos]

As a child I thought that the question "why is the sky blue?" was unanswerable. As it turns out, this question is commonly answered using refraction in the atmosphere etc. However, if you now ask, "why is the night sky black?", the best answer you will get is Olber's paradox - it's black because it's not light. Therefore it seems that the real question of why the night sky is black is not answerable.
So my question is, how do we know which questions can be answered and which are meaningless? It seems as though the question "why is the day sky blue" is answerable whereas "why is the night sky black" is unanswerable.

This also wakes up a question: In science - is there there a method for knowing that the right questions is being asked?

 

[kote]

False dichotomy.

It depends on how, and how well, you define human, as well as 'human evolution'. There are many who would claim that species are less than absolute categories. Also, does human evolution include things like tool usage, superficial racial features, and language development? And further, Africa is also an artificial designation, are you referring to the land above sea level, or the tectonic plate?

I'm not just being pedantic here, truth is a 'value', we place on things, it doesn't exist outside our brains. Its a label, and it involves understanding and perspective. And it involves generalizations. Nothing absolute about it.

The absolute truth, is not something I think you can honestly say you, or anyone else, have access to.

Properly define your terms. Problem solved. Any confusion is a confusion about definitions or a lack of knowledge about events.

 

[JoeDawg]

Properly define your terms. Problem solved. Any confusion is a confusion about definitions or a lack of knowledge about events.

Given the fact, evolution is not an event, but a series of events, involving multiple populations, spanning vast geography, over millions of years; I think that would be much more difficult that you seem to want to admit.

My point is, you can't possibly define your terms in anything approaching an 'absolute' manner. So absolute truth, as opposed to vague, perspective dependent, notions of what is true, is not something you're going to be able to have.

 

[kote]

Given the fact, evolution is not an event, but a series of events, involving multiple populations, spanning vast geography, over millions of years; I think that would be much more difficult that you seem to want to admit.

My point is, you can't possibly define your terms in anything approaching an 'absolute' manner. So absolute truth, as opposed to vague, perspective dependent, notions of what is true, is not something you're going to be able to have.

Evolution is a process with a specific scientific definition. Of course we won't be able to comprehend the absolute truth of an existential statement. That would fall under the "lack of knowledge" category I mentioned. But we do know that meaningful existential statements must either be absolutely true or absolutely false, by definition.

Let 4 be equal to 2+2. 2+2=4. Absolute truth. If you take 2+2 and don't get 4, you're doing it wrong.

 

[kote]

tautology
logic
Main

in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied without inconsistency. Thus, “All men are rational” is held to assert with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is a man or it is not rational. But this universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted about real men but only from the actual use (or one such use) of “man” and “rational” and is thus purely a matter of definition. The statement cannot but be true because it asserts every possible state of affairs: it is true whichsoever of its constituents are true, and it is also true whichsoever are false.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/584431/tautology

 

[WaveJumper]

Let 4 be equal to 2+2. 2+2=4. Absolute truth. If you take 2+2 and don't get 4, you're doing it wrong.

What's the Truth value of that statement in a deterministic universe? What's the Absolute Truth value of any statement you'd make in your entire life in such a universe?

 

[JoeDawg]

Since you've resorted to an encyclopedia for your 'truth', this has clearly gone past the point of rational discussion... but I'll try once more.

If you disagree with me then we aren't talking about the same things.

You are right here, and this is the crux of the problem.

Its easy to talk about truth, when you are using mathematics(and/or symbolic logic). But math is abstract, and the word 'evolution', and especially the word 'human', describe things, with much more complicated definitions.

A Tautology may be necessarily true, but that doesn't mean what you described is a tautology. (Also, using the word 'absolute' is a really bad idea, since it has a variety of distinctly different usages in science, math, and philosophy)

We can fight all day over whether or not humans evolved in Africa, and we may never be able to find out for sure. There is still an absolute truth to the matter... either we did or didn't.

That may be logical truth, but humanity is not a number. You have oversimplified the equation to the point it becomes meaningless. The evolutionary question is, did humans first evolve only in africa, only outside of africa, or both in and outside africa.

So giving it an either/or form, creates a false dichotomy. Its a more complicated question.

Add to that, we are still evolving, so the absolute truth to your statement is: we did and we didn't, and some of us more than others.

And that's assuming africa, human, and evolution are all clearly defined at the outset. And as I mentioned the question of what constitutes a species, is still a big issue.

Evolution is a process with a specific scientific definition.

The molecular mass of hydrogen is specific.

Evolution has a very general scientific definition, it covers a broad range of overlapping theories. There is a ton of evidence for evolution, both macro, and micro, in general, but Darwinian evolution, for instance, is very different from the more modern form.

 

[kote]

Since you've resorted to an encyclopedia for your 'truth', this has clearly gone past the point of rational discussion... but I'll try once more.

I'm not sure how citing sources (for "tautology," not "truth") is beyond the point of rational discussion, but ok . The fact is that we have tautologies. We have necessary/absolute/universal truth, and this can be shown trivially (let a=b. a=b is true). Also, it has definitely been noticed before that all meaningful statements may be tautological and not actually carry any information in the technical sense.

All disagreements about truth come from a subjective lack of knowledge about events, an inability to comprehend the logical connections of an argument, or inconsistent definitions of terms.

Arguing that we can't ever have complete knowledge about events is entirely different than arguing there are no such things as objectivity, analytic propositions, or deductive reasoning. I'm not arguing that in all or even most (or any?) cases one can have absolute knowledge of any empirical facts.

As for rational discussion... rational means logical - it assumes logic. Claiming that sometimes a=a and sometimes a=~a is the definition of irrational. If you aren't claiming that sometimes a=~a then I apologize and I have been misunderstanding you.

 

[JoeDawg]

The fact is that we have tautologies.

And the fact is your evolution example is not one. As I have shown.

All disagreements about truth come from a subjective lack of knowledge about events, an inability to comprehend the logical connections of an argument, or inconsistent definitions of terms.

Or when one person oversimplifies (you), and another person makes clear they are doing so(me).

As for rational discussion... rational means logical - it assumes logic.

Actually no, rational means looking at things systematically. It does not assume formal logic. Being rational can simply mean following common sense, which may indeed violate all kinds of logic.
Feel free to look that up.

Claiming that sometimes a=a and sometimes a=~a is the definition of irrational.

Your premises were faulty, so your logic led to contradiction.

 

[kote]

Your premises were faulty, so your logic led to contradiction.

My claim is that a=~a is never true. Everything else follows from that. Are you claiming that sometimes a=~a, as it now appears that you are?

If a=a is always true then we have axiomatic necessary truth. You can build statements from there that are as complicated as you want without losing that necessary truth. The level of complication involved in a concept is irrelevant.

I never claimed evolution was a tautology. That would be ridiculous. I claimed that it's either true or false. p or ~p.

 

[Sorry!]

My claim is that a=~a is never true. Everything else follows from that. Are you claiming that sometimes a=~a, as it now appears that you are?

If a=a is always true then we have axiomatic necessary truth. You can build statements from there that are as complicated as you want without losing that necessary truth. The level of complication involved in a concept is irrelevant.

I never claimed evolution was a tautology. That would be ridiculous. I claimed that it's either true or false. p or ~p.

Kote what is your point? That we have systems that give seemingly a true answer? I.e. existence exist; I'm pretty sure this is a tautological statement is it not? What does that have to do with you know the absolute truth of the matter of whether or not existence exists?

 

[kote]

Kote what is your point? That we have systems that give seemingly a true answer? I.e. existence exist; I'm pretty sure this is a tautological statement is it not? What does that have to do with you know the absolute truth of the matter of whether or not existence exists?

The point is that "truth is subjective" or "truth is relative" or "truth depends on your perspective" is wrong. I can have absolute knowledge about any sort of analytic concept. I know that unicorns have one horn. I know that all bachelors are unmarried.

Can I know absolutely if humans evolved from chimps? No. Do I know there is an absolute answer that I just can't get at? Yes. This is relevant to the OP because undefined questions, questions with answers that are ambiguously true or false, are meaningless.

What would it even mean to ask a question if answers are all subjective and relative? Why bother asking anything or doing any science or philosophy? Questions are only meaningful if there is a truth to be revealed, and "common sense" never trumps logical consistency. Without logic there is no such things as knowledge, only meaningless thoughts. Science, philosophy, and all rational thought depend on logic.

As for your earlier question, yes, I have a philosophy degree, so please excuse my bias. You can blame the institution for tainting me with its required logic sequence. It's quite possible that I'm just naively spouting the party line.

 

[JoeDawg]

My claim is that a=~a is never true.

You made a claim about evolution.

A truth table cannot show whether a scientific theory is true.

And that is the meaning of 'truth' that is relevant to science.

 

[kote]

You made a claim about evolution.

A truth table cannot show whether a scientific theory is true.

And that is the meaning of 'truth' that is relevant to science.

"Scientific truth" is self-contradictory. There is no separate truth relevant to science. The only truth relevant to science is the same truth relevant to philosophy. Truth is quite literally a function of logic, nothing more.

I made a logical claim about evolution, not a scientific one (analytic, not synthetic, if you prefer).

 

[Sorry!]

When I took anthropology the characteristics setting humans apart from other animals were things like bipedal, opposable thumb etc. Imagine some'thing' is born from a human without some of these characteristics... 'it's' no longer human by definition? This is absurd.

I'm sure unicorns would be subject to the same rules of genetics (if they were living by definition...) and therefore your blanket statement that all unicorns have 1 horn is POSSIBLY and probably false. Maybe one little guy was born with two or maybe one lost his in a great battle with another unicorn in which case he now has no horn.

Besides this little tidbit your truths that you claim are all from you're single human perspective and they have the ability to be fooled and wrong just like any other human. I see what you're saying in your posts. You think that because it follows from HUMAN logic that it must be true in all aspects. Sure this is a possiblity that it's 'true' to us humans at this particular moment in time. You said a few posts back

There is still an absolute truth

I definitely disagree. I don't think you understand the implications of this claim.

 

[apeiron]

The point is that "truth is subjective" or "truth is relative" or "truth depends on your perspective" is wrong. I can have absolute knowledge about any sort of analytic concept. I know that unicorns have one horn. I know that all bachelors are unmarried.

Where this discussion goes off the rails is in leaving out the idea of purpose - of meaning itself!

The modelling relations approach to epistemology stresses that knowledge is a meaningful interaction between the modeller and its world. This means that the modeller has general goals (which is what makes the exercise meaningful, as well as subjective). And the usual natural goal of modelling is control over the world. In terms of Aristotle's four causes, what we are most interested in modelling is efficient causality. Which lever do I have to pull here to get something done?

Sure, you can make a distinction between analytic and synthetic truths. But this is a point about a formal model already derived from some wider goal-based, efficient causality oriented, modelling enterprise. It is a derived subset that claims to deal with "truth".

Within this smaller intellectual space, you can start to make meaningless statements (no disrespect intended). Indeed, this is a powerful thing. Humans can imagine issues like multihorned unicorn (what about a unicorn with a second slight bump? - sorities paradox alert).

So we have invented through the extreme generalisation of causality modelling a way of creating pure statements, divorced from the necessity of being efficient, of being meaningful. But this does not make this intellectual activity the fundamental basis of epistemology.

Instead, I would hold that only the meaningful actually exists - a reality that is making causal sense to itself. Reality itself is "subjective" in this sense. And the meaningless only exists in our (now powerful) imagination as statements with no effective content. The forms without the substances.

Just think about rendering the meaning contained in a statement like "I know that unicorns have one horn."

Well, there is the sorities paradox to show that there are practical limits to that certainty - the unicorn with a second bit of a horny bump on its forehead.

And there is the implication of control. What you are saying is I know how to make a unicorn - give me a horn and a horse. Or an Ibex and a saw.

Take away that control - as in talking about unicorns as just a thing that exists, or doesn't exist - and you have lost the meaning, created a now ineffective statement about the world.

The statement "exists". But there is no operative modelling relationship. Which is where people get confused as they then try to recreate that natural epistemological relationship with the world.

Again, why is the sky blue is the kind of question that seems meaningless (I have no control over the color, nor does anyone else) becomes meaningful once it gets explained in terms like refraction - stuff over which we suddenly do glimpse a sense of effective control. The world is suddenly being framed again in terms of levers that we can start pulling.

 

[kote]

Within this smaller intellectual space, you can start to make meaningless statements (no disrespect intended). Indeed, this is a powerful thing. Humans can imagine issues like multihorned unicorn (what about a unicorn with a second slight bump? - sorities paradox alert).

I'll admit that the one horned unicorn was a bit of a simplification. Give me a list of all of the criteria that would need to be met in order for you to call something a unicorn. Maybe being a unicorn requires being part of a particular species mostly represented by one-horned horse-like creatures. There are still definite conceptual criteria by which we judge a thing to be a unicorn or not be a unicorn. If, by experience, we learn that some one-horned beasts are spontaneously produced without parents, we may redefine what we mean when we say "unicorn." If we do this we are changing our conception of a unicorn and are no longer talking about the same thing.

I would say that "I know that a unicorn only has one horn" is more accurately stated as "what I mean when I say 'unicorn' is a beast with one horn." How we choose to divide our perceptions conceptually and linguistically is subjective and a matter of convenience. Gaining knowledge is simply refining our definitions to make it easier to talk about the things we perceive. We have way too many problems trying to justify objective empirical facts or solving the arbitrariness of intentionality if we claim that this is not the case.

I appreciate the rational criticism and I certainly don't take offense to claims that I am making meaningless statements when we are discussing logic! I might actually agree with you . But then, I'm not sure if we can have the type of meaning you are looking for, at least not without a proof of the basic, separable, and objective existence of the concepts into which we choose to divide our perceptions.

"Learning" that the sky is blue because of refraction is realizing that we can eliminate complexity by reducing our number of basic concepts by defining one concept in terms of others. It's reducing our number of axioms.