Philosophy often leads us into a jungle in which solid science is powerless. Philosophers have a license to talk about everything, from metaphysics to morality, and we are used to that in this way they shed light on some basic questions of being. The bad news is that these questions may forever remain beyond our grasp.
Here are eight philosophical mysteries that we are unlikely to solve.
Why is there something and not nothing?
Our appearance in this Universe is too strange an event that cannot be expressed in words. The hustle and bustle of our daily life forces us to take our existence for granted. But whenever we try to reject this everyday life and think deeply about what is happening, the question arises: why is all this in the Universe and why does it obey such precise laws? Why does anything exist at all? We live in a universe with spiral galaxies, aurora borealis and Scrooge McDuck. And as Sean Carroll says, "nothing in modern physics explains why we have these laws and not others, although some physicists take the liberty of speculating about this and are wrong - they could have avoided this if they took philosophers seriously." As far as philosophers are concerned, the best they have arrived at is the anthropic principle,according to which our concrete universe manifests itself in this way because of our presence in it as observers. Not a very convenient and somewhat overloaded concept.
Promotional video:
Is our universe real?
This is a classic Cartesian question. Essentially, this is a question of how do we know that we see the present around us, and not a great illusion created by some invisible force (which René Descartes called a possible "evil demon")? More recently, this question has come to be associated with the brain-in-a-vat problem, or the simulation-simulation argument. It may well be that we are the product of deliberate simulation. Therefore, the deeper question will be this: is the civilization that simulates also an illusion - a kind of supercomputer regression, immersion in simulations. We may not be who we think we are. Assuming that the people who run the simulation are also part of it, our true selves can be suppressed so that we can better absorb the experience. This philosophical question forces us to rethink what we think is "real." Modal realists argue that if the universe around us seems rational (and not shaky, vague, fake, like a dream), then we have no choice but to declare it real and genuine. Or, as Cypher of The Matrix put it, "bliss in ignorance."
Do we have free will?
The dilemma of determinism is that we do not know whether our actions are governed by a causal chain of previous events (or due to outside influence) or whether we are truly free agents making decisions of our own free will. Philosophers (and scientists) have debated this topic for thousands of years, and there is no end to this debate. If our decision-making is driven by an endless chain of cause and effect, then determinism is there, but we don't have free will. If the opposite is true, non-determinism, our actions must be random - which, according to some, is also not free will. On the other hand, metaphysical libertarians (not to be confused with political libertarians, these are other people) talk about compatibilism - this is the teaching that free will is logically compatible with determinism. The problem is compounded by breakthroughs in neurosurgery,which showed that our brains make decisions even before we comprehend them. But if we don't have free will, why did we evolve as conscious beings and not zombies? Quantum mechanics complicates the problem even further by assuming that we live in a universe of probability and any determinism is impossible in principle.
Linas Vepstas said the following about this:
“Consciousness seems to be closely and inextricably linked with the perception of the passage of time, as well as with the fact that the past is fixed and completely determined, and the future is unknowable. If the future was predetermined, there would be no free will and no reason to participate in the flow of time."
Does God exist?
We cannot know if God exists or not. Atheists and believers are wrong in their claims, and agnostics are right. True agnostics adopt a Cartesian position, recognizing epistemological problems and the limitations of human cognition. We don't know enough about the inner workings of the universe to make grandiose claims about the nature of reality and whether a higher power is hiding behind the scenes. Many people welcome naturalism - the assumption that the universe operates according to autonomous processes - but it does not rule out the presence of a grand design that set everything in motion (called deism). Or the Gnostics are right, and powerful beings do exist in depths of reality that we do not know about. They don't have to be the omniscient, omnipotent gods of the Abrahamic tradition,but will still be (presumably) powerful. Again, these are not scientific questions - they are more platonic thought experiments that make us think about the limits of knowable and human experience.
Is there life after death?
Before you start protesting, we will not talk about the fact that one day we will all be on the clouds, with harps in our hands, or we will forever be boiling in hellish cauldrons. Since we cannot ask the dead if there is something on the other side, we can only guess what will happen next. Materialists assume that there is no life after death, but this is just an assumption that cannot be verified. Looking at this universe (or multiverse), through Newtonian or Einstein's prism, or perhaps through the eerie filter of quantum mechanics, there is no reason to believe that we have only one chance to live this life. This is a metaphysical question, and it is possible that the cycles of the cosmos are repeated over and over again (as Carl Sagan said, “everything that is and that was, will still be”). Hans Moravek put it even better when he said,that within the framework of the many-worlds interpretation "non-observation" of this universe is impossible: we will always observe this universe in one form or another, being alive. Alas, although this idea is damn controversial and controversial, it is not yet possible (and will not be presented) to clarify it scientifically.
Can anything be perceived objectively?
There is a difference between an objective understanding of the world (or at least an attempt at one) and the perception of it in an exclusively objective framework. This is the problem of qualia - the notion that our environment can only be observed through the filter of our feelings and reflections in our minds. Everything that you know, see, what you touch, what you smell, everything went through a multi-layer filter of physiological and cognitive processes. Consistency, your subjective perception of this world is unique. A classic example: The subjective perception of red can differ from person to person. The only way to check this is to somehow see this world through the "prism of consciousness" of another person - this is hardly possible in the near future. Roughly speaking, the universe can only be observed through the brain (or a possible thought machine),and therefore interpret only subjectively. But if we assume that the universe is logically coherent and (to some extent) knowable, can we assume that its true objective qualities will never be observed or known? Much of Buddhist philosophy is based on this assumption and is the complete opposite of Plato's idealism.
What is the best value system?
We can never draw a clear line between "good" and "bad" actions. At various times in history, however, philosophers, theologians, and politicians have claimed that they have found the best way to assess human actions and have identified the most righteous code of conduct. But it’s not that easy. Life is much more complicated and confusing than a universal system of moral or absolute values might suggest. The idea that you should treat others the way you would like to be treated is fine, but it leaves no room for justice (like punishing criminals) and can even be used to justify oppression. And it doesn't always work. For example, do you need to sacrifice a few to save many? Who deserves to be saved: a human child or an adult monkey? Our views on good and bad change from time to time,and the emergence of superhuman intelligence can completely turn our system of values.
What are numbers?
We use numbers every day, but think about what they really are and why are they so good at helping us explain the universe (for example, using Newton's laws)? Mathematical structures can be made up of numbers, sets, groups, and points, but are they real objects or are they simply describing relationships that are inherent in all structures? Plato argued that numbers are real (although you don't see them), but the formalists insisted that numbers are just a part of formal systems.
ILYA KHEL