What exists on the "other" side of a Mobius strip?

[Ruqx]

What exists “inside” of a Klein bottle? What exists “to the north” from the North Pole? Why do we need exactly four colors to paint ANY map on a flat surface, so that adjacent countries will always be colored differently? Why do we need seven colors when the map drawn on the surface of torus?

Bunch of nonsensical questions, would you not agree? Attributes like “other side” or “inside” or “to the north” are simply undefined and undefinable for certain physical objects. Why do we need “x” colors to color a map on a specific surface?

Or something even more esoteric. Why is the game of chess played on an 8 by 8 board? How come that the queen can move vertically, horizontally and diagonally, when the knight can only move along an “L” shaped fashion?

The point is that not all questions are legitimate. Can we agree on this basic principle before we go on?

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Why do we park in a driveway and drive on a parkway?
Why does quicksand work slowly?
Why are boxing rings square?
Why does your alarm go off by going on?
Why is it called a HAMBURGER, when it’s made out of BEEF?
Why does SOUR CREAM have an expiration date?
If it was only a 3 hour cruise, why did MRS. HOWELL have so many clothes?
Why do we ship by truck and send cargo by ship?
Why do you recite at a play but you play at a recital?
Why do feet smell and noses run?

The point is that not all questions are legitimate. Can we agree on this basic principle before we go on?

What is an illegitimate question?

 

[e_c]

They are nonsensical because they have a contradiction of terms. You can reduce them to blunt oppositions.

You can’t do that with the items which I’m guessing you are about to try to apply this idea to.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Little green men of course.

 

[Aloysium]

The same words may be asking or saying something very different, and therefore receive a different reply.

Luke 1:10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.
16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
20 And, behold,** thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season**.

Luke 1:26 ¶ And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Atheists take note. How one approaches the truth, whether with doubt or with openess and wonder, impacts on their capacity to hear it.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

They are nonsensical because they have a contradiction of terms. You can reduce them to blunt oppositions.

You can’t do that with the items which I’m guessing you are about to try to apply this idea to.

Nonsensical yes (and kinda fun), but what constitutes an illegitimate question as posited by the OP?

 

[e_c]

Nonsensical yes (and kinda fun), but what constitutes an illegitimate question as posited by the OP?

Your post was hilarious… Those are accidents lexicography. I’m referring to the OP, which is about contradictions of terms - he is looking to say that much of the language of the philosophy of God is meaningless, like saying “green dreams sleep furiously” or what have you. This is just another rehashing of A.J. Ayer. Old news.

 

[Gertabelle]

Your post was hilarious… Those are accidents lexicography. I’m referring to the OP, which is about contradictions of terms - he is looking to say that much of the language of the philosophy of God is meaningless, like saying “green dreams sleep furiously” or what have you. This is just another rehashing of A.J. Ayer. Old news.

Perhaps it is old news…to some.

But as time moves on and new generations begin to grapple with philosophy and theology, these ideas are once again new…to them.

Those who have questioned and reasoned and come to the other side with some confidence do well to help others go through the same process. The “end” cannot be achieved without the interior struggle.

Well, that’s my two cents’ anyway.

 

[John_Lazarus]

I’m not a philosopher. I don’t even play one on TV.

What exists “inside” of a Klein bottle? What exists “to the north” from the North Pole?

A Möbius strip has (in theory) only one side. Therefore there is no “other” side.
A Klein bottle only has an “outside”. As to what is “inside” it, I assume the same question could be asked wrt a flat plane, or (topologically) even a plain tumbler.
The north pole is the furthest geographically-north point on the globe. There is nothing “north” of it. Unless you want to say that the magnetic north pole is magnetically north of the geographic north pole. (And don’t get me started on “grid north” ).

Ruqx:

Why do we need exactly four colors to paint ANY map on a flat surface, so that adjacent countries will always be colored differently? Why do we need seven colors when the map drawn on the surface of torus?

Can these not be proven?

Ruqx:

Bunch of nonsensical questions, would you not agree? Attributes like “other side” or “inside” or “to the north” are simply undefined and undefinable for certain physical objects. Why do we need “x” colors to color a map on a specific surface?

Or something even more esoteric. Why is the game of chess played on an 8 by 8 board? How come that the queen can move vertically, horizontally and diagonally, when the knight can only move along an “L” shaped fashion?

Convention. They are rules that came to be accepted, as the game evolved. Not a nonsensical question.

Ruqx:

The point is that not all questions are legitimate. Can we agree on this basic principle before we go on?

Yes. My question [sorry!] is, how does one decide which questions are nonsensical or not legitimate?

Your first three questions (including the thread title), are unanswerable, other than “Nothing” (“no thing”, if you will).

The second two are provable.

The third two are researchable, in that an answer could be found in theory; they are not unanswerable.

 

[e_c]

Perhaps it is old news…to some.

But as time moves on and new generations begin to grapple with philosophy and theology, these ideas are once again new…to them.

Those who have questioned and reasoned and come to the other side with some confidence do well to help others go through the same process. The “end” cannot be achieved without the interior struggle.

Well, that’s my two cents’ anyway.

You are right.

That’s why it is so important to study the history of these disciplines.

 

[LethalMouse]

I think it depends on many factors.

Sometimes we can ask insane questions with good intent or reasoned intent.

Why X. And then the exoansive literal explanation for purely entertainment value is worthwhile.

Why X when at a point of similar absurdity meant to actually define something to which the truth should be clear is likely “illegitimate”

However the question becomes the purpose and severity of absurdity.

Is the asker lacking in mental capacity?

Is the asker seeking to do some form of malice?

For example there is a poster on here who asks absurd questions and says he talks to satan and has been driven insane before… likely in the OP examples if he asks what is north of the north pole he is legitimately unable to comprehend.

On the flip side if implying in some fashion a lack of answer to north of the north pole “proves” some point or ideology of a person it may be being asked purely for trickery.

Entertainment/musings

Lack of mental capacity

Malice…

Reasons for “illegitimate” questions.

Making then quasi legit given they have reasons though the last 2 make them not entirely credible questions

 

[GEddie]

Are there questions not worth asking??

 

[Ruqx]

Why do we park in a driveway and drive on a parkway?
Why does quicksand work slowly?
Why are boxing rings square?
Why does your alarm go off by going on?
Why is it called a HAMBURGER, when it’s made out of BEEF?
Why does SOUR CREAM have an expiration date?
If it was only a 3 hour cruise, why did MRS. HOWELL have so many clothes?
Why do we ship by truck and send cargo by ship?
Why do you recite at a play but you play at a recital?
Why do feet smell and noses run?

I am also a great fan Stephen Wright. But your questions are simply wonderful puns, and have no philosophical implications.

A Möbius strip has (in theory) only one side. Therefore there is no “other” side.

Well said. So the question was incorrect.

The north pole is the furthest geographically-north point on the globe. There is nothing “north” of it.

Correct, the direction of “north” is undefined at the North Pole. The question was nonsensical.

Can these not be proven?

Certainly. They show that the PSR is not “absolute”. There is no “sufficient reason” for the answer. The solutions are brute facts.

Convention. They are rules that came to be accepted, as the game evolved. Not a nonsensical question.

The question of “why are these the rules” would be nonsensical.

Yes. My question [sorry!] is, how does one decide which questions are nonsensical or not legitimate?

If the question relies on impossible or undefined circumstances, it is a nonsensical question.

 

[Jake_Parker]

What exists “inside” of a Klein bottle? What exists “to the north” from the North Pole? Why do we need exactly four colors to paint ANY map on a flat surface, so that adjacent countries will always be colored differently? Why do we need seven colors when the map drawn on the surface of torus?

Bunch of nonsensical questions, would you not agree? Attributes like “other side” or “inside” or “to the north” are simply undefined and undefinable for certain physical objects. Why do we need “x” colors to color a map on a specific surface?

Or something even more esoteric. Why is the game of chess played on an 8 by 8 board? How come that the queen can move vertically, horizontally and diagonally, when the knight can only move along an “L” shaped fashion?
**
The point is that not all questions are legitimate. Can we agree on this basic principle before we go on?**

These have been answered, and you’ve responded, now I am curious as to your “before we go on” part of your original post. What’s next?

 

[Ruqx]

These have been answered, and you’ve responded, now I am curious as to your “before we go on” part of your original post. What’s next?

Yes, it is time to “poke” the hornet’s nest.

The word “universe” means everything that exists. Therefore the questions like “what exists outside the universe?” and “what existed before the universe came into existence?” or “what caused the universe to exist?” are all illegitimate, invalid questions. Just like what exists to the north from the North Pole. To use the words “outside” or “before” the universe are meaningless. Causation is undefined for the universe, it is only defined inside the universe.

Of course the definition “everything that exists” does not limit existence to physical existence. There is the conceptual existence, which is the realm of ideas or concepts. And there is the alleged existence of gods, angels, demons, and other hypothetical beings. These alleged entities are not supposed to be physical, but not fully conceptual either. Yet they are able to interact with the physical existence in some nebulous, undefined way. How? No one can establish that.

The point is that we can experience the physical existence either directly (with our senses) or indirectly, via the extension of the senses. Yet, some believers assert that the physical existence needs some external “explanation”, while the non-physical realm needs no such explanation.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The word “universe” means everything that exists. Therefore the questions like “what exists outside the universe?” and “what existed before the universe came into existence?” or “what caused the universe to exist?” are all illegitimate, invalid questions. Just like what exists to the north from the North Pole. To use the words “outside” or “before” the universe are meaningless. Causation is undefined for the universe, it is only defined inside the universe.

Of course the definition “everything that exists” does not limit existence to physical existence. There is the conceptual existence, which is the realm of ideas or concepts. And there is the alleged existence of gods, angels, demons, and other hypothetical beings. These alleged entities are not supposed to be physical, but not fully conceptual either. Yet they are able to interact with the physical existence in some nebulous, undefined way. How? No one can establish that.

The point is that we can experience the physical existence either directly (with our senses) or indirectly, via the extension of the senses. Yet, some believers assert that the physical existence needs some external “explanation”, while the non-physical realm needs no such explanation.

Some people play word games, some seek to understand.

“Universe” to me means “creation”; that is everything that has been, is, and will be brought into being.
Since it does not bring intself into being, the search is on for who, and it must be a who since the Cause is greater than we who are caused, is the Source of all being. The Cause must be other than His creation. Words like “before” and “outside” apply to the ontological structure of reality, are not to be taken as representing a spatiotemporal relationship.

If you want to understand what is meant by spiritual, you may wish to contmplate who you are and how it is that you move. Hint: you are a person, a spiritual-physical unity, and as such you move yourself. Parts of you are interacting, but they do so within the whole which is you.

You may also wish to contemplate how it is that you perceive and think about anything. You see the monitor. There is its physical reality which is quite complex, the photons being emitted and passing through the space between the screen and your retina, the chemical reactions happening all along the “biocircuit” from the receptors to the neuronal network connecting the various parts of your nervous system as they fire in response. The mental image and ideas that are evoked by my words have a physical structure and also a mental and spiritual one. The mind is that dimension that describes the thoughts and feelings you are having in themselves. Psychology speaks of a collective unconscious that “contains” archetypal symbols such as the hero, that would be yourself and the game you are playing within these forums. The spiritual to my way of thinking, has to do with connection, ultimately love, which lies at the foundation of everything, as it springs forth into being. There is more than physical and mental processes going on; we connect to what is other through our material-physical structure. We connect with one another. Existence is relational from the top down, from the Triune Godhead; it has meaning, a beauty that transcends all the ugliness we encounter in the world, is the ultimate truth and good.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Why, Mobius of course!

 

[GEddie]

Möbius, maybe no!

 

[Gertabelle]

Möbius, maybe no!

uch: Ouch! That was just painful. :tsktsk:

Slightly off topic… Thanks to those of you who are seriously taking part in this conversation. I’m a lurker and learning a lot. I may eventually find the time and resources to take an online philosophy course. And it will be in no small part due to all y’all.

Blessings and thanks!

Carry on…

 

[fisherman_carl]

Möbius, maybe no!

Or a naked Mobius.