What is the most difficult question to answer?

Answer 1

Few examples of Hardest questions are:

• What is the cure to all diseases?
• What is the cure to the common cold?
• How many atoms are in the world?
• When will you die?
• What is the hardest question in the world?

The hardest Question ever is "Why" because you can never get to the end.

How are you?

Good

Why

Because I feel good with myself

Why

Because I did something good today

Why

To help others

Why

So I can be nice

Why

So I can be a good person

Why

Because I want to

Why

I don't know

Why

Because I want to

Why....

So on and so forth You can never get to the end...normally all you get to is I don't know

Answer 2

Answer 1) "Is the answer to this question no?" is a question that is impossible to answer correctly.

Answer 2) It depends on one's frame of reference! Who is asking and who is to answer?

If we were to ask a worm how to work a DVD player I doubt we would get a definite answer, such abstract ponderables would transcend the limited worm-consciousness. Likewise if we were to ask a highly advanced intelligence the meaning of life or the answer to life's more complex uncertainties, we would perhaps not fully understand the answer, or even the question, like the humble worm.

Some questions are variably difficult or easy depending upon karmic conditions.

An example of some 'difficult' questions are laid out below. Feel free to add your own to the list.

1) What is God?

2) What is Life?

3) How can something come from nothing, or can it?

4) How many sides does a circle have?

5) What is 'Dark Matter'?

6) What exists outside the highest space curvature?

Answer 3) You can't get any more "difficult" than impossible. So the first answer is at least tied for the most difficult question to answer. A worm may not be able to answer your other questions, but God can. Not even God can correctly answer "Is the answer to this question 'no'?"

COMMENTARY_ON_ANSWER_1_&_2">COMMENTARY ON ANSWER 1 & 2Person 2 says:

A difficult question has some chance of finding an answer, but an impossible question doesn't, therefore these constitute two separate lines of questioning! To say that God cannot answer a question is to give definite attributes to an infinite being and set certain limits upon eternity. Because the question, itself, is directly related to the state of consciousness one is operating we cannot say with finality that God is uncontactable in our search for truths greatest questions. As manifested aspects of a greater source our ability to assimilate the universal profundities is what determines whether we have realized a given aspect of truth or not.

Additional CORRECTION to Answer 2 from ''Person No 1'':

You're just making up stuff, hoping to confuse people with your pseudo-intellectual gobble-Dee-gook. "Impossible" and "difficult" are not mutually exclusive. "Impossible" is a subset of "difficult", and is, in fact, the most difficult. Therefore, Answer 1 stands as the most difficult question to answer.

And, no, God can't answer it correctly. I'm not doubting his power, or his infinity, or anything else about him. It is impossible to answer this question correctly no matter whoyou are. That is a fact. First of all, it's a "yes or no" question, so any answer other than "yes" or "no" is automatically incorrect. But, of the two "possible answers, there is no circumstance under which either answer is correct. If you answer "yes", then the answer to the question will be "no", and if you answer "no", the answer to the question will be "yes". This is true whether your name happens to be Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, or Bob. This question cannot be answered correctly. By anyone. Period! It is impossible to answer correctly. And, once again, there's nothing more difficult than impossible.

But, you seem to be contradicting yourself. If you can't assume that God can't answer the question, then it's no longer impossible to answer, is it? But if God is the only being capable of answering it then it is surely the most difficult of the "possible" questions. So, by your own reasoning, "Is the answer to this question no" is still the most difficult question to answer, though for different (and therefore wrong) reasons than I provided.

Reply from Person 2:

To say 'I am making things up' is rather a no-brainer. Let me explain. Impossible and Difficult in a question are unable to be both true at the same time, therefore they are both mutually exclusive in relation to each other from a relativistic viewpoint.

Regarding impossible and difficult. Since the former is not possible and the later within the realms of possibility, there again we have the exclusivity as two distinctions. Basic geometry.

Of course, this distinction, as in the case of a yes or no answer, whether correct or wrong, is likewise relative. A wrong answer might even be the correct answer! This is why it depends on one's frame of reference, state of consciousness, or even quantum state! All paradoxes disappear or are resolved in the the ultimate reference point whether distinction and indistinction are no longer contradistinctions but antecedently existing in their own simple beginning, where distinction is not other from indistinction. Very deep metaphysics!

By my own reasoning, I can prove and have done so, in the analogy that my generalised answer is correct as it relates to one's frame of reference. I do not say, it is the ONLY answer, of course. But is one that is logical.

A Semantic paradoxon is not a question in the strictest sense of the term, if we wish to be of exacting nature. A question that is impossible to answer is NOT A difficult question! Perhaps, we might agree to disagree? However, I am prepared to change my mind in the light of greater reason.

Person No 1

You're contradicting yourself again. On one hand you say that my question does not qualify as "difficult" because my question is "impossible", and "impossible" and "difficult" are mutually exclusive (that's an assumption on your part, by the way, one that I do not accept). But then you go on to say (essentially) that NO question is "impossible" to answer (I disagree with that as well, but I'll temporarily accept it for the sake of argument). If this latter statement is true, then my question is no longer "impossible", but simply "difficult". And, since my question cannot be answered except by leaving this "quantum state", "state of consciousness", or "plane of existence", I think that qualifies as pretty damned difficult. That's YOUR logic.

Person 2:

No, I do not say your question is impossible, YOU said so! Your Quote, ''You can't get more difficult than impossible.'' 'Answer 1 ''is a question that is impossible to answer correctly.'' and so on. And on that premise I say, that the most difficult question must be that which has the possibility of an answer or else it becomes rhetorical and thereby not requiring an answer. In such case, this means your question is answered by itself as you wrote it! Hardly a difficult question. So, we can see that my initial statement that ''it depends on one's frame of reference'' is valid and uncontradictory. Your question is easy, difficult and impossible, at the same time.

From its rhetorical stance, it is easy! From its Absolute stance, it is impossible and thereby, not difficult! From its 'difficult' stance, it would possibly be one of the most difficult questions to answer, but your specific phrase or wording makes it relatively speaking, a straightforward yes, or no answer.....which is either right or wrong depending upon the questioner and the person answering the question. In one case, the wrong answer for the questioner, might be the right answer for the person giving the answer!

A rhetorical question is a way to make a tentative statement but phrasing it in the form of a question. The problem with rhetoric is if called out on a point later, or shown that it was not accurate, the speaker can then claim it was only a question!!! It's a provoking statement, which does not have a concrete or measurable answer.

Person No 1

Now. Here's my logic. There's nothing in the definition of either "impossible" or "difficult" that makes the two words mutually exclusive. You have chosen to make an assumption about that, one that I do not accept.

Person 2 quote added: Meaning of Impossible from Latin 'impossibilis', from in-'not' and possibilis 'possible'. Thereto....NOT POSSIBLE! Meaning of possible from Latin Possibilis or ''POSSIBLE'' meaning Possible! I can't get more definite than that!

Person 2:

Yes, this is an assumption of mine based on sound scientific principles, as well as metaphysics. Why? Because we are looking for the most difficult question and questions by their very nature bound to the realm of causation. We cannot think outside of this because we exist within and have our being in a realm of cause and effect. Is this not true?

Now, a difficult question, must exist within causality must it not? An impossible question must be transcendent above causality, or else, we could find the answer here! So, we could say, an impossible answer must be possible within the infinite realm of the Absolute in which we have infinite possibility (and therefore answers) but not within the finite realm of causality which makes it 'impossible'. The demarcation between the finite and the infinite, the knowable and known, or the difficult question and that which is impossible I use as the arbitrary standard, which is variable depending upon the state of consciousness one is operating, as I have said. Your non-acceptance of this is a brilliant example of WHY it depends on one's state of consciousness, and both are equally valid from a relative point of view.

Person No 1

Given my non-acceptance of this assumption, it is obvious that an "impossible" task is not only difficult, but is the MOST difficult among all difficult tasks.

Person 2:

We moved here from most difficult questions to impossible tasks which is far away from the initial question? Even the most difficult 'Task' Ever must have the possibility of attainment or else it becomes Impossible! In other words we have a distinction of actuality, dictionary terminology of the two words, as well as science (Which I am happy to elucidate as this is my best subject!)

Person No 1:

Now, I admit that I too made an assumption. I assumed that the person who asked this question meant for the answer to be restricted to this universe, this plane of existence, this state of consciousness, this quantum state, etc. I don't believe the questioner wants a metaphysical answer to his question.

Avatars-Unite:

How can we possibly get a truthful answer, a scientific answer or indeed an answer at all without metaphysics? This is an impossibility! Even materialistic science is based on metaphysics which is why I had deliberately used the term Infinity, from Geometry! Infinity is a metaphysical concept used throughout science. Infinity is indivisible like extracting a difficult question from an impossible one. It's not possible.

Person No 1:

You, of course, reject my assumption, just like I reject your assumption about definitions. So, yes, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, since we reject each other's assumptions. But, if you polled the general population, I'm quite positive that they would find my assumption much more reasonable than yours, and would likewise find my rejection of your assumption much more reasonable than your rejection of my assumption.

Person 2:

Because a thousand people agree to an assumption doesn't make it any truer. The measuring stick of a successful truth is the degree of practical usage it has in life.

Person No 1:

"Is the answer to this question no" may be a semantic paradox. But it is also a question. It fits every definition of a "question" that I have found. If you have access to some other definition of the word "question" that specifically excludes sentences that would otherwise be questions, but just happen to also be semantic paradoxes, then I would be glad to take a look at this definition. Otherwise, I maintain that, paradox or not, "Is the answer to this question no?" is still a question.

Person 2:

I have answered these above but could go into this further if necessary. This has been rather rushed on my part.

Person 2:

"Yes, this is an assumption of mine based on sound scientific principles, as well as metaphysics. Why? Because we are looking for the most difficult question and questions by their very nature bound to the realm of causation. We cannot think outside of this because we exist within and have our being in a realm of cause and effect. Is this not true? "

Person No 1:

No, it's not based on scientific principles or metaphysics. It's based on your understanding of the definitions of the two words. And your understanding is wrong. Metaphysics means nothing in this case. Words mean what they mean, regardless of whatever metaphysical mumbo-jumbo you throw at them. "Difficult" has a meaning. "Impossible" has a meaning. There is nothing in either of these meanings that makes the two words mutually exclusive.

And you're contradicting yourself again. You say that, in the infinite universe (which I presume includes all these alternate states of consciousness, quantum states, etc, etc.), nothing is impossible. Then you say:

"How can we possibly get a truthful answer, a scientific answer or indeed an answer at all without metaphysics? This is an impossibility! Even materialistic science is based on metaphysics which is why I had deliberately used the term Infinity, from Geometry! Infinity is a metaphysical concept used throughout science. Infinity is indivisible like extracting a difficult question from an impossible one. It's not possible."

So, I guess, when you say something is impossible, it really is impossible. But when I say something is impossible, it's not really impossible.

Person 2:

No, I didn't say that at all. I said, ''It depends on one's frame of reference!'

Person No 1:

You keep throwing around this word, "metaphysics" as if it means something. Like just because its name means "beyond the physical", you think that means it somehow supersedes the physical. It doesn't.

Person 2:

This is another discussion, perhaps for another question.

Person No 1:

It's just a name someone came up with to make it sound important. It's really just a bunch of malarkey. You say material science is based on metaphysics. That's just a lie. Nothing could be further from the truth. Material science is based on physical laws. Metaphysics, by its very nature, ignores, or even rejects, physical laws.

Person 2:

For another question again, there are various schools of thought on this.

Person No 1:

Your metaphysicians made up this "science" from whole cloth, with no empirical evidence. For centuries it was regarded, with good reason, as "pseudo-science", but, in recent years has gained acceptance, along with several other fields that are not really scientific at all. But now, not content with simply being accepted by the real scientists, now you want to say that all of the real sciences are based on your pseudo-scientific bulldust?! Give me a break!

Person 2:

I have the right to my own views on life and the universe. Even the so-called truths of science are being continually 'updated' in the light of new research, improved methods and, more importantly those individuals who have dared to step outside conventional science in their search for new meanings and a better understanding. Even chemistry was once regarded as alchemy! Scientists as heretics! Astronomy as a purely theological domain and so forth.

I have explained myself with decorum and fairness. You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. I do feel you have misinterpreted a lot of what I have said. I would have been happy to explain any aspect of my thinking process to yourself and, if necessary, justify myself, but I do not think this is at all necessary as the points I have already made I am quite satisfied with and I like to keep to the question, without writing an essay! I leave you in peace. I look forward to any further 'answers' of which there must be many! I will post another question on metaphysics entitled...''Is Metaphysics a valid method of investigation?'' and ''What is the meaning of Possible and Impossible?'' This should be an interesting one!

--Missing?--

Person 2:

"No, I didn't say that! Read what I said again."

Person No 1:

I don't have to read what you said again. I copied and pasted it for everyone to see. I said it was impossible to answer my question, and you said nothing is impossible. But when it comes to explaining something, without your precious field of metaphysics, well, now that is, clearly, impossible. Your own words, buddy. Read them yourself.

"there are various schools of thought on this [metaphysics]."

Yes, there are lots of various schools of thought on metaphysics. That's because nothing that it deals with can be empirically tested. So, naturally, there are a lot more theories out there, since none of them can be disproven.

Person 2:

"I have the right to my own views on life and the universe. And yes! These views have been empirically experienced, but not all 'tested' by strict laboratory conditions, but then, nor has 'Dark Matter!' which makes up most of the mass in the universe!''

Person No 1:

Of course you do. But you don't have the right to pass those views off as science or fact.

Person 2:

"I haven't! I use the term Metaphysics. Even the so-called truths of science are being continually 'updated' in the light of new research and improved methods"

Person No 1:

Yes, that's what happens in science. What we thinkis true ends up being proven untrue, and we abandon that disproven theory. That's not what happens in metaphysics, because the subject matter cannot be proven either way. So you guys can make up whatever crap you want to, and continue to believe it as long as you want to, because no one can ever prove you wrong. What you fail to realize, however, is that no one else has to believe your crap.

"and, more importantly those individuals who have dared to step outside conventional science in their search for new meanings and a better understanding."

No sir. These "individuals ... step[ping] outside conventional science" didn't have anything to do with advancing scientific truths. They're advancing mystical, touchy-feely bulldust and nothing else.

"Even chemistry was once regarded as alchemy! Scientists as heretics! Astronomy as a purely theological domain and so forth."

Yes, chemistry was regarded as alchemy, because chemistry (as it existed then) was alchemy. That was before the modern scientific method was developed. Once this came along, everything that could be empirically tested, and did not fail the test, was deemed "scientific", and everything that did fail the test was, rightly, discarded as false. Anything that couldn't be tested was simply ignored as non-scientific. It's people like you and the other meta physicists that want to take us back to those days when science was not subject to verification or testing. You want everything you could possibly come up with to be accepted as "possible" so you can sell your snake oil to whatever fool is willing to buy it.

Point One) ''You keep throwing around this word, "metaphysics" as if it means something.''

Person 2: Yes, this means a lot to many people. For me, personally it is the only real science. Materialistic science can take us to reality without really getting there, but Metaphysics can do BOTH! Ooh! Now, I've done it!

Point Two) ''You're just making up stuff, hoping to confuse people with your pseudo-intellectual gobble-Dee-gook.''

Person 2: No! I'm using my own common-sense and reason tempered by intuitive insight and personal experience.

Point Three) ''You're contradicting yourself again. On one hand you say that my question does not qualify as "difficult" because my question is "impossible", and "impossible" and "difficult" are mutually exclusive (that's an assumption on your part, by the way, one that I do not accept).''

Person 2: No, I didn't say that! My quote: ''It depends on one's frame of reference!'' from Answer 2. Also....my note above: ''(My note) Meaning of Impossible from Latin 'impossibilis', from in-'not' and possibilis 'possible'. Thereto....NOT POSSIBLE! Meaning of possible from Latin Possibilis or ''POSSIBLE''. I can't get more definite than that!'' explains this part.

Point Four) Your quote: ''It is impossible to answer this question correctly (Answer No 1) no matterwho you are.''

Person 2: Well, that's quite a statement! And I simply offer an alternative! Take it or leave it, it makes no difference to me! However, my alternative is workable!

Point Five) ''You said nothing is impossible''

Person 2: My exact quote is: ''It depends on one's frame of reference!'' Which I purposely use for simplicity. Or as I elucidate this initial statement: ''An impossible answer must be possible within the infinite realm of the Absolute in which we have infinite possibility (and therefore answers) but not within the finite realm of causality which makes it 'impossible''.

Point Six) (Metaphysics is)...''just a name someone came up with to make it sound important. It's really just a bunch of malarky. You say material science is based on metaphysics. That's just a lie. Nothing could be further from the truth.''

Person 2: That's your opinion, which I respect. Nevertheless, I can demonstrate how science cannot really know truth but only an approximation of truth.

Point Seven) ''You don't have the right to pass those views off as scienceor fact''

Person 2: Well, I haven't have I...! I've used the term metaphysics as opposed to science. And I have not claimed any of this to be fact. I have proposed a truth which is something different! This is where freedom of speech and one's opinions are not dogmatically and systematically restricted or debunked without fair trial and open-mindedness, the cornerstone of real science.

Point Eight) No sir. These "individuals ... step[ping] outside conventional science" didn't have anything to do with advancing scientific truths. They're advancing mystical, touchy-feely bullcrap and nothing else.

Person 2: Hmm! Scientific truth is often presented as being superior to all other forms of truth on the following model:

1) Scientists are completely objective in their interpretation of scientific facts.

2) Scientific methodology is totally rational

3) Scientific truths are superior to religious, philosophical or spiritual ones

and 4) Scientific Truths have generally disproved the existence of God.

Indeed, many have come to the conclusion that Scientific Truth is the ONLY form of Truth!

Yet after careful examination of all four of these premises we find that these are not based on reality and are therefore false. Although Scientific methods provide a very powerful way for us to explore truth, it has its limitations. Strong contraversy (If I spelt that right) often exists among scientists over much of the basic or fundamental ideas at the core of the scientific method. Far from providing a finished product - ''Truth and nothing but the truth'' Science is a work in process as you have said. Therefore, what is unconventional COULD become conventional in Science, true! I do not say,of course, everything unconventional WILL become conventional but it CAN and DOES THROUGH SCIENTIFIC METHODS. This is HOW we discovered that the earth was no longer flat, how the Earth is not the center of the universe, and how we can travel faster than 30mph without being obliterated!

Answer 3

the hardest question to answer is the one your asking because no one knows the hardest question so thats the hardest question to answer

Answer 4

This is a riddle. Haha. I made it up. The answer is what is your question?

Answer 5

it is the goldbach conjecture

Answer 6

Why are we here?