Go.

What's the meaning of life?

What is wrong with me?

The answer is 42

Why is there more matter than antimatter?

The meaning of life on a local level (ie the meaning of life for an individual person specifically) is created by you. This is done in the exercise of free will inside an ontologically incomplete universe - that is, a universe that is "designed" specifically for conscious observers whose carrying-out of free will renders the universe complete. On a global scope, the meaning of life is that life is a "sandbox" environment that is both created by and self-reflective of its participants. The meaning of life is thus a creative act, where creation and act precede and define meaning.

If tomato is a fruit then isn't ketchup a smoothie?

This is more a physical question than a philosophical one. Of course there is some overlap between cosmology and philosophy, but not at this level of detail (unless you study both).

why?

Human body is composed of 99.888042% elements. That’s 0.111958 "molar" percent of "elements" unknown in our body. Your body may dissolve those elements after you die, but what happens with 0.111958% that are still part of you?

They stay in your mother

Ok here is one.

Is math real? That is to say, do mathematical structures actually exist and is our universe embedded in one or is the actual reality this physical universe, and is mathematics something we invent within the constraints of our existence? Or are there other possibilities entirely?

in for answer

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

This posits a sort of false dichotomy between the whole and analytical observations of the whole as being separate elements. Participatory consciousness, (including the mathematization of the universe) in combination with "matter as such", ie the environment around the conscious observer are both part of the whole - reality. That is, insofar as it is meaningful to talk about "matter as such" without conscious observers in the first place. The key is in the relation itself between consciousness and this ontologically incomplete environment, I would posit that it is precisely this relation that is "the whole" - reality. And this relation is fundamentally related to will. To reply more concretely, the universe, being ontologically incomplete, can accomodate the will to be observed through a mathematical framework. Maths then are a possibility, a potential that is made "real" by actualization through conscious observers.

Gotta love philosophical babble.Huh?

Is there somewhere in universe another copy of me?

Can God create an object that he himself cannot lift?

Who actually killed JFK?

What the hell was the Roswell Landing about and is it true?

Is Area 51 a big giant hoax?

Right but the conscious observer has to exist in some "thing"...some sort of realm, which we call the universe. It is clear the universe obeys certain mathematical laws, and it probably wouldn't be a stretch to call it a mathematical structure. On the other hand, it could very well be the case that it isn't, and that all of the mathematics we invent is somehow a construction that exists within the framework of this universe. But then we have to wonder what exactly this universe is...Any rigorous description of it turns it into some form of mathematical structure. I suppose a flavor of your perspective lives in the fact that every description we have of the universe is formulated in terms of observers. I guess the real question is "Why is there something at all?" The existence of that first distinction from signal to noise, a notion of "a thing" and everything else remains a mystery. Even logically, asking for a cause before the first cause doesn't really make a lot of sense.

It's hard to imagine the beginning of time itself or the creation of the universe. We'd like to think of a notion of "before" or "why", but it seems impossible to make sense of this in any meaningful way. We could embed our universe into a larger structure, but eventually you are left asking about why the structure even exists at all and about its nature...same problems.

Probably not.Since God is understood to be the fundamental spring of all reality, including logic, it's best not to think logical constraints can exhaust him.

I don't think it's total babble. I think he's trying to convey the observer dependence of physics. He seems to be taking a "consciousness causes collapse" kind of interpretation of reality -- perhaps to reconcile religious belief with existence...IDK

IDk what the other guy is talking about with elements. The human body is 99.999999999...some more 9s....99999999% matter with the occasional accidental bits of antimatter popping in and out of existence here and there lmao.

Is the desire to be the greatest at anything the first step on the path to the dark side, and if so, how does this correspond with established religious principles?

What would it mean for something to not be constrained by logic?

For example, we know 1 is not equal to 0, assuming the basic axioms we take from ZFC. There is no way for God or anyone else to prove otherwise within this logical framework. It is truly logically impossible to prove a false statement as true. God's reality need not have these axioms, but God is clearly constrained by the laws of logic. He cannot make something that is false true.

God cannot construct a one to one function mapping say the set {0,1} onto the set {0,1,2,3}. This is impossible. Not even God could do it.

It would be hard to answer because only something not constrained by logic would be able to answer it. However, if we believe that the creator of everything is God, then it is not necessary that something that emanated from him and that seems necessary to us necessarily also constricts him. If this is true, it should be the case that it would be impossible for us to explain it within our constraints of language, logic and expression. It would also be pointless to talk about something as "true" or "false" because God would be the arbiter of what is true and false. I'm not saying that 1 = 0 for God, but that we should be careful about trying to fully understand something like God from a constrained perspective.

I don't think the desire to be the greatest has a negative connotation. It is a path that can easily transform a person into a vile creature due to the compromises one can take to achieve such a position though. But you don't need to feel the desire to be greatest to be presented with possibilities for choices of dubious moral connotations. In fact, that's probably what happens every day to varying degrees to everyone.

But God is something. How could God create itself?

Are we just ill equip with the tools to understand these things in our current form?

As we evolved on earth and to survive better, etc... not to understand such things.

Even if we do understand things we can see or conceive of... maybe there's things that we're just entirely unaware that even exist?

Just as an ant literally doesn't have the tools to understand some of the things us humans understand, no matter how much knowledge it gains, it doesn't have the tools to comprehend the knowledge. Knowledge and understanding being two different things.

What I'm saying is, I think there are things that we cannot know without becoming more than we currently are. As in we need to integrate with technologies and such which will provide us with the "tool" to understand. A tool which we currently lack perhaps.

Why is a widely believed that a worm hole is the fastest way to get from one point to another? If you fold a piece of paper and trace the path of point A all the way to point B, it clearly isn’t faster at all, infact it would be a slower way then just going straight from point A too point B, please tell me if I’m wrong or correct.

Huh? Typically we think of God as existing eternally. We think of him as spirit. And his existence being part of his essence ie "I Am That I Am".