Reply to comment

When someone was asked "what's the meaning of life?" a clever individual, for one reason or another, decided that the answer was 32 (or is it 34)?

I think this blatent attempt to mockingly quantify the largeness of existence with a number is directly related to our search for truth in science. "The way things work" seems to be a good place to start, so a whole bunch of people tackle any number of subjects and begin their attempt to dissect them. 

BUT, in much the same way that you can never truly touch anything (if you start a 1/2 inch from something and move closer to it, there are infinate numbers of mathematical relationships between you and the object) we can never truly touch the truth...but our fields can interact.

SO, if one is prone to thinking "Well of course i'm actually touching this desk, I feel myself touching it!" in a strictly metaphorical sense, it simply reflects their inability to grasp the largeness and undefinability of the subject at hand. This is how I've come to regard the members of society that refuse to accept (or simply have never considered) the "less wrong" theory that I can't seem to get away from. 

 Defining "facts" in science is like deciding that being 1/4000000 away from the truth is good enough. What blows my mind is that this is only a linear metaphor! Based on our original conversation, there may or may not be some circular wall of truth out there somewhere (If we can never reach it does that mean it doesn't exist? Or does the fact that we can never reach it nullify its importance, and therefore it's existance?). As we approach it from any direction we're getting infinately closer (but never EVER quite close enough) to our answer...which, as far as I'm concerned, can be 32...for any question.

So, if there is no answer for us, is there no point?