What's an example of something we will never explain?

[Someone here]

The areas which I think are difficult to explain include  whether there is any transcendent reality beyond the physical, what happens at death, and how body and mind come together to make consciousness. We do not know how the spark of life or of consciousness becomes manifest and origins of existence fully.

I am not suggesting that it is not worth considering and speculating on such issues. However, it may be that both theories in science and explanations within religious worldviews are attempts to fill in the gaps but I am wondering to what extent they may do so. So, I am asking you what you think will always remain as unexplained or unknown?

[zurew]

37 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I am asking you what you think will always remain as unexplained or unknown?

Those things that you can explain have certain elements to them , that people can relate to (becuase they have had some kind of an experience related to atleast some specific parts). For this reason, you can't explain sight to a blind person, you can't explain color to a color blind person, you can't explain music to a deaf person.

If i want to explain to you a new thing , and lets say i have to use 10 words to explain it , you have to understand most of those words to be able to grasp what i am talking about. If there is a very significant amount of words that you don't understand and can't relate to (that are part of my explanation) then you won't be able to understand what i am talking about.

The reason to use words and explanations is to try to put parts of reality into boxes. There is a limit to using words and using a certain grammar system.

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by zurew

[Someone here]

@zurew Do you think that rather than there being advances in knowledge and understanding that human beings have lost the intuitive grasp of understanding? I know that certain individuals in ancient times were able to think in an extremely sophisticated way, but the majority of the people may not have been able to access education in the way that people can today. But, there is the question as to what extent philosophical understanding is progressing or going backwards? Or, perhaps it is just that people answer and think about the recurrent questions in different historical and cultural contexts. However, the juxtaposition between rationality or intuition is interesting because it is more common to compare rationality with emotive perspectives.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Do you think that rather than there being advances in knowledge and understanding that human beings have lost the intuitive grasp of understanding?

I think this is sort of true. Becuase of our advancements in technology we lost the need for meaning and intuition. Everything now is about being certain and about science. Everything is about the objective and the subjective lost its own value (I used subjective and objective in normal terms not how we use it here). This is why spirituality and other practices are not common nowadays.

[Carl-Richard]

How detailed of an explanation do you have in mind?

[Someone here]

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

How detailed of an explanation do you have in mind?

Detailed enough to not let any misunderstanding or lack of information remain.

 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

Detailed enough to not let any misunderstanding or lack of information remain.

That is not very concrete. Here is an example:

 

How does a car move?

1. By burning fuel.

2. By the oxidation of hydrocarbons.

3. By converting the potential chemical energy of gasoline into kinetic energy at the wheels.

4. When gasoline is injected into the cylinder and mixed with air and ignited, it produces an explosion that rapidly expands the gases in the confined cylinder. Thus the four-stroke process is compression, ignition, power, exhaust. The piston is consequently driven downward by the expanding gases in the power stroke which exit the cylinder through an exhaust manifold in the side of the cylinder. The movement of the piston drives the crank shaft down, and this drives another piston up in its cylinder, where it repeats the process of compression, ignition, power and exhaust. The spinning crank shaft turns the heavy flywheel at the rear of the engine. The flywheel is cut with teeth so the starter motor can turn it over and start the engine. The flywheel is connected directly to the gear box which enables the driver to select the ratio of the engine speed to the drive speed. The gear box then connects to the bar of the drive shaft, which spins according to the speed of the selected gears, which in turn is connected to a split differential that allows the driving power to drive the rear axle. The rear wheels, or in the case of front-wheel drive cars, the front wheels, are driven by the rotation of the axle. The turning wheels in turn move the car.

 

Which explanation is detailed enough? If 4, why does that satisfy you? What if I said there exists a 5th explanation?

[ZzzleepingBear]

This!