Hello, I submitted the following question a few days ago, but it has not been posted as far as I can tell. Perhaps the submission did not go through, but it is also possible that it was not posted because someone thought that the question had already been asked. Just in case, I post it again. Please notice that my question is quite different from questions like "Is the universe infinite?" or "Does the universe have an end?". So here it goes: Are there two points in the universe such that, if you take the straight line through these two points and lay out yard sticks along that line to measure the distance between those two points, no finite number of yard sticks is sufficient to do so. In other words, are there infinite distances in the universe? Again, please notice that this is NOT the same question as "Is the universe infinite?" The universe could be infinite without there being an infinite distance between any two points. Many thanks for responding.

How is it possible that one can better their own self consciousness? There is an old Chinese saying: "Who Guards the Guards at the gate?" If the mind seeks to better itself, how can it do so? If the ego is what needs to be bettered, what is in check of the ego itself? Is this not possible, because the ego is what is seeking to be bettered? This seems impossible to me.

Is mathematics independent of science? And, vice versa.

To what extent does belief preclude speculative thought? If to believe is to accept a proposition as being true (as my dictionary claims), do we undermine our belief by testing the proposition? To what extent does testing a proposition imply doubt. I attend a private Christian university, so I find this question extremely important. I have given up using the word "believe" completely because it seems to undermine my need to question things. When people ask if I believe in God, Jesus-as-Christ, the Trinity, I feel I have to say, "no." Would proclaiming belief in those things while questioning their validity undermine what we mean by "belief"? Did this question even make sense?

When a person says "I would like to get to know you." What exactly do they mean? In my opinion, you can't really get to "know" anyone. Because to "know" something it takes looking at it from all angles, seeing it react in different situations and examine it inside and out. So, given this definition, does "I want to get to know you" mean that a person would like to look at the other from all angles? To see him/her react in different situations? To examine him/her inside & out? Of course, this can be done physically. Through sexual relations. But how would you go about knowing someone personally & mentally? You never know what they are thinking. This, in return, makes everyone become untrustworthy. Alas, to say "I would like to get to know you" means "I want to spend the rest of my life with you" ... Or does it?

When is it time to get on the medical intervention train and when should you leave well enough alone? As I have gotten older, and my friends have gotten older, every doctor visit feels like stepping on a train that will soon speed up so much you can't get off - so fast you can't even see the landscape outside the window anymore. Chronic medication, more tests...preventive examinations, just one more, just one more. I understand that these things prolong life, but how do you distinguish treatable medical conditions from normal aging? How do you go gently into that good night?

Egalitarian principles suggest that it is important to provide equal opportunities for all. Does this mean that all countries should be let into the EU on the basis of equal opportunities rather than on merit, or that every continent should get an equal number of football teams into the World Cup despite some continents clearly displaying a higher standard of football?

Other than the fact that it's in our nature to know and be curious, why is it that time after time, after every question is answered we still as human beings are not satisfied and as so it seems will never be satisfied, and want to know more. Doesn't that give rise to the notion that the answers are out there, but we can't "understand" them. And if so, then why can't we understand them, if we are given the capability to question?

I don't know if this is a good question, but is it morally correct to execute murderers with lethal injections? I mean we are murdering them for murdering, which is kind of ironic; it would be like setting fire to a criminal who killed people by setting fire to them. Sure it's an eye for an eye, but is it correct? We are just humans, and it's not right how we sentence other humans to death; I don't think it's our place.

Does the human mind perceive sight in 3 dimensions, or do we actually see in 2 dimensions, where depth perception and distance really don't exist in our mind? For example, I am looking at a bridge 100 yards away, I place my finger directly in front of the bridge. Now in the external world there exists a finger an arm's length away from my eyes, and a bridge 100 yards away. If the picture that occurs in my mind is a 2 dimensional picture then my finger and the bridge are located on the same plane in my mind, and distance would not truly exist in my perception. But if the mind's perception of sight occurs in 3 dimensions, like a hologram, then the picture I receive through sight must occur in a three dimensional space in my mind, where distances must be in the same but smaller ratios as exist in the external world. Here occurs a problem. If our perception of vision occurs in smaller but equal ratios of three dimensions, then the same object would have two sizes: That which exists in my mind (extremely...