Is it theoretically possible to quantify and/or classify all information, regardless of source or form? How about knowledge? In practical terms is there any limitations on our ability to create an Internet of information (knowledge?) containing ALL information (knowledge?) in the human world?

I'm in year 11 and obviously heading to my HSC and there are so many people expecting so much from me, but I don't know if I can live up to them. Since I'm the youngest in my family and my brothers and sisters never got into university, my mother hopes to raise atleast one child of hers makes it to uni. I could do what I like doing and live a happy life but it means not making it to uni. Can you please give me some suggestions on what to do. From Daniel H.

What is naive realism? For that matter, what is realism?

Can we really benefit from philosophy? Are we reaching a cumulative understanding of the universe or gaining any proof? Philsophy has destroyed the faith of believer; as far as I have seen, it has only increased the vigour of the sceptic. Would it be fair to say then that philosophy has only revealed the limitations of what we can know? Are we left in an unresolved epistemological crisis?

When we read stories in a book or watch popular TV shows do the characters, not actors, actually come to life? Do they actually believe they are real, or are they in sense real? If someone was to create a sitcom, say Friends, would the character Russ actually live the life of Russ and walk around in the created "universe" of Friends? How don't I know that my life only exists in and was created by the mind of another? I've often pondered this thought since I was a kid. I once watched a show (the title is unfamiliar) where the "real life" characters jumped into a comic book and interacted with the characters in the comic. It was as if the comic had created a seperate "universe". As you can tell I'm not as educated as you philosophers, but I am still young yet. It's also probably quite apparent that I've never had any philosophical education either. My whole life I've been asking questions and have only recenty started to gain answers. Any answers or speculations you offer would be...

I listen to various types of music including new and old. I've been interested for some time why it is that I particularly enjoy some music such as the "top 50 billboard chart songs"? My question is how is it that people know what "good music" is and how is it possible to derive a pattern or equation to a good song that is familiar with the general public?

It is generally agreed that perception involves a real object transferring information about itself into the brain of the perceiver, via the sense organs and nerves; and the distinguishing features of this are that the real object is external to the perceiver and public, while the image of it in the brain is internal and private. My question is: illusions are unreal, but they are external and public --- as with the railroad lines meeting in the distance, or the Sun and the Moon being the same size during an eclipse. So are illusions real, or unreal?

I listen to music. That is true. But is it "real" music? What exactly justifies what is and isn't music? I hear many people say "That isn't real music" about a genre or song. Do they really know if it isn't music or are they saying that only because they do not like it or understand it? Such as the music in mainstream society, a lot of older people, such as my father, will say it isn't real music. He is a musician, so would he know? Does music have to be to a degree of technicality to be considered "real" music? - Darren, 14 years old

I've been reading a little about Existentialism lately and it has most definitely piqued my interest. Coming from a background where both "nurture" and "nature" have me statistically set on a bad path, I am inspired by the ideas of self-reliance of which Existentialists speak. What I don't fully understand, however, is how so many Existentialists (such as Sartre and Camus) seem to be avid supporters of communism or socialism. It seems contradictory, or at least paradoxical, that a philosophy based on the principle that you "are the sum total of the choices you make" would prescribe to socialist ideals. Is there some main idea that I am missing? Thank you for your time, kevin, 17

Who is the most influential philosopher in US history? How did he or she affect US ideology?