Every Solution is a new Problem?

Norm of the world is change. Hence rules or laws cannot hold forever except for the fundamentals.

Problems change with the perception of life and solution also change accordingly.

We cannot tie up the ever changing nature of life. All we can do is accept the change and move forward as life is always moving forward.

Not exactly.

Having a problem at the end of every problem is a good thing. It keeps us learning. A solution isn't a problem, per say, but a solution can raise more questions, which may lead to other questions, which lead to increased knowledge and more advances. Like when someone makes a computer program, then someone asks why it doesn't have a certain feature, then people learn how to make that feature, and therefore a better program, which has advanced everything.

There seem to be three possibilities:

• There really is a complete unified theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.

• There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately.

• There is no theory of the universe. Events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.

Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were complete set of laws, that would infringe on God’s freedom to change His mind and to intervene in the world. It’s a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? But the idea that God might want to change His example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up. With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to realize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If one liked, one could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention. There is no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it wouldn’t be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility by redefining the goal of science. Our aim is to formulate a set of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.

The second possibility, that there is an infinite sequence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all our experience so far. On many occasions, we have increased the sensitivity of our measurements or made a new class of observations only to discover new phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory. To account for these, we have had to develop a more advanced theory. It would therefore not be very surprising if we find that our present grand unified theories break down when we test them on bigger and more powerful particle accelerators. Indeed, if we didn’t expect them to break down, there wouldn’t be much point in spending all that money on building more powerful machines.

However, it seems that gravity may provide a limit to this sequence of “boxes within boxes.” If one had a particle with an energy above what is called the Planck energy, 1019 GeV, its mass would be so concentrated that it would cut itself off from the rest of the universe and form a little black hole. Thus, it does seem that the sequence of more and more refined theories should have some limit as we go to higher and higher energies. There should be some ultimate theory of the universe. Of course, the Planck energy is a very long way from the energies of around a GeV, which are the most that we can produce in the laboratory at the present time. To bridge that gap would require a particle accelerator that was bigger than the solar system. Such an accelerator would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.

However, the very early stages of the universe are an arena where such energies must have occurred. I think that there is a good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century—always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first. What would it mean if we actually did discover the ultimate theory of the universe? It would bring to an end a long and glorious chapter in the history of our struggle to understand the universe. But it would also revolutionize the ordinary person’s understanding of the laws that govern the universe. In Newton’s time it was possible for an educated person to have a grasp of the whole of human knowledge, at least in outline. But ever since then, the pace of development of science has made this impossible. Theories were always being changed to account for new observations. They were never properly digested or simplified so that ordinary people could understand them. You had to be a specialist, and even then you could only hope to have a proper grasp of a small proportional of the scientific theories.

Every problem has got a solution. No problem as such will be there without any solution. There will be a chain of problems coming to us one after one,but it is not an answer to the previous problem or we create a new problem out of the solution. The problems are created by people and solved by them , it is universe. A man can not live without a problem, he can not survive without a soultion.Solutions are answer to the problems and willnot be a problem.No problem exits without a solution, but it may dealyaed to get solution. Based on psychology I am replying his question, I hope the questioner will appreciate my answer . Thanking you Yours VRVRAO

Human beings have the need to solve problems, to search, to discover. Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? What happens when..? etc. etc.

We could stop asking questions and maybe we would live much better, but we can't because we are not simple animals. We are rational and our quests are not useless: they are part of what we are even if sometimes a solution opens up to a variety of new problems.

every problem has one solution that you can follow,like in math.It deepens which solution you choose.If you choose a solution that involves not exactly the problem but something that seems like the problem you want to resolve than you maby creat an other problem.In other words there is always a solution you just must find the right on.

There are problems with know solution, at least not within men.

Happy is the man who has is daily bread.

Jesus may have bin just another healer, but his memory has served a purpose.In my life any way.

If creates a new problem then it wasn't a real solution to begin with.

Its a cycle that revolves on and on. We have lots of questions to answer. And in the process of finding answers of different problems we came across with many other question.

There would have been no fun if we didn't had questions to answer and answers to find because without them ther would have been no meaning of knowledge. There would have not been so much discoveries and answers to so many mysteries.

There is a reaction to ever action. Sometimes it is a personal view there is a problem. A problem to someone is not always a problem to all.