Is there really a solution for every problem?

Interesting that you would consider death, something a great many of us consider the ultimate destroyer of all things good, as an effective solution to an otherwise unsolvable problem. Since death is not very likely to attack and destroy anything but us, the strategy is not to attack the problem with a brilliant solution (that Mr. Death was nice enough to jot down for us) stopping it in it's tracks. No and I don't see death swooping down and flying us away to safety whenever we decide....No death comes to late if we suffer..too early if life is good.

So our solution to this problem is suicide, which effectively ends all our problems now and forever. If you take a look at the suicide rates in this country alone you can see that this Idea of problem solving is shared by many and is growing at an alarming rate. All I can say is we don't normally choose the noose if solving a problem by less drastic means frees us to go back to happy land. No I'm afraid death is chosen when the problem is life itself and everything in it. Anyway if we consider death to be a solution then yes there is a solution for every problem.

Just buy a new keyboard, I have a lot of them that I don't use because every refurbished computer I buy comes with a new keyboard, so I'll probably never run out of keyboards, but I prefer the tight spacing of the laptop style keyboard because I got used to the keyboard I had with my first Xp system.

As far as solving problems, it really just depends on how many choices you have at your disposal, if you assume that death is the only solution, then perhaps having a nihilistic view on life isn't the only thing bothering your decision making process, perhaps it's deep seated self-loathing, I can identify with that because I feel like that all the time, but I don't allow it to be the sole focus of my inner praxis.

Once you identify a problem, can you improve it or make it better, probably not unless you're extremely wealthy and you can manipulate an entire society to bend to your "philosophical whims", much like perhaps the political aspirations of the infamous "Koch brothers".

If you gave me the parameters of a given problem I could probably solve it for you or at the very least, tell you why it's not solvable given the current limitations of human derived technology and if that's not the obstacle, then in most cases, people do not like it when humans carve out a niche for themselves formerly held by that infamous internal meme of the infallible projection authoritarian sky daddy.

Before a solution can be determined, a goal or goals have to be defined. What is it we want out of a given situation? If we're a double amputee, elimination of the pain we feel from being crippled is ONE goal. But it isn't the only goal. We might also want to keep living. If we have children, we may want to continue to raise them, even though there are certain things we can't do for them anymore. Double amputees can still work and do many things in today's society. So these positive things might outweigh the negatives. So death may not be the best solution in this case.

Life, and the situations we encounter in life, are complicated. Solutions always exist. But PERFECT solutions RARELY exist. Most problems we encounter have solutions that represent a compromise. And if one is unwilling to compromise, perhaps death is the BEST solution, because compromise is required in life.

Not every "problem" is a problem, and not every "solution" is a solution. I am also familiar with the teachings of the Vedic/Hindu faiths, and how it was meant to be interpreted. From my own subjective observations, I've notice how humans unnecessarily create problems to in order to create resolutions, where there are none, typically, to comes off or appear a certain way 'they are not'. In the respect to the Eastern view, question are subject to be open to both 'yes' and 'no' answers, in recognition of a nondualistic reality ("Advaita"). From the worldly perspective something can be 'true', but not be 'all the way true' ('Truth', as 'It' is), existing as partial degrees of what we call "truth".

We are not so much "forced" into the material world as we are subject to the condition of "ego-contamination", or what can be describe in the Vedic faith as "maya" or "illusion", which perpetuates "samsara" ("the cycle of birth and rebirth). We are subject to the karma we put out, by the use of our freewill, which must be returned to it's source, in accordance with "Cosmic Balance" and Universal Law, confirmed by science. Ultimately, freewill is the alignment with God/Spiritual Self (the impersonal), or the ego/material self (the personal). If that is so, history shows us which has been the most popular choice.

By fabricating problems, which come with made up solutions, we create more karma to undo, detracting from the obvious reality that 'Truth is all there ever is', and all there ever is to go by. We have to first discern if there is really a problem or not, before going about solving it, in which we must trace back to it's source. If you do not investigate deep enough, you may find a problem where there isn't one, or complete miss that you have one at all. From the Vedic standpoint, every problem with a source has it's solution that only needs discovery. Those without a source other than the imagination, can be disregarded as a hindrance, and only need to be seen for what they truly are.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "solution". Here is a question that CANNOT be solved (it manifests chaos in the mathematical sense): Why do tree branches arborize in the patterns that we see.

As an aside many (?most) biological processes mirror the unpredictability of tree arborization, and I suspect that "consciousness" has similar properties.

Political questions in truth cannot have "solutions" when that idea is used in a scientific sense; there can only be opinions. I think the same is true of psychology and sociology.

It is truly unfortunate that college professors have a need to appear omniscient and able to solve any problem. I think this is true more of the "soft" sciences (biology, sociology, psychology, anthropology, and the like) than of mathematics, physics and chemistry. Young people would be wise to be skeptical of profs that convey the sense that they are all-knowing.

You are right that the idea of "a solution for every problem" is ridiculous - and suggests a profound lack of any but very superficial knowledge and naiveté.

For Now and Till now .There is No solution for every problem. Religiously speaking there is a solution for every problem just raise you hand and ask god he is near and always listen. Philosphoically, you will not find two agree on answer you have to own view on that topic.

and good luck.

There are solutions to logic problems like Geometry or Algebra but the types of problems you are talking about are different. A ;terminal cancer patient should at least be allowed to die with the minimum amount of pain and suffering. There are efforts being made to deal with paralysis and blindness. Some types of blindness have been helped with electronic devices that allow the seeing of light and dark. Israeli researchers developed an exoskeleton that has allowed some patients suffering paralysis to get up and walk and there is research in nerve regeneration. There is even research on halting the aging process.

I go along with P when he says that "...any solution which MAY BE POSSIBLE IN THEORY won't work in practice...". And he gives examples.

Compared to his I rather give only semi-examples in comments to Naguru's answer (though I would wish to further support those).

In the past I have criticized and tried-to-refute the absurd recent physics Theory called...the Theory of Everything. THIS IS A ( n ultra modern science) PRIME SCIENTIFIC EXAMPLE OF TEACHING THAT THERE REALLY IS A SOLUTION FOR EVERY PROBLEM (starting with every physics problem, no doubt).

And before I wish to pronounce it absurd (even though I have already done so multiple times past), I must also say this ; that this teaching proposal - a science TAUGHT PROPOSAL we may well believe - shows a distinct similarity with other (too-fantastic-but-true-descriptive..) facts and solution-eering (=solutions for every problem as well as solutions for posited, futuristic problems). The Theory of Everything is a typical theory of Recurrence..that is something within our past which recurs - a sort of material-nee-psychological need for answers, an irrational need that recurs out of imagination rather than rationalization and realization. Making gold from base metal is a previous case of a documented problem-solution, a mistake from our past. And so physically we cannot "go back in time".... we can try and we should try to understand just what it means to learn from such a better contemporary view as ours, of those recorded past recurrences,such a past history of Recurring mistakes AND of believing in (all) solutions for Every, Futuristic..Problem.

It depends on whether you mean final resolution of the problem itself or a solution for me.

All of my problems are resolved with my death.

Then it becomes somebody else's problem.

Some problems are not meant to be resolved, but to teach us patience.

Some problems are designed to let us be an example to others of the fortitude of the human spirit.

Not everything is a "Problem" per se. e.g.; blindness, amputation, and paralysis; those are examples of CONDITIONS. Conditions do not have solutions or resolutions, they are STATES (some might call them "facts of life") which you either learn to live with or you don't. In these cases the end resolution is simply ACCEPTANCE of the fact.

There's probably 100+ solution to every problem.

You can approach any problem through mechanical way, electrical way, chemical way or you could combine all the branches of science for more options, that is if you're general enough. Then you can scale it macroscopic, microscopic, cellular level, nano, atomic(How far do you wanna go).

What you're asking here is how to improve the human system.

And the approach for curing cancer would be a complete control of the cancer cells where we can increase or decrease the xmutated cells a press of a button.

Today they're doing it wrong, they experiment inside the human body to kill the cancer cells. Again, you have to control it, not kill it.