Of course, there is also the problem with where the questions are being asked (in what system)? For example, you may ask physical questions, like, how many plates are on the table, or how many hot dogs did I eat today?; and these questions have answers. But suppose I ask about something non-physical, about some detail that isn’t tangible? For example, how is Mickey Mouse feeling right now? Is he happy? Is he sad? Honestly, these look like questions, but they do not have answers. The reason is because a fictional mouse cartoon character does not experience feelings, as we do, and so the question assumes nonsense as it is being asked. These types of questions are of category two. It could be stated as questions regarding physical, are of category one, and that questions assuming nonsense, be it within the physical or within fiction, are of category two. A large majority of questions fall into category one, mainly because questions assuming nonsense usually still end up having a definite answer. And that is really the class distinction, questions that for some reason or another enable us to arrive at a sure yes or no answer, usually by physical verification, are of category one. For example, by checking how many plates are on the table, one can learn how many plates are on the table, and, as a bonus, physical verification always (almost always) feels valid to us. But sometimes we are not sure of whether or not our answers are correct; maybe I have to guess how many plates are on the table, because I only glanced at the table once. Of course in this situation there is still a definite amount of plates on the table. But still, in other circumstances, not just in instances where we are simply unable to retrieve a piece of information, we are still unsure of answers. These questions, grouped with a lack of ability to feel like information retrieval is valid, are of category two.
The third category, questions that we are not sure about, work like this: there are certain methods that we employ in order to gain information. Some of these methods are better than others (like visiting a news scene rather than watching the news), but the key item that matters the most to us, is the validity of the information gained. How comfortable are we with what we think we know? Generally we are very comfortable by gaining information through sight (physical senses), this is a physical verification. And by “very comfortable”, I mean that we do not question whether or not something that we see in front of us, is actually in front of us, or that when we hear a noise, something exists which made that noise (that there was a reason for this noise). In fact, we don’t even stop to verify how this information is transferred to us; it is simply treated as direct knowledge. What is more, usually independent sources will collaborate on this information, which makes it seem even more valid. But this is almost always only for physical things (how many plates are here, how much of this was eaten, etc…). For other things, like whether or not there is a hell, we do not agree on the answers to certain questions. These questions are almost always non-physical, but the sole reason we disagree on the answer to these questions, is due to the method of information retrieval we use. The comfort level respective to which method of information retrieval we employ, varies from individual to individual, due to social, cultural, economic, and individualistic reasons. And because we do not all feel the same comfort level regarding the different methods of information retrieval, we disagree on the answers we have, regarding certain questions (questions of category three); that is, we disagree on the validity of the various answers “others” have generated.
So there you have it, three categories; please make use of them.