Answer C: None of the Above

Descartes is famous for breaking down certainty in the reality of the world by introducing the idea of Cogito Egro Sum, that is, "I think, therefore, I am." His first and second meditations were works of philosophical art. The first mediation rejects the perceived world as merely perceived and therefore possibly false, and the second meditation establishes that there is only one thing for certain, and that is that I exists because I am doing the experiencing. However, Meditations III and beyond look like finger painting compared to his previous reasoning. Meditation III in particular looks like a child put it together with Scotch tape and Elmer's glue. Unfortunately, it is off Meditation III that he continues with the rest of his work on proving that the world is real outside you (and not an illusion). Because of the sloppy reasoning of his third meditation, I am stuck with the puzzle of the observer existing certainly, and the rest of the universe being up for grabs. I addressed this question before, and I stand by everything that I said; however, I mentioned only two possibilities. To put them succinctly, Possibility One was centered around the idea that the universe exists independently from us, the observer, and Possibility Two was mainly focused on how you and only you exist in certainty. But I never mentioned Possibility Three (mostly because it hadn't come to me at that point).

Possibility Three: It Doesn't Matter (Neither)

Now, this may sound like a no-brainer. Of course it doesn't really matter, life goes on. Yet this is a special case, just bear with me. We assume that in our universe (or our perceived universe, as you'd like to call it), there is nothing that will empirically convince me with certainty that my experience is real in that the universe exists outside of me. In other words, there is no proof that the universe that the universe itself is real or fake. Nothing that you can observe anywhere will convince you beyond a doubt of either possibility.

Hold that idea in your mind, and let us pretend that there was something that indicated the reality of the universe. Imagine there was a ball that was red if the universe was real, yellow if it was not. Only the ball changed depending on the answer, and the answer would change nothing but the ball.

Now, obviously, there is no such ball in the universe. Because there is no such ball, that means that there is nothing in the universe to indicate whether or not it is real. This also means that there is nothing in the universe affected by whether or not that answer is true. Therefore, regardless as to whether or not it is real, the universe remains the same, because there is no indication, no proof of either possibility.

I just wish to point out that this is different from saying "who cares, it doesn't matter." This is saying that "it has no measurable or empirical effect on my consciousness one way our another, other that academic curiosity; which is not proof, but rather something directly affected by empirical evidence masquerading as proof." In short, this proves that it doesn't matter, rather than dismissing it as unimportant to your life because the question ranks so low in your philosophical priorities.

So there Descartes. It has taken me months upon months of trying to climb out of the hole you dug but never appropriately bridged. Finally, I have reached the cusp of enlightenment once again, and I want you to know, you were very little help. The ladder you tried to provide with Meditation III was shoddily made. Hopefully, I was able to provide my universe with a more concrete answer.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

First: yes, there is something. I will not dispute that. How could there not be something? Even Descartes didn't dispute that when he showed with his Second Meditation that the only thing to truly and indisputably exist is something doing the experiencing. Aka, you. So even if everything you experience is false, you yourself still exist, because something is doing the experiencing. But the question is, why?

Before we can even begin to answer such an amazing question, we must discuss the reality of how the universe works. As I see it, there are two possibilities. One, you exist and the entire universe that you exists in will continue to exist even if you are not there to perceive it. Or, two, you exist, purely subjectively, and the idea that things exist outside your experience of them is a false assumption. It's the classic "if a tree falls in the middle of a forest with no one around, does it make a sound?" question.

Possibility One - The Universe Exists in Independence

The tree will still make a sound as it falls even if you are not around to hear it. This seems to be the more intuitive (and, quite frankly, less egotistical) idea. Things happen and events take place outside your realm of observation. How accurate your observations are (as they are perceived through fallible senses) is up for debate. But the main point is that things happen that are beyond you perception, and their effects slowly reach you over time, rather than random effects being generated by our senses, and interpreted by us as cause and effect. 

This way supports that things exists. Not only is there an experiencer existing, but also something being experienced.

Possibility Two - You and Only You Exist

Even proving you exist as you think you exist can be tricky at best, impossible at worst. However, it is indisputable that something exists because there is something to be doing the experiencing. Now, if we say that just you exist and nothing else exists as you experience it, then how are you experiencing anything? Well, remember how there is an epistemic horizon disallowing you from really seeing how your "consciousness" works, and creating the illusion of "free" will? There are actually two epistemic horizons. One, as previously mentioned, is the subconscious horizon. The second is the horizon of your senses, or your sensory horizon. The sensory horizon hides how and what we are actually perceiving, and the subconscious horizon hides how we are actually processing this information. This unfortunately leaves us with a quite a narrow band of "conscious" thought. So, you are still experiencing things, but they are through your senses, and your senses lay beyond your sensory horizon. This means that for all you know, sensory input is another part of you, just on a superconscious level. You are quite literally dreaming.

All of this does explain how you can exist and nothing as you experience it does, but it does not quite answer the question of why. We'll get to that, Alice. First we must continue down the rabbit hole.

Either way, things exists, so why does it matter? Well, each view changes it's reciprocal; that is, nothing. And is there a way to prove or disprove either one? Well, there are two ways to do this, and they both involve disproving Possibility Two: you either have to experience something that could not, at all, have been produced by your superconscious (and therefore go completely and utterly insane), or you could die. Seeing as how our options are limited, let us simply explore both venues. 

If Possibility One (the universe exists in independence) is true, then let us apply Superstring Theory to this idea. Superstring Theory ends in the tenth dimension (that is, Everything, capital E), and never explains an eleventh. However, if we apply Possibility One's nothing to this eleventh dimension, then the eleventh dimension becomes a curve of probability between Everything and Nothing. Obviously, we fall on the Everything side because we can do the experiencing. Nothing can't fall on Nothing, because if it did, it would be Nothing, and therefore not exist. So this true Nothing exists, but doesn't exist, because there is nothing ever to say that it does exist. That is why it has us so befuddled, because even nothing is something, and is therefore not nothing. Because this 11th dimension Nothing exists but can't, automatically, we exist. Voila.

However, if we entertain Possibility Two, there are still questions. If only we exist, then that means Nothing outside of us exists. But Nothing can't exist, so we exist as everything, everywhere. Then why are we reduced to such small visceral states? Whys do we seem bounded when we must be boundless? Ah, it is the nature of Everything. Everything seems boundless, but it is a trick of infinity. We are infinitely complex, but not infinitely big. This means that the Nothing exists only as a counterpart to how we are complex, rather that large. We exist as we do because you fell that way on the curve of probability that extends between Everything and Nothing. You can exist in differing states between Everything and Nothing because of the way you are infinitely complex, and you infinite complexity allows for such a limbo to occur. 

To sum up, while I cannot yet give an answer as to which is right, One or Two, I can tell you, in short: we exist because Nothing does exist, but can't. We are the default. Or rather, I am. There is no proof that you exist. Nothing you could present to me to prove that you are actually presenting it to me. Alas, that is the curse of existing. Because we are not Nothing, we must be Everything. 

How The Sky Could Actually Be Not Blue

People will often ask the question "What color is the sky?", or "Is the sky blue?", usually with verbal irony to point out that something is obvious or indisputable. But really, now. This conclusion that the sky is blue is really based off two assumptions, and where there are assumptions, there can be mistakes. So let us, truly, examine the question: "Is the sky blue?", beginning with two assumptions.

First: color is an inherent property in things, and is not just perceived by an observer of these objects. But honestly, who is to say that color is something that is inherent in the universe. How could you convince someone that color is real, and not simply something your brain adds to the world to try to make sense of the reality in which it exists? Or is color really a property of something, because two people can look at two things of the same color and match them together consistently? Well, the truth (as usual) probably lies somewhere in the middle. The difference between whether something is inherent or perceived depends on whether or not the property is quantifiable. For example, thermal energy is something inherent in an object, but whether is is hot or cold is subjective, and therefore, perceived. Applying this to color, color itself can be said to be inherent. You can measure the wavelength of light, and since this is what gives light "color", then it is quantifiable. But the instant we say something is "green", or "dark" or even "bright red", we switch to color being perceived. This is because there is no way to measure "greenness" or how bright a color appears. In summary: color (or rather, wavelengths of light) is technically an inherent quality; but it's experienced subjectively, and is therefore (to people) actually a perceived quality.

Second: people have no way of knowing that the color they perceive as "blue" is the same blue for other people. This is the real crux of the matter. Since color is actually perceived, and subjective, there is no way to know that your mother didn't see the sky in a color you would call "green" or "brown", while you see it in a color she would call "orange". Your mother taught you the color of the sky is "blue". However, there is no way to teach you what the actual color blue really looks like, because it is impossible to try to prove that you two are experiencing the color in exactly the same way.

So between color being a subjective property and the uncertainty of how it is perceived, the sky could (in theory) be not blue to you compared to anyone else's "blue". One could argue that because we both give the name to that perceived color "blue", it is as good as the same, because we both think  of it as blue. But the name and the color are two completely separate entities. So yes, the sky is "blue" (according to you), but in reality, it may not actually be blue (according to everyone else). It could be red. They key word here is could. So the next time you think "The sky is blue.", now you know to doubt even that axiom of your existence.

On The Existence of Free Will

It seems all a great mystery, whether or not we are truly free. Authors have written narratives centered around the idea of free will since fiction became a popular pastime. It's a great theological debate on whether or not we are truly free to make our own decisions or not. It certainly seems that way at times. After all, people should be accountable for their actions. One should't be allowed to escape from consequences simply because they can claim that they are not free to do as they choose. But how can one factor the idea of free will into a causal and scientific universe? These conflicting ideas seem to create two distinct camps with opposite views. A dichotomy, if you will. But dichotomies are almost always wrong.

However, let us examine the two sides of the story first. In the first place, the idea of free will existing. It almost seems it must. You can choose whether or not to move your left index finger now, or the next second, or not all. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, how can people be held accountable for their actions without the idea of their having made their own decisions that allowed them to commit an act that was against a set of laws? If one factors out the idea of free will, many questions open up, whose iterations never seem to end, as is what happens when someone tries to answer a subjective question objectively. So the answer to this subjective question must be subjective as well, hence free will must exist to some extent. Not to mention that the causal model of the universe entirely ignores superstring theory of branching time, and quantum probability. To try to eliminate this idea opens up a whole untangle-able can of worms.

Next, free will not existing. How can free will exist in our causal and physical existence? If we allow the idea of free will separate from external influences, aka, free from causal interference like everything else, then the only thing else it can be is random. A random influence upon our "consciousness"? The idea isn't free will, yet how can something be free and non-causal, yet not random? The idea causes cognitive dissonance because it's impossible. Yes, there is probability, and time branches, but these are not caused by free will, but by the probabilistic nature of the universe. No free will involved.

So, who is right?

Well, it's presented as a dichotomy, so let's step back and allow for the idea that neither are 100% correct. First, let's do this by realizing that there is a difference between free will and just plain will. Second, that even in the causal model of the universe, you still have to deal with your epistemic horizon, that is, you can only know so much about yourself and what makes you do what. Third, quantum probability does factor in to allow for superstring theory, but only over a broad spread.

Here is the solution as I see it: free will itself is an illusion, but will, the intent, is entirely different and real. The epistemic horizon allows for the complete illusion of free will. So you are predictable, and not technically free of causal relationships. But only over a short period of time, and by that, I mean, a subjective estimate of how someone will immediately react (so long you have enough information about said person and the stimuli they will receive) (also emphasis on estimate). The quantum probability and time branching means that the future is not deterministic. Everything is still probabilistic, but there are simply things that are more likely to happen that others. So there isn't free will, but the future is still random. It's just not up to your decisions on how things pan out in your reality.

To sum up: no. There isn't such a free will. It's an illusion caused by being human. But we should continue to pretend for ethical reasons, the fact that the future is still probable, will still exists, and I am not one to advocate anarchy.

On Solutions to the Subjective Panacea

There are certain questions that puzzle people, mostly because the seem to have no real answer. For example, the paradox of the Ship of Theseus (also known as the "George Washington Axe" puzzle):

"The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, in so much that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same."
        —Plutarch, Theseus

The basic idea is that you have a ship, and each day you replace one plank of wood until you have replaced all of the ship. Is it the same ship? What if you where to take all the cast-away pieces and put them back together? Which is the original ship? You could say that one, or the other (or neither, for that matter) is the original. However, there is no real answer, except for the idea of it being different for each person because each person has a different perspective, hence a difference opinion. AKA, a subjective solution. Another example where this fits is on "what makes someone human", which can also be solved subjectively.

So the question that remains is; what is the solution to subjective problems? Because by allowing ourselves to answer questions in the manner of "oh, no, we couldn't possibly answer that, it's based off too much empirical data" is not actually answering the problem, it's merely categorizing the question under the heading of "Necessitates a Subjective and Individualized Answer." So how does one actually answer these questions?

Well, because we are compelled so heavily to answer those questions with the panacea of "Necessitates a Subjective and Individualized Answer," it seems almost pointless for one to try to answer the question in any deterministic and purely logical way. The problem is our epistemic horizon; that is, our ability as pragmatic beings to fully comprehend every single minutiae of our existence. Let's face it, no one can fully grasp all the inputs their brains receive that lead them to make a decision (this actually has bearing on the question of free will, but that's a story for another time). In any case, the fact remains that we do not have a high enough or specialized enough "consciousness" to answer the question towards the problem of "Necessitates a Subjective and Individualized Answer" (which bears upon our own consciousness to begin with, hence the difficulty).

In conclusion, we cannot answer the question of subjective answers, and the idea of "Necessitates a Subjective and Individualized Answer" will just have to sate us until someone or something with a varied and elevated position will allow us an answer. But will we understand, or even recognize, the answer when presented to us? I do not know. We shall see.

On Origins of Fate

Why is it that people find it so compelling, the idea of a god (or gods)? The existence of divinity manifest? How come it permeates every culture, this idea that there is an ulterior, supernatural force guiding even the smallest facets of mundane existence? Casting aside the idea of needing an explanation for the beginning of creation or a "holy purpose for life", and focusing on how people can reaffirm faith in routine divine intervention, we can begin to answer the question.

It seems to me, that the thing that motivates this belief is the faith in the fact that everything happens for a purpose. Faith in the fact that someone is doing all this consciously deliberately for an eventually better and brighter future. This is not a necessarily negative or detrimental belief, for, as Karl Marx once wrote; "Religion is the opiate of the people." And sometimes the people need to opiated, but that is neither here nor there. The point is that the prolific idea in question is that of Fate. Everything happens for a reason. Now, depending on your theological standing, you may or may not agree with this. However, you cannot deny that the idea of "destiny" and, by extent, divine influence, is indeed prolific. To understand why it is so prolific, we must look at the common factor. Ah, and what is this factor?

Here, it is the idea of an ending. Stories where, in the end, all the strings are gathered neatly together, and the conclusion is definite. Anyone not born yesterday realizes that is not the case in the real world, but allow me to explain. The idea of an ending, of the natural progression of a story, is perpetuated by us looking at past events and seeing how "everything tied together to allow this moment". To an extent this is true, but the belief that your moment is special because of it's existence is erroneous. In any case, there is a reason that all modern "major" religious belief systems are based off scripture, aka, a giant compilation of stories. And even those religions not fortunate to make the top 5 list, still have a set of tales and anecdotes that pass from generation to generation, allowing for the idea of a story to continue to flourish.

The reason for this is that a when you tell a story (or recall any series of events, for that matter), you automatically implement the basic structure of a story; a begging, middle, and end. To do otherwise is simply rambling through a string of events, and theatrically speaking, it would be quite dry. When you relate anything, you automatically arrange your story into a beginning, middle, and end, to make it more tellable and easier to remember. And so this idea of an ending perpetuating everything from divine scripture to how you when about your daily chores allows the complete propagation of endings (and subsequently, Fate) in our lives. So while it may be simpler to accept the easy answer, to allow ourselves to believe in fate simply because it would be easy to, one must realize that the ease of accepting that viewpoint in life is an illusion created by psychology.

On The Paradox of Temporal Dislocation

Time travel, or as it should be called, temporal dislocation, is something that people have speculated and written about since time immemorial. There are references to "traveling" to the future embedded in ancient folk tales and myths, such as in the Hindu tale of Mahabharata, the story of the King Raivata Kakudmi, who travels to heaven to meet the creator Brahma and is shocked to learn that many ages have passed when he returns to Earth. There is also the well know Western story of Rip Van Wrinkle, who sleeps for a number of decades and wakes to a world completely different than the one he used to know. Less often mentioned is temporal dislocation into the past, mostly because to try to incorporate it into fiction without allowing a host of plot issues to crop up is difficult to say the least. However, both sides of the coin, forward temporal dislocation and reverse temporal dislocation, are equally important in defining what people like to popularly refer to as "time travel".

Before we can asses any temporal dislocation, first we must consider useful tools in trying to untie the paradoxical knots of time:

1. The first is superstring theory, aka, a higher-dimensional model. To try to cover the basics of this whole bucket of worms, I recommend watching this video here. The main thing to take from this video is that each higher dimension is a tesseract through the dimension below it. This is because if you where to fold and create a "wormhole" (aka, an Einstein-Rosen Bridge), you would be folding your dimension in the one above it. For the purpose of this argument, we will imagine that the 4th dimension (the one technically above our own) is time. We will be using the 4th dimension and the tesseract though it, the 5th.
2. The second tool is Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI), which, while contented amongst theoretical physicists, is useful to allow for reverse temporal dislocation. Summed up, it's an extended and refined "multiverse" theory (actually, it's closer to a multi-reality theory).
3. The third tool is the idea of Non-Elastic Time Travel. To try to seriously contemplate time travel you must do away with your wishy-washy, elastic timeline mumbo-jumbo. The idea that a timeline will adjust itself due to changes you have acted upon it from the past is simply absurd. This annoys me because it is so widely used as a panacea for fictional writers incorporating time travel into their works, and while I have no problem with it used there (as to try to explain "actual" temporal dislocation would be incredibly difficult to do), the popularization of the idea is faulty. Now, this presents a problem for traveling into the past, but we will attack this paradox with the two tools mentioned above in due course.
4. Fourth, time dilation. The idea being that the faster you go, the "slower" you experience time relative to those outside of your velocity. People traveling in a space ship at near-lightspeed would experience only minutes in the shuttle, while those not in the craft would experience hours. This could be used to solve the idea of how to cause temporal dislocation, but I will elaborate on these popular theories in due course.

With all our tools in place, let us begin. First, since it is easier to comprehend, let us consider "time travel into the future". By far the easier of the two types of time travel to understand, there are two basic types of forward time travel: 1) what I like to call 4th level travel and 2) 5th level travel. They are virtually the same in theory, but in practice the difference is tremendous. For the sake of the argument, lets just imagine that you "travel" to the future by accelerating to near-lightspeed. With 4th level travel, you would simply travel forward in time and come back to regular speed at a random iteration of the world you left. You only traveled along the 4th dimension, and let time take you where probability dictated. Now, with 5th level travel, you are actually tesseracting through time, and as such, can transcend the placement of probability and inject yourself into any possible timeline you chose. As long as the point you re-enter at is in the "future" from where you left and an actual possible iteration.

Now, for time travel into the past. Traditionally speaking, it is simply not possible. Let me repeat; not possible. Traveling the 4th dimension into the past cannot be done, full stop. However, that does not stop one from traveling through the 5th dimension and going back into the "past". Allow me to explain: one cannot travel down their own timeline and be in the past of their own timeline. It's not just impossible, it's inconceivable, because the instant you would enter your own timeline in the past, you would be changing something. Even by beginning to enter it, you would be altering some small factor, moving one molecule a millimeter, and changing everything irrevocably. Without our little cheating gizmo, namely timeline elasticity, this presents a major problem. The solution is, however, neat. You see, once you travel to the "past", and you alter something in the timeline, you are automatically not in that timeline anymore. You have gone off to a different branch, another reality where you traveled back in time all along. Now, because you never really reentered your timeline and stayed in the 4th  dimension, you where actually traveling in the 5th. Reality-jumping requires that you travel in the 5th dimension, and since reverse temporal dislocation is merely that, you cannot travel back into the "past" without traveling through the 5th dimension. This whole thing incorporates MWI Theory, and allows it to fit into the model appropriately.

Additionally, reverse temporal dislocation allows for a singular occurrence to take place; that of time loops. The scenario above dictates that of what I like to term as an Open Time-Loop. These aren't so much loops, but people just artificially jumping back into the past, like "regular" reverse time travel. The other side of this coin it that of Closed Time Loops. These are where there's an object, be it a physical object or a piece of information, stuck in a perpetual loop of going back in time, traveling froward normally, then going back in time to complete the cycle. Unlike Open Time-Loops, Closed Time-Loops are not actually in the 5th dimension. Because they do not jump realities, they are simply  loops in the 4th dimension. Closed Time-Loops would have to be committed to a single timeline, and cannot be broken. You could try and artificially break the loop, but all you'll succeed in doing is pushing yourself into a timeline where there was no Closed Time-Loop to begin with. This preserves the integrity of the Closed Time-Loop.

Of course, this isn't even discussing the possible way one could time travel. Well, thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity, forward temporal dislocation is fairly simple; accelerate to near light speed. Reverse temporal dislocation, on the other hand, is significantly more difficult and highly contentious. If we ignore the impossible task of achieving light speed while still interacting strongly with the Higgs Field to keep from transcending the whole "mass" issue, then it might be possible to travel back in time that way. However, as previously stated, current theory disallows this. There is the idea of using wormholes, but again, current theory works out that we'd only be able to use a classic 4th dimensional wormhole to travel back to the time when the wormhole was created, using a little of the Einstein's Theory of relativity mixed in. There are other theories, some even involving tachyons, but these are as tentative as the rest. The only real hope I see is higher dimensional wormholes, specifically those through the 5th. Unfortunately, I am unsure as to whether conventional science has anything to say on the possibly of 5th Dimensional Einstein-Rosen Bridges. Further enquiry is necessary.

Well, I suppose one can only hope that some phenomenon will be observed that will shed more light on the whole mess of "time travel". Perhaps a brilliant theoretical physicist will come along and help us out of these paradoxes we've run ourselves into. I am intensely curious to divine the answer to many of the questions regarding time dilation and time dislocation. And I'm sure the answers would be most... interesting.

Oh, The Humanity!

A question that has been weighing heavily on my mind of late is that of what makes a human... well... human. You could try to list physical traits, like "bipedal, mammalian, oxygen breathing, carbon based life forms possessing the abilities to give birth to live young, form complex thought and make difficult ethical decisions regarding other human beings." Or you could go with a dictionary definition: "any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens." Now, both of these seem to be pretty concrete; however, the problem is that they will always have grey areas. No matter what you do, there will always be some sort of gap between what is human, and what is not. Perhaps the gap is too small to see, too small to exploit. Still, this gap is inevitable with any objective approach to the problem.

To prove a point, lets take the first definition. I could pose the counter argument of there being an alien life form possessing all of those qualities. Ok, then what if we add another trait to the list? Same thing. Anticipating my strategy, one could then go to add "belonging to an Earth-originating species." Ah, but what of people, say, from different dimensions? They don't come from our Earth, so are they not human? Balderdash... ect. Can you see how this would go on?

And so we must ask, what makes the people we know to be human, human? Why am I human? Why is the last person I talked to human? Why is my mother human? And above all, why is a dog/cat/anything else NOT human? What separates them so succinctly? What puts one thing into one category and another into the other? What allows us to solve this inherently subjective problem?

Wait, subjective? Yes, that's it! Since the problem is inherently subjective, then the answer should be subjective as well. What makes someone human is that is how you perceive them.

Allow that to sink in. Now, realize that is basically it. Someone is human because that is how you think of them. A dog is not human because you are not perceiving it as human, you are perceiving it as a dog. The reason we can get confused and caught up in objective details is because due to the sheer number and connectedness of humans today there is bound to be major overlap. The idea that someone human because "that is how you perceive them" as the solution to the equation allows for those little places where not everyone agrees. It works in every case because everyone is deciding from their respective viewpoint; hence, the answer fits all cases for all people. If there is indecision, then you simply do not have enough information on the subject to decide. I'm sure we will strive for a more... concrete definition, and perhaps some day we will come to it. Until then, though, this is why we still have juries.

The Pendulum of Society

The fact of human conflict is one that people have been trying to solve, or ignore, or come to terms with for a long, long time. Why is there this conflict? Where does it stem from? People often quote historical reasons, especially for large-scale conflicts, but this is a temporary solution. These historical conflicts, where do they stem from? And some conflicts don't even seem to have a historical reference to them. So why and how is this a constant and continual problem?

Of course, conflict between two parties of indeterminate size can take an infinite number of iterations to become selectively unique for each possible case. Generalizations are useful, but they blur lines. However, there seem to be common themes:

1. Us vs Them: People make friends, build connections, create social lives. This is an inevitable part of being a "fully functioning" human being in today's global capitalist society. However, the creation of groups of "friends" inevitably leaves the rest of the people as "not friends". This is initially harmless; but, the system is that of a mathematically unstable "Inverted Pendulum". A little nudge in the direction of concretization and hostilization of the outside group will continue to lead to negative feelings until it culminates into two distinct parties. If we continue along this route, it becomes an ironic situation, where a group of people split themselves into halves multiple times based on multiple factors, such as first religion, then gender, then political affiliations... ect. Eventually you have a situation where in trying to gain friends you have successfully alienated yourself and others completely because everyone is somehow now on the "other side".
2. Lack of Communication: A misunderstanding is also a common root cause of such things. People's severely limited physical means of expressing data and information (not to mention the highly dubious way of absorbing said "information") allow for error to add upon error and hence conflict to grow. This is usually done first to one side, where they misinterpret the true meaning of a message and respond harshly. Repeat. Or they don't respond at all, and the frustration of the event can have future consequences if the first party remains oblivious to the danger. Of course, lack of communication also manifests in convoluted information flows, allowing indirect (and hence, heavily distorted) data to come to one party. The party then forms conclusions based on aforementioned data and voila: resentment seeds planted.
3. General Negative View of Fellow Humans and Their Flaws: What people seem to be largely unable to do is comprehend their own limits. One can only imagine how poor their judgement for other human beings is. Hence, it's a 50/50 chance of someone forming high expectations based on a limited data set. When these expectations aren't met, there is disappointment, or, in extreme cases, resentment. Sometimes one incident is enough, sometimes it takes multiple incidents, but in any case, the result remains virtually the same. The problem here is that people cannot seem to accept that humans are beautiful simply because they don't meet your expectations. It shows there's more to them then you where originally able to discern.

Hopefully, someday, people will actively try to eliminate these conflicts to ensure not only a better live for themselves in the long run, but also for everyone else. Unfortunately, I highly doubt this; it only takes one. One person to get mad. One person to push a bit. And down swings the pendulum.