Is there such thing as "the one"?
Your ex is probably very young and still live a Disney-like version of these things. Life will teach her what I am about to write.There are persons which just fit you perfectly in many ways. Often, you would have never thought that is is THESE PERSONS that are perfect. However, notice the plural. There are multiple such persons, not only one. And they do not perfectly line up with your expectations. In fact, these persons make you see what you wanted all along without even knowing beforehand that you wanted it. They make you change your life plans and turn them into something much better. There cannot be a check list for the perfect match. And there cannot be only one perfect match.
Is there a such thing as a v4 engine?
There are a ton of wrong answers to this question. So - is there such thing as a V4 engine? Yes, Saab used to (a long time ago) have a V4 car, and they have been a number of motorcycles with V4's. There might have been other cars too, not sure. Did Ford ever put a V4 in a Taurus? No, they did not. The original Taurus had a base model with a 2.5 liter inline 4, not a V4. I think this was only in the mid 80's though. Any Taurus from the 90's has a V6 unless it was a 3rd generation Taurus SHO, which would have had a Yamaha built V8. Gen 1 and gen 2 SHO's had a V6. There are NO cars sold in North America with V4 engines, nor have their been for decades . All current fours are inline fours, with one exception - Subaru's fours are boxers (horizontally opposed), also called flat. Old VW Beetles (and other VW's), and some old Porsches also had boxer fours. Current Porsche 911's and some Subarus have flat or boxer sixes too. So - your friend is wrong, he does not have a V4 Taurus. But it isn't a "V6 with a 4 cylinder" either, that is a contradictory statement. A V6 has six cylinders - hence the "6" in the description. Unless it's an SHO, it's either a 3.0 liter or 3.8 liter V6. See the link below to understand the difference between inline, V, and boxers.
Is there any such thing as "random"?
There is a real version of this question that has nothing to do with philosophy.Randomness is a description of predictability from the point of view of specific observers. For example, if my friends throw me a surprise party on a specific date, and I don't know about it, then that event is basically random to me. Obviously it is not random to the people planning the party. Similarly if I wanted a sequence of random digits, I might start with the digits of PI beyond the first 20 or so that I happen to have memorized.A very common misconception, for example, is that randomness is in some dichotomy with a kind of universal determinism. This is nonsense, of course. Practical randomness has to do with the capabilities of the observer relative to a phenomenon generator. Attempts at making something "truly" random, have to do with masking the mechanism that generates the random events. For example the outcome of a coin flip (before it is flipped), for all intents and purposes is "truly" random (well, there's more to it than that). This is because the flipper is unlikely to have sufficient control to intentionally influence the physics of the coin to change its outcome. Some people like to sample "the cosmic microwave background radiation" in an attempt to shield the event generator from any predictability by any observer. But this is usually overkill. Simple cryptographically computer based secure random number generators, such as "Fortuna" are essentially "perfectly random" in the sense that nobody can practically predict its output.The universe having laws of physics or whatever, has nothing to do with randomness. Randomness takes place in the mind of the observer, not in physical phenomenon. The current angles in the triangle described by the centers of earth, moon and mars are, to me, purely random values. Even though they are very deterministic, they are not deterministic by any current context in my head.
Is there such thing as being cursed?
Yes, It leaves in your minds. When you believe some one cursed you, you get cursed. The more you think about it, the more you let it in.It surrounds all the bad and negative energy around you and it will make you loose focus of ambitions and will to leave.You can fight a curse on your own, all you have to do is to find ways of getting past the negative energies positively. Think less of your curse as being a curse, give it little time and think of your problems as just problems.Some people don't have the energy to fight a curse. In situations like that you need to find a spiritual person to help you with their energy to fight curses.
Is there such a thing as perfect?
In the present world there is no such thing as perfect except that which has been created by the Divine Source or God. Beyond this all else of the man made world is never to be made perfect. Man made things can always be turned into something better. There is always room for improvement along the way. So are you asking about one of these, if it is ,that of God will always be nothing but perfect and all else is not to be so. Then comes the question do you want perfection at all. Should this be the case, than there is nothing else left to do. In a way humans are made to be inperfect so that it is sopmething for them to achieve. We can always strive to become more perfect without ever reaching this and still be happy. I would rather be this way for it allows us all to continue down a path of perfection without ever really getting there. It is life in its own way. We can find our own happiness by this being this way. This is ghood.
Is there such a thing as half a hole??
This is more a linguistic question than a philosophical one. A hole can be both a hole and half a hole at the same time, but in different senses. If in a particular context the word "hole" referred specifically to a particular type or size of hole, then in some sense it would be correct to say a half-completed hole was "half a hole". In a generic sense, it is a hole in its own right.
Was there a such thing as a unicorn?
Nope. The creature was invented out of whole cloth by the Greek physician Ctesias in order to spice up his travelogue Indica (“On India”). It was fairly common practice in those days for travelers to invent fantastic creatures and other fictitious sights and hide them amongst the real marvels of foreign lands in when recording their travels, content in the knowledge that none of their readers would well-traveled enough to know which, if any of the things they claimed to have seen were made-up. As a result, many of these creatures became honest-to-god myths when readers ignorantly accepted the texts as being completely factual.Ctesias was also responsible for inventing the manticore, though it’s possible that this was a poorly-worded description of a tiger. If only they’d had cameras back then, eh?
Is “nothing” a thing or is there no such thing as “nothing”?
Conceptually speaking, there can be.But empirically speaking, there cannot.This is because you can’t ever be nothing, you necessarily exist, so in terms of sentience, there can’t be nothing at the moment you’re contemplating whether there is such a thing. There might be nothing after you die, following this logic, but you can’t know. But this requires me to define something and nothing in a specific way: biological existence and non-existence, ironically making the empirical conceptual, as it depends on how I’ve chosen to define it.The idea of death, with ensuing nothingness, though, is an abuse of the logic that there is an infinite substance which causes everything and is always existent. This is because the nothingness represented here (a hollowness that can’t have any qualities in common with the substance) can’t have come from this substance, which must embody and be the cause of everything (according to Spinoza). But then this depends on what he took the substance to be axiomatically—all-encapsulating—which it might not be.Alternatively, you can take nothing to be a placeholder for something that actually exists, but is elusive, or as a negation of something, which implies the existence of something prior to it, etc. But I think this leads to a never-ending battle of nothing defined in different ways and made to fight each other. So nothing is whatever we make of ‘it’, which might imply here that it is something, but only conceptually (which is however we conceive of it) and maybe not ontologically. Because there are so many different definitions of nothing and something, they can only coexist conceptually and not actually.The true nature of reality can’t just be what we make it to be, unless there is no such thing as this truth I’m alluding to.
Is there such thing as a warm breeze?
Sure there is. It's when a warm air mass moves in the form of wind. Wind is just air moving from an area of relative high pressure to an area of relative low air pressure. If that air is warm, the breeze is warm.