Well, i am working with the assumptions that what you see infront of you do reveal some thing about the real world, the real world do existence, and science tell us something about this real world. The "Why" question can only jump from that background. If you doubt like descart, then you...
You are now being ridiculous. You are taking about the motivation of a person that ask such a question. I can argue with you on that. I think hawking asking that question at the back of his book
You are coming from the point of view of motivation. I can t argue what you want to think. For...
If i am getting you. What you are saying is that:
1) Every "why" question need a purpose.
2) If A s existence IFF depend B s existence, then the unknowability of B implies the unknowability of A.
My replies
*) i don t understand what you mean by "the truth of christianity"...
Because it is rooted in what science "is". It makes genalizations, and induction one a few case. Gravitation does not tell us why things fall. We can describe gravity by more and more fundamental notions, but than again, where did does notion, and quentities came from? These endless chain of why...
Is this all you can do to reply bacK?
Just tell me what you want to me to do in simply language. Do you want an example of a why question? What do you want? when you us words like "conceive" you are invoke a lot of connotations, that it in some sense complicate the matter.
I am not sure what you are asking. How do you "delimit what one would need to know"? How is you example relavant? What we need to know is why things are the way they are, but that is not possible even in principle by the methods of science. What is there to say? nothing. To answer your...
We know that the most fundamental laws of nature in unknowable. There is really nothing more to say about. What information can get from it? You are saying there might be other "universes", but the assumption of other "universe" or infinity "number of universes" are really in your imagination...
If something is unknowable, and we know what must be done to make it knowable, then does that not contradict the assumption that it is unknowable? Like i say before, if X is some unknowable, then we can not gain anymore information from X, because other wise, X is not unknowable. The statement...
I don t see how that might be the case. We might see more clearly what can t be done, say it is unknowable. To imagine you can extract more information from it is absurd.
the reason i ask is not because i " don t know". I was merely trying to understand your point of view.
Don t tell me it is irrelevant if you can t see the connection. If all we can understand are patterns, but without deep understanding of why they are what they are, then how can there be...
If "pictorial representation" is not the way to ture understanding, and i am curious as to what "is" true understanding? People can reduce physical phenonmen to fundamental laws, and even reduce those those laws from a more fundenmental set of physical laws, but we will never be able to explain...