Exploring the Position of Physicists and Philosophers on Reality

[verty]

Do you know what conceive means?

 

[theName()]

Do you know what conceive means?

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.

 

[verty]

If doing more means I must speak your positivistic language then yes this is all I can do.

And I don't want you to do anything but tell me that you need to know what you must know to know why in order to know that knowing why is impossible, that knowing that knowing why is impossible necessarily must come from a position of knowledge.

And if you can't do that, then how on Earth can you know that knowing why is impossible? Without knowing what one must know to know why, I don't see on what basis you come to that conclusion. If you can give me a basis for that then please do, but if you continue to argue semantics then I don't think we will ever understand each other.

 

[theName()]

And if you can't do that, then how on Earth can you know that knowing why is impossible?

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 eventually leads to " it is so, and no one knows". There is no avoiding the biggest question of them all" why is there something instead of nothing". I don t know what you are suggesting here. as i understand you so far, you seem to suggest that science can answer everything, even itself Am i correct?


"And I don't want you to do anything but tell me that you need to know what you must know to know why in order to know that knowing why is impossible, that knowing that knowing why is impossible necessarily must come from a position of knowledge."

I don't know what this statement mean? can you break this down into 5 smeller sentence? You seem to be making an assertion, and asking a question at the same time? Which is it? Perheps you can being tell me your "objective", and state your justification. Please, no complicated word.


"If you can give me a basis for that then please do, but if you continue to argue semantics then I don't think we will ever understand each other."

I guess we have no choice, because i don t know your point. I am arguing what science cannot do in principle from what it is, and you are arguing in circles. Science is about making generalization about nature, and these generalizations became know as laws. Where is did the universe came from from the point of view of why there is something( this universe) instead of nothing? If there was nothing to begainning with, then where did the laws of nature came from? If all a scienctist can do is to make conjuncture from the "laws", then can we use those laws to tell us where those laws came from? Can sciences answer that? I don t thinking so. You ask me "why" for why we have this unknowns, and my answer is: " because science fails when it trys to answer its own existence". If you are to refute me, then you must some that science can explain itself, that is to say, Science must be able to explain where the laws of nature came from. This of course is impossible.

 

[verty]

My contention is that if science can't answer why then can you really ask the question? To me, one should only ask why if one knows what one would need to know to know why. For instance, I don't think one should ask if Christianity is true if one has no conception of what it would mean for Christianity to be true.

For Christianity to be true (but still unknowable) God would need to exist, so in this case the unknowability of God's existence provides the unknowability of Christianity's truth.

But if you can't go this far to conceive of what the truth of Christianity would require then I don't think you can ask the question. If it is true that science doesn't answer why then perhaps the word 'why' should be done away with, or limited to being used only in reference to reasons that people give for their own actions, or the answers that scientific theories provide.

Or if you disagree then come up with a rationalisation about when we may ask why because I don't see that we may ask why without knowing any more about the question including what its truth would require. I surely can agree to this rationalisation: "why questions can only be asked if what is required falls within the domain of science".

 

[theName()]

My contention is that if science can't answer why then can you really ask the question? To me, one should only ask why if one knows what one would need to know to know why. For instance, I don't think one should ask if Christianity is true if one has no conception of what it would mean for Christianity to be true.

For Christianity to be true (but still unknowable) God would need to exist, so in this case the unknowability of God's existence provides the unknowability of Christianity's truth.

But if you can't go this far to conceive of what the truth of Christianity would require then I don't think you can ask the question.

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"? What is that mean? In fact, i don't really know what you mean by "a conception" for something to be ture. I have a conception of the dinner i ate? can you tell me the frame of mind i need to have a "conception" that something is "ture"?

1) Not every why need a purpose. Some might be just an emotional impulse. I don t see why we should stop asking. In fact, it is a bit sad you think this way. You are thinking yourself into a box.

2) I don t really see your point. I think it sort of prove my point.

If it is true that science doesn't answer why then perhaps the word 'why' should be done away with, or limited to being used only in reference to reasons that people give for their own actions, or the answers that scientific theories provide.

If so, then you are really limited yourself. It makes no sense to me. Science can only provide genealizations of natural phenonmen, and summerized into a couple of "laws of nature". Perhaps one day, scienctists might come up with one or two equations that sort of describe everything important in our universe. What brings those equations to life? Why the hell would there be a universe for the equations to describe? Why our universe? I don t understand you at all. Your rational is : People should stop asking this question, because it has no answer.

Or if you disagree then come up with a rationalisation about when we may ask why because I don't see that we may ask why without knowing any more about the question including what its truth would require. I surely can agree to this rationalisation: "why questions can only be asked if what is required falls within the domain of science".

We can ask "why" if and only if( the truth it require) science fail to provide a reason.
Science fail to provide reason for 1) existence 2) the laws of nature, 3) cannot explain why the laws have the form that they do. Therefore, the question of "why" can be asked.

 

[verty]

Science fails to provide reason for 1) existence 2) the laws of nature, 3) cannot explain why the laws have the form that they do. Therefore, the question of "why" can be asked.

I read that as "we may ask the question because science can't explain it". I assume you would contend that we can't know the answer to questions that science can't answer. So are you saying that we may ask questions that we can't know the answer to? That seems odd to me. What answer do you expect to those questions? Am I really so limiting by saying one shouldn't ask unless one expects an answer?

To me, asking a question presupposes the possibility of it being answered. Asking why natural law is the way it is presupposes that one can know why it is the way it is, but that is exactly what you said from the start is unknowable. A question that can't be answered is a question that probably shouldn't be asked.

Pragmatically we do ask those questions for the sake of coming up with more coherent theories but that has nothing to do with truth and so doesn't actually concern 'why' as such. 'Why' to me is asking for the truth of the matter, not what is pragmatically justifiable but totally independent from the truth which is unknowable.

Or perhaps you want to adopt the colloquial use of "we think this is why" but I think that is a lie because if it's true that gravity doesn't explain why objects fall then it is incorrect to say that we think objects fall because of gravity. We don't, we think gravity explains the phenomenon but that it (gravity) is independent of the truth, it is of a different category, not something that can be true of false but something that can be justified or unjustified.

So if you mean that one is asking for justified theory when asking such why questions as "why is natural law the way it is" then I'm afraid you're speaking a different language which is not the language typically spoken, because when people ask why they typically want the true cause, not a justified theoretical cause independent from the unknowable truth.

But these semantic battles are really not worth fighting. I will hold to the contention that people shouldn't ask why if they can't expect it to be answered, and I mean by that that they shouldn't ask for true answers about such matters because no knowingly true answers are possible. I do think people can ask 'why' meaning that they want a justified theoretical answer, but perhaps we should invent a new word for that because I don't think that is the language typically spoken.

 

[verty]

Hmm, I see that was I said is not exactly correct because why questions always concern causes and all causal theory is of the justified/unjustified category. So really why questions should be understood as being necessarily independent of the truth. The only truth that one knows is what one perceives, like that snow is white. We should not suffer the fantasy that language is a means to the truth.

 

[theName()]

I read that as "we may ask the question because science can't explain it". I assume you would contend that we can't know the answer to questions that science can't answer. So are you saying that we may ask questions that we can't know the answer to? That seems odd to me. What answer do you expect to those questions? Am I really so limiting by saying one shouldn't ask unless one expects an answer?

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

To me, asking a question presupposes the possibility of it being answered. Asking why natural law is the way it is presupposes that one can know why it is the way it is, but that is exactly what you said from the start is unknowable. A question that can't be answered is a question that probably shouldn't be asked.

You are coming from the point of view of motivation. I can t argue what you want to think. For me, I don t think people should limit their questions just because of something blah blah...

Pragmatically we do ask those questions for the sake of coming up with more coherent theories but that has nothing to do with truth and so doesn't actually concern 'why' as such. 'Why' to me is asking for the truth of the matter, not what is pragmatically justifiable but totally independent from the truth which is unknowable.

If a person does want to know the "complete truth", then i don t see how that question can be avoided. In anycase, what do you mean by truth. Truth can be weak like:" atoms exist", to deep truth like: "why there is something rather than nothing"?

Or perhaps you want to adopt the colloquial use of "we think this is why" but I think that is a lie because if it's true that gravity doesn't explain why objects fall then it is incorrect to say that we think objects fall because of gravity. We don't, we think gravity explains the phenomenon but that it (gravity) is independent of the truth, it is of a different category, not something that can be true of false but something that can be justified or unjustified.

I don t understand your statement. Can you summerize it with your objective in one sentence, and the reason in another sentence.

So if you mean that one is asking for justified theory when asking such why questions as "why is natural law the way it is" then I'm afraid you're speaking a different language which is not the language typically spoken, because when people ask why they typically want the true cause, not a justified theoretical cause independent from the unknowable truth.

Can you define "truth" for me? I agree with pretty much what you said. I don t think the "why" question is science at all, because it is by definition unanswerable. There is nothing one can do answer it. If you choice to define what your questions are by if it can be answered, then that is your choice.

But these semantic battles are really not worth fighting. I will hold to the contention that people shouldn't ask why if they can't expect it to be answered, and I mean by that that they shouldn't ask for true answers about such matters because no knowingly true answers are possible. I do think people can ask 'why' meaning that they want a justified theoretical answer, but perhaps we should invent a new word for that because I don't think that is the language typically spoken.

When a scienctist say "why", it is only in the sea of interrelated details connected facts that gives the impression that they know why. They don t know why.

 

[theName()]

Hmm, I see that was I said is not exactly correct because why questions always concern causes and all causal theory is of the justified/unjustified category. So really why questions should be understood as being necessarily independent of the truth. The only truth that one knows is what one perceives, like that snow is white. We should not suffer the fantasy that language is a means to the truth.

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 eventually even doubt yourself. I think it is meaningless