4 ms·

1) There are a number of physics equations that generalize physical equations--Lagrangian mechanics. (IANAP, but I have a physicist friend.) 2) It is a misc

1) There are a number of physics equations that generalize physical equations--Lagrangian mechanics. (IANAP, but I have a physicist friend.) 2) It is a misconception that physics can trace the whole history of the universe, or even any part of it. The Holy Grail Unified Theory is not a full descriptor of our universe, it is a full descriptor of the _forces_ of our universe. 3) There's something in your language that makes me feel like you're not really tackling the question completely. "Speaking purely subjectively" might be part of it--as if one can speak purely objectively. Maybe it's just that _no_ system could ever adequately answer that question. Why anything? Why doesn't the universe not exist? The question itself is temptingly meaningful, but ultimately empty, since it itself is part of the universe. I don't even know how to begin constructing the universe's not existing in my mind. So it's not a fault of science that it does not answer that question. It at least has the wisdom not to try.

drewcrawford 16y ago
>So it's not a fault of science that it does not answer that question. Similarly, it's not the question's fault that science cannot answer it. I say "subjectively" because it is not an objective fact that the question has value or is meaningful. Clearly, you and many others view it as "empty". I don't. In that sense the value or utility of the question is subjective.
- Helianthus16 16y ago
  I don't particularly view it as empty, I just think it lies outside the framework of practicality. It's like asking about the nature of hobbits. (Actually, this does have practical provenance in certain circles, but let's try to overlook that for a bit.) Hobbit qualities can be essentially whatever we want them to be, so their precise nature only matters insofar as they reflect our desires. We desire to hold true to Tolkien's vision, so we accept his details as truth and might extrapolate a bit here and there. That doesn't mean the question has any bearing on reality. Similarly, I could ask, why isn't there a force that could destroy our reality retroactively, eating through space and time a la the Nothing of the Never-Ending Story? And the answer is more or less, if it happened, we would know (or rather, not know anymore) by now. The question assumes that there could be such a thing. I suppose I view "Why doesn't the universe not exist?" in the same light.

drewcrawford 16y ago

>So it's not a fault of science that it does not answer that question. Similarly, it's not the question's fault that science cannot answer it. I say "subjectively" because it is not an objective fact that the question has value or is meaningful. Clearly, you and many others view it as "empty". I don't. In that sense the value or utility of the question is subjective.

Helianthus16 16y ago
I don't particularly view it as empty, I just think it lies outside the framework of practicality. It's like asking about the nature of hobbits. (Actually, this does have practical provenance in certain circles, but let's try to overlook that for a bit.) Hobbit qualities can be essentially whatever we want them to be, so their precise nature only matters insofar as they reflect our desires. We desire to hold true to Tolkien's vision, so we accept his details as truth and might extrapolate a bit here and there. That doesn't mean the question has any bearing on reality. Similarly, I could ask, why isn't there a force that could destroy our reality retroactively, eating through space and time a la the Nothing of the Never-Ending Story? And the answer is more or less, if it happened, we would know (or rather, not know anymore) by now. The question assumes that there could be such a thing. I suppose I view "Why doesn't the universe not exist?" in the same light.