3 ms·

The universe seems to be built in layers. Science, Math, and logic in that order with logic at the very bottom. So logic is always PART of the answer as it's ju

The universe seems to be built in layers. Science, Math, and logic in that order with logic at the very bottom. So logic is always PART of the answer as it's just a layer on the bottom of everything. The thing is, I would imagine the answer to the question "why?" is on some hidden layer below logic. But the buck stops there. Even the very thought of predicting that there's a hidden layer has to involve logic. To get at the hidden layer we have to remove the upper layer of logic and therefore the process of thought itself. How is this even possible? We can't go further. It's beyond us. But I get what your saying. You think the answer exists on the side or the upper layers. Science and beyond.

bawolff 5y ago
Not entirely what my view is. Although arguably much depends on the meaning of the word "why" My original point was: say logic is false. That's hard to concieve of, and if so we basically can't reason. The rules of logic are independent of the physical world in a way the physical world following QM is not. I wouldn't say it is gradual layers but a hard line between physical and non-physical theories. As to your point - i disagree although i think we have different conceptions of "why". We'll never answer it in the sense of some creator saying "because i thought it'd be funny", but we can motivate the choice. We can make arguments that it is the most "natural" or "simple" system that meets requirements. Or most "elegant". Arguably that would probably all be post-hoc justification, but its still an interesting exercise.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  Elegance and natural and simple are just attributes of a system. There is no law that says all systems must be elegant. You're saying finding attributes of a mathematical model to be simple or elegant answers this question of "why?". For me such an attribute is arbitrary. If we determine something to be elegant it doesn't mean anything at all. But "why" is it elegant means something.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    I think the underlying (somewhat irrational) claim is that nature prefers to work in elegant ways. Thus if you can show that QM is the most elegant solution under some contraints, it helps explain the "why".

bawolff 5y ago

Not entirely what my view is. Although arguably much depends on the meaning of the word "why" My original point was: say logic is false. That's hard to concieve of, and if so we basically can't reason. The rules of logic are independent of the physical world in a way the physical world following QM is not. I wouldn't say it is gradual layers but a hard line between physical and non-physical theories. As to your point - i disagree although i think we have different conceptions of "why". We'll never answer it in the sense of some creator saying "because i thought it'd be funny", but we can motivate the choice. We can make arguments that it is the most "natural" or "simple" system that meets requirements. Or most "elegant". Arguably that would probably all be post-hoc justification, but its still an interesting exercise.

deltaonefour 5y ago
Elegance and natural and simple are just attributes of a system. There is no law that says all systems must be elegant. You're saying finding attributes of a mathematical model to be simple or elegant answers this question of "why?". For me such an attribute is arbitrary. If we determine something to be elegant it doesn't mean anything at all. But "why" is it elegant means something.
- bawolff 5y ago
  I think the underlying (somewhat irrational) claim is that nature prefers to work in elegant ways. Thus if you can show that QM is the most elegant solution under some contraints, it helps explain the "why".