3 ms·

Those "why" questions are exactly what math and science do not answer (: Not saying that philosophy or religion is particularly good at answering them either,

Those "why" questions are exactly what math and science do not answer (: Not saying that philosophy or religion is particularly good at answering them either, but that's more the domain you're getting into, I think. Brief excerpt from this Feynman interview[1] "Say pop, I noticed something: when I pull the wagon, the ball rolls to the back ... and when I'm pulling along and I suddenly stop, the ball rolls to the *front* of the wagon." And I said: "why is that?" And he said: "That, nobody knows. But the general principle is that things that are moving tend to keep on moving, and things that are standing still tend to stand still... This tendency is called "inertia," but nobody knows why it is true." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjUSO4u2di0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjUSO4u2di0

esahione 3y ago
That's absolutely not true. Science and mathematics are constantly placing forward why questions. Placing an arbitrary barrier on the questions that can be asked is called dogma. Example: Noether's Theorems explain why there are conservation laws. There are conservation laws because the universe observes certain symmetries.
- turtledragonfly 3y ago
  I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you missed my point. In your example, you just moved the question of "why are there conservation laws" to "why are there symmetries?" The answer is still that we don't know. Though as you point out, understanding the relationship between the two is useful! > Placing an arbitrary barrier on the questions that can be asked is called dogma. I did not mean to place a barrier. It is fine to ask the question. But it is also fine (and honest) to answer it with "we don't know." Edit: of course, please do not interpret "we don't know" as "we shouldn't try to find out" (:
  - esahione 3y ago
    Ok - but there was a why question, and now there's another one. Those are questions that we can and do answer. Therefore your initial statement is simply false.
    - turtledragonfly 3y ago
      I disagree. There was a "why X" question, and then an equivalence was observed, saying "X = Y" (which is useful, to be sure), but at the end of the process, there is still only one "why" question — "why X" and "why Y" are now shown to be equivalent, but the question remains unanswered. Maybe we disagree on what "why" even means, though (:
      - esahione 3y ago
        "Why" is a question that is aims to answer the cause of a property or effect. Why do apples fall from trees? Gravity. Why does gravity exist? Because matter bends space. Why does matter bend space? We don't know yet. Ultimately, any X is either caused or uncaused. Not "X=Y", but either "Y=>X" or "X exists" - the latter being uncaused. This is pretty basic philosophy.
        turtledragonfly 3y ago
        You bring a small constellation of points to mind; sorry for the multi-part reply: 1. The original question was about the natural world, not math, and I'd say that the connection between the two is not guaranteed by anything. So any conclusion in math does not dictate reality. We simply have no "givens" in reality to work from. Though certainly mathematical models are useful. 2. Going back to your Noether example: are you saying that conservation laws are caused by symmetries? If the theorem says "X => Y", then does that mean Y is "caused by" X? I don't think so. It just means that if you observe X, you can be sure Y is there too. Suppose later we find out additional information: Y => X Now, we have "X <=> Y", and certainly it would be unfair to say one of these "causes" the other, no? That would fall in your "uncaused" category, I believe. 3. The scientific method does not prove things to be true, ever. It only disproves wrong theories, by providing counterexamples. So, if you have a theory about "why" something is a certain way, you will never fully confirm it with the scientific method. You will only discover when one of your proposals was wrong, never that it was right. It may be the case that a lot of people try very hard to prove it wrong, and fail. And it may be the case that it is useful at predicting the future and other novelties. But it could still be wrong, and you would never know — maybe the counterexample will be found tomorrow. ---- I really do think the bedrock answer to "why do apples fall from trees" is "we don't know." There's just a lot of interesting stuff to be discovered in the (failed) attempt at answering it, in the meantime.

esahione 3y ago

That's absolutely not true. Science and mathematics are constantly placing forward why questions. Placing an arbitrary barrier on the questions that can be asked is called dogma. Example: Noether's Theorems explain why there are conservation laws. There are conservation laws because the universe observes certain symmetries.

turtledragonfly 3y ago
I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you missed my point. In your example, you just moved the question of "why are there conservation laws" to "why are there symmetries?" The answer is still that we don't know. Though as you point out, understanding the relationship between the two is useful! > Placing an arbitrary barrier on the questions that can be asked is called dogma. I did not mean to place a barrier. It is fine to ask the question. But it is also fine (and honest) to answer it with "we don't know." Edit: of course, please do not interpret "we don't know" as "we shouldn't try to find out" (:
- esahione 3y ago
  Ok - but there was a why question, and now there's another one. Those are questions that we can and do answer. Therefore your initial statement is simply false.
  - turtledragonfly 3y ago
    I disagree. There was a "why X" question, and then an equivalence was observed, saying "X = Y" (which is useful, to be sure), but at the end of the process, there is still only one "why" question — "why X" and "why Y" are now shown to be equivalent, but the question remains unanswered. Maybe we disagree on what "why" even means, though (:
    - esahione 3y ago
      "Why" is a question that is aims to answer the cause of a property or effect. Why do apples fall from trees? Gravity. Why does gravity exist? Because matter bends space. Why does matter bend space? We don't know yet. Ultimately, any X is either caused or uncaused. Not "X=Y", but either "Y=>X" or "X exists" - the latter being uncaused. This is pretty basic philosophy.
      - turtledragonfly 3y ago
        You bring a small constellation of points to mind; sorry for the multi-part reply: 1. The original question was about the natural world, not math, and I'd say that the connection between the two is not guaranteed by anything. So any conclusion in math does not dictate reality. We simply have no "givens" in reality to work from. Though certainly mathematical models are useful. 2. Going back to your Noether example: are you saying that conservation laws are caused by symmetries? If the theorem says "X => Y", then does that mean Y is "caused by" X? I don't think so. It just means that if you observe X, you can be sure Y is there too. Suppose later we find out additional information: Y => X Now, we have "X <=> Y", and certainly it would be unfair to say one of these "causes" the other, no? That would fall in your "uncaused" category, I believe. 3. The scientific method does not prove things to be true, ever. It only disproves wrong theories, by providing counterexamples. So, if you have a theory about "why" something is a certain way, you will never fully confirm it with the scientific method. You will only discover when one of your proposals was wrong, never that it was right. It may be the case that a lot of people try very hard to prove it wrong, and fail. And it may be the case that it is useful at predicting the future and other novelties. But it could still be wrong, and you would never know — maybe the counterexample will be found tomorrow. ---- I really do think the bedrock answer to "why do apples fall from trees" is "we don't know." There's just a lot of interesting stuff to be discovered in the (failed) attempt at answering it, in the meantime.