3 ms·

You shouldn't say there is no why if you simply don't know. You should say I don't know what the why is yet. Otherwise, you might actually believe yourself. I c

You shouldn't say there is no why if you simply don't know. You should say I don't know what the why is yet. Otherwise, you might actually believe yourself. I can tell you the why for some of those things that you had no idea had an explanation before. it's like how doctors used to say, there is no cure for X for years and years until at last it turns out that there are multiple treatment pathways.

drdeca 3y ago
> You should say I don't know what the why is yet. I think this seems to make the opposite assumption, which also seems questionable. Rather than “I don’t know the ‘why’ “, I think it would be better to say “I don’t know if there is a ‘why’, nor what it is if there is one.” . Though, really, I think the question of “why” in this context, is a little unclear as to what exactly it is asking? Like, what properties would a statement have to have in order to be a satisfactory answer to the question? Like, if something like color confinement is inevitable assuming SU(3) symmetry, would this answer “why” hadrons exist? Or, if the fact by itself wouldn’t, would this fact, along with a mathematical proof of it, arranged in a way reflecting the core ideas of the proof, constitute a “why hadrons exist”? Or, is the question asking something more, like, “why is there something rather than nothing?” ? Is it asking for the first cause?
- blueprint 3y ago
  > Rather than “I don’t know the ‘why’ “, I think it would be better to say “I don’t know if there is a ‘why’, nor what it is if there is one.” . Yes, very nice! But I didn't want to go down that rabbithole as you actually need more correction factors... because a person who doesn't know, doesn't know if they know or not. ;) But functionally, they can't say they "know" - they are not conscious - so they don't know if they know or not, and they don't know what knowledge they have may contain a "why" or not, etc., i.e. there is great knowledge in history but people don't realize or have forgotten what resides in their own consciousness or history yet. > Though, really, I think the question of “why” in this context, is a little unclear as to what exactly it is asking? Also very good. 'how' and 'why' converge. That's why a person should make clear what they're asking. Just because 'why' and 'how' converge doesn't mean 'why' is meaningless or useless. In fact, why does something exist is different from how, since any "how" explanation is implicitly about a process of existence, yet a "why" sometimes explains mechanisms that do not "exist" yet cause what exists. That's why understanding this and enunciating it perfectly is a little beyond human eyesight for now. Philosophy exists for a reason and it's not just bullshit some thinkers made up (nor does it culminate with some semi-Wittgensteinian cop-out that words are the best we can do. What a nonsense self-contradiction). Why means many things. People should stop conflating them and ask one by one concretely what they want to know if they truly want to know. But many people can't even realize what their real questions are without some dialogue. Why there is something rather than nothing is that nothing can't exist. One little modern explanation: the moment you put boundary conditions on, you get virtual particles. QFT is clear about that. Without boundary conditions or a metric, there is no way to even consider the notion of a vacuum or nothingness. Answering your question involving SU(3) symmetry requires you understand why/how SU(3) is pre-determined. The place where "why" and "how" diverges is when involving a subject: "why am I alive" vs "how am I alive". The second one is a lot easier to answer if you consider only the biological. If you don't understand what the point of life is, it will be a lot harder to understand your distant past and a lot harder to understand your ultimate "why" i.e. your path and your purpose in this life. Consider what you know, for starters: you are like a child in this universe, growing up and learning through your life. When someone has to learn and grow, it means they're on the path to realization, mastery, and complete knowledge. I'll leave it at that for now.

drdeca 3y ago

> You should say I don't know what the why is yet. I think this seems to make the opposite assumption, which also seems questionable. Rather than “I don’t know the ‘why’ “, I think it would be better to say “I don’t know if there is a ‘why’, nor what it is if there is one.” . Though, really, I think the question of “why” in this context, is a little unclear as to what exactly it is asking? Like, what properties would a statement have to have in order to be a satisfactory answer to the question? Like, if something like color confinement is inevitable assuming SU(3) symmetry, would this answer “why” hadrons exist? Or, if the fact by itself wouldn’t, would this fact, along with a mathematical proof of it, arranged in a way reflecting the core ideas of the proof, constitute a “why hadrons exist”? Or, is the question asking something more, like, “why is there something rather than nothing?” ? Is it asking for the first cause?

blueprint 3y ago
> Rather than “I don’t know the ‘why’ “, I think it would be better to say “I don’t know if there is a ‘why’, nor what it is if there is one.” . Yes, very nice! But I didn't want to go down that rabbithole as you actually need more correction factors... because a person who doesn't know, doesn't know if they know or not. ;) But functionally, they can't say they "know" - they are not conscious - so they don't know if they know or not, and they don't know what knowledge they have may contain a "why" or not, etc., i.e. there is great knowledge in history but people don't realize or have forgotten what resides in their own consciousness or history yet. > Though, really, I think the question of “why” in this context, is a little unclear as to what exactly it is asking? Also very good. 'how' and 'why' converge. That's why a person should make clear what they're asking. Just because 'why' and 'how' converge doesn't mean 'why' is meaningless or useless. In fact, why does something exist is different from how, since any "how" explanation is implicitly about a process of existence, yet a "why" sometimes explains mechanisms that do not "exist" yet cause what exists. That's why understanding this and enunciating it perfectly is a little beyond human eyesight for now. Philosophy exists for a reason and it's not just bullshit some thinkers made up (nor does it culminate with some semi-Wittgensteinian cop-out that words are the best we can do. What a nonsense self-contradiction). Why means many things. People should stop conflating them and ask one by one concretely what they want to know if they truly want to know. But many people can't even realize what their real questions are without some dialogue. Why there is something rather than nothing is that nothing can't exist. One little modern explanation: the moment you put boundary conditions on, you get virtual particles. QFT is clear about that. Without boundary conditions or a metric, there is no way to even consider the notion of a vacuum or nothingness. Answering your question involving SU(3) symmetry requires you understand why/how SU(3) is pre-determined. The place where "why" and "how" diverges is when involving a subject: "why am I alive" vs "how am I alive". The second one is a lot easier to answer if you consider only the biological. If you don't understand what the point of life is, it will be a lot harder to understand your distant past and a lot harder to understand your ultimate "why" i.e. your path and your purpose in this life. Consider what you know, for starters: you are like a child in this universe, growing up and learning through your life. When someone has to learn and grow, it means they're on the path to realization, mastery, and complete knowledge. I'll leave it at that for now.