3 ms·

Is "why" really a meaningful question? These are all models. The best we can do is to show how to derive the phenomenon from the (hopefully simple) rules of our

Is "why" really a meaningful question? These are all models. The best we can do is to show how to derive the phenomenon from the (hopefully simple) rules of our model.

SilasX 1y ago
It's relative. I operationalize "why is X true?" as "update my worldmodel to the point that X is not surprising". The typical way to do that is to show a more general rule that applies, and which implies X. But yes, you can keep asking the question about the more general rule. Why do things fall? -> A special case of the general law of gravitation. Why does reality adhere to the general law of gravitation? A implication of matter distorting the shape of spacetime. Why is reality such that matter distorts space-time?
thaumasiotes 1y ago
> Is "why" really a meaningful question? ...of course? If you want something that won't fall down, your only options are (1) luck into noticing something that already does that, or (2) understand why things fall down, so you can prevent your thing from falling.
- tralarpa 1y ago
  > ...of course? No, it isn't. That sounds strange, right? But here is an explanation what eternauta3k probably meant: In modern physics, there is a kind of consensus that asking “why” has often been inappropriate or even misleading and should be therefore left to philosophers. The real questions are: Does our current model describe all observations? If not, can we find a model that does? And, even better, can that new model make predictions that we can verify?
  - mensetmanusman 1y ago
    Newton’s title has philosophy in it. It’s probably a modern error to separate all the fields and ignore philosophy when doing science etc and vice versa.
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    > The real questions are: Does our current model describe all observations? If not, can we find a model that does? And, even better, can that new model make predictions that we can verify? But every prediction your model can make comes from a "why" question that the model answers.
brianpan 1y ago
I think so. The why can be a powerful and compact way to express the elements of a model, when a model can be applied, and when the model might break down. A complicated model without a WHY might not be easily understood by others. A surprising, new result with a good WHY can point the way to other aspects of the model that might be confirmed or disproved. Think about how much our understanding of atoms has changed. I think the why is an important part of the development. If you're interested in that topic, how about a 35 min nuclear physics primer from Angela Collier (I love her videos!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osflPlZdF_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osflPlZdF_o

Is "why" really a meaningful question? These are all models. The best we can do is to show how to derive the phenomenon from the (hopefully simple) rules of our model.

SilasX 1y ago

It's relative. I operationalize "why is X true?" as "update my worldmodel to the point that X is not surprising". The typical way to do that is to show a more general rule that applies, and which implies X. But yes, you can keep asking the question about the more general rule. Why do things fall? -> A special case of the general law of gravitation. Why does reality adhere to the general law of gravitation? A implication of matter distorting the shape of spacetime. Why is reality such that matter distorts space-time?

thaumasiotes 1y ago

> Is "why" really a meaningful question? ...of course? If you want something that won't fall down, your only options are (1) luck into noticing something that already does that, or (2) understand why things fall down, so you can prevent your thing from falling.

tralarpa 1y ago
> ...of course? No, it isn't. That sounds strange, right? But here is an explanation what eternauta3k probably meant: In modern physics, there is a kind of consensus that asking “why” has often been inappropriate or even misleading and should be therefore left to philosophers. The real questions are: Does our current model describe all observations? If not, can we find a model that does? And, even better, can that new model make predictions that we can verify?
- mensetmanusman 1y ago
  Newton’s title has philosophy in it. It’s probably a modern error to separate all the fields and ignore philosophy when doing science etc and vice versa.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  > The real questions are: Does our current model describe all observations? If not, can we find a model that does? And, even better, can that new model make predictions that we can verify? But every prediction your model can make comes from a "why" question that the model answers.

brianpan 1y ago

I think so. The why can be a powerful and compact way to express the elements of a model, when a model can be applied, and when the model might break down. A complicated model without a WHY might not be easily understood by others. A surprising, new result with a good WHY can point the way to other aspects of the model that might be confirmed or disproved. Think about how much our understanding of atoms has changed. I think the why is an important part of the development. If you're interested in that topic, how about a 35 min nuclear physics primer from Angela Collier (I love her videos!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osflPlZdF_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osflPlZdF_o