There should be a reason for everything

[kant89]

I think that if we hold that everything in the universe can be explain, then it should also be possible to explain the laws of physics and the existence of physical matter without appealing to some supernational set of laws or a supernational god. we need a theory that explain why the laws of nature is the way it is, and why it has the form that it does. unfortunity, everytime when some one seek to explain why the laws of nature is the way it is, it must also invoke a "higher" level sets of laws. EX: If string theory is correct, then we still need a theory to tell us why strings exist, and why string has the property that it does, and why the sting is a string or no a dognut-namely, we need to prove uniqueness. So far, all our scientific theories fail the above criterions, becauses they all appeal to something. A theory of everything would be a theory with no chance, no purpose, or reason. Such theory would allow us to see that existence demand a unique universe with a unique set of laws, without appeal to god. On the contrary, if you claim that there is no reason why things are the way they are, then the whole of the universe and the scientific enterprise is based on no reason at all, and therefore unscientific.


If we are successful in coming up with a such a theory, then we should be able to completely create a universe without using the laws of nature( Because our theory would tell us where the laws of nature come from), and without using any energ(becauses our theory would explain the existence of matter and energy).

 

[§outh§tar]

I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about. There is no sense in which physical laws model ("explain") the universe. At most you might say the physical laws coincide and are compatible with past observation but there is no sense in which laws are explanations. That is like saying Newton's 3 laws are "explanations" of anything.

Explanations are just that. Artificial.

And don't nobody go quotin' me no Popper up in here.

 

[kant89]

I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about. There is no sense in which physical laws model ("explain") the universe. At most you might say the physical laws coincide and are compatible with past observation but there is no sense in which laws are explanations. That is like saying Newton's 3 laws are "explanations" of anything.

Explanations are just that. Artificial.

And don't nobody go quotin' me no Popper up in here.

Where did i say the physical laws model the universe? or that laws are explanations? or That laws are explanation of anything? Some how we need to show that the universe is completely unique, and determined a priori. As for gravitation, we need to be completely certain as to why mass attract, because the otherwise option is absurdity. It just my opinion, but in order for us to be completely that the laws of nature is unique, we need to know why those laws are they way they are without appeal to something supernatural.

 

[§outh§tar]

I put ("explain") next to model to show the sense I was thinking of and which you were (seemingly) conflating it with.

In short, your statement:

we need a theory that explain why the laws of nature is the way it is[...]

presupposes there is some "explanation" to be found. As I noted, explanations are artificial and thus the issue you raised is really a non-issue.

If you still think my interpretation was hasty I encourage you to reread your post:

unfortunity, everytime when some one seek to explain why the laws of nature is the way it is, it must also invoke a "higher" level sets of laws

What you wrote clearly implies that we "invoke a 'higher' level sets of laws [of nature]" in order to explain 'lower' laws of nature. In other words, we use "higher" laws of nature to explain laws of nature.

 

[kant89]

presupposes there is some "explanation" to be found. As I noted, explanations are artificial and thus the issue you raised is really a non-issue.

But explanation need not include laws. Explanation can be apriori. Ex:We know that a circle is such that all points are equal distince to the certer point. Note that i can explane what a circle is without using the laws of nature.

 

[kant89]

What you wrote clearly implies that we "invoke a 'higher' level sets of laws [of nature]" in order to explain 'lower' laws of nature. In other words, we use "higher" laws of nature to explain laws of nature.

But then those higher set of laws are unexplane? Where do those higher laws come from? That is why i think we need a way to show that there is not higher laws. That our laws is complete unique, and cannot be otherwise. We also need to know where the matter-energy in the universe come from without appealing to established dogmas( ie laws of nature).

 

[Baron Max]

That is why i think we need a way to show that there is not higher laws. That our laws is complete unique, and cannot be otherwise. We also need to know where the matter-energy in the universe come from without appealing to established dogmas( ie laws of nature).

So ...go ahead and do it, what's stopping you?

When you're all done, publish your explanation and we'll all review it.

Baron Max

 

[kant89]

So ...go ahead and do it, what's stopping you?

When you're all done, publish your explanation and we'll all review it.

Baron Max

I post my thread in a "philosophy" forum, right? my aim is high. you see, i want to create a universe from nothing, and using no laws of physics at all. I think this is possible in principle.

 

[Baron Max]

I post my thread in a "philosophy" forum, right? my aim is high. you see, i want to create a universe from nothing, and using no laws of physics at all. I think this is possible in principle.

So, ...go ahead and do it, what's stopping you?

When you're all done, publish your explanation and we'll all review it.

Baron Max

 

[Victor E]

Very intresting thread actually, I agree with the topic creator. And I think that's the final goal with all science - too find the real reason.

Maybe the right path to finding the solution goes through philosophy and not through usual science too.

To those whose posts are of no value:
Please stop act like retards and read what he wrote instead of flaming something you don't understand.

 

[kant89]

So, ...go ahead and do it, what's stopping you?

When you're all done, publish your explanation and we'll all review it.

Baron Max

I let you know on my secret-> This is a philosophy forum.

 

[Ripley]

Explanations are just that. Artificial.

No, superficial. Surface. The nature of appearances.

Insights, however…

And I think that's the final goal with all science - to find the real reason.

Interesting, and I'm sure you're correct, i.e., as wishful thinking—but that would only serve to expose the dreary thudded mind content with the superficial.

 

[Victor E]

Originally Posted by Victor E
And I think that's the final goal with all science - to find the real reason. ”

Interesting, and I'm sure you're correct, i.e., as wishful thinking—but that would only serve to expose the dreary thudded mind content with the superficial.

Yes, maybe it's wishful thinking. But on the other hand geniuses exists to make reality of wishful thinkings.

Also I am more intrested in finding reasons than finding facts. I'll leave such mindless work as finding facts to the chemists.

 

[Ripley]

Yes, maybe it's wishful thinking. But on the other hand geniuses exists to make reality of wishful thinkings.

Ah—now you're jumping ship and talking about insightful individuals. Fine. But I'll agree, a genius is a lonely, atypical person—an outsider—espousing for himself an institution, such as a branch in science to occupy his mind with—or espousing any of the creative arts, for that matter.

Also I am more intrested in finding reasons than finding facts.

What's the difference between a reason and a fact? Can a reason become a fact? Or do facts stem from reason?

 

[Oli]

But on the other hand geniuses exists to make reality of wishful thinkings.

Geniuses EXIST.
They don't exist BECAUSE there is a need to to make reality of wishful thinking. It's a by-product of their existence.

 

[§outh§tar]

But then those higher set of laws are unexplane? Where do those higher laws come from? That is why i think we need a way to show that there is not higher laws. That our laws is complete unique, and cannot be otherwise. We also need to know where the matter-energy in the universe come from without appealing to established dogmas( ie laws of nature).

The relevance of Hume's injunction against (this sort of) epistemological speculation:

And tho' we must endeavour to render all our principles as universal as possible, by tracing up our experiments to the utmost, and explaining all effects from the simplest and fewest causes, 'tis still certain we cannot go beyond experience; and any hypothesis, that pretends to discover the ultimate original qualities of human nature, ought at first to be rejected as presumptuous and chimerical. (Intro. 8, A Treatise of Human Nature)

Hear also Goethes' caution:

The highest to which man can attain, is wonder; and if the prime phenomenon makes him wonder, let him be content; nothing higher can it give him, and nothing further should he seek for behind it - here is the limit (qtd. in The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler).

 

[glaucon]

I'm afraid SouthStar is entirely correct here.


You seem to be stuck in some sort or Rationalist position with respect to both ontology and epistemology.

...
Some how we need to show that the universe is completely unique, and determined a priori.
...

Why?

If you're going to make use of this position as some sort of premiss, then you need to explicate this position, and then provide some support.

Simply saying that something is 'needed' is insufficient.

There is little, if anything, that could be properly said to be 'needed'.

p.s.:

Take heed of Hume's Fork; even Kant recognized that thereby any a priori was rendered impossible (more correctly, impossible to be determined as such..).

 

[Victor E]

The relevance of Hume's injunction against (this sort of) epistemological speculation:


“ And tho' we must endeavour to render all our principles as universal as possible, by tracing up our experiments to the utmost, and explaining all effects from the simplest and fewest causes, 'tis still certain we cannot go beyond experience; and any hypothesis, that pretends to discover the ultimate original qualities of human nature, ought at first to be rejected as presumptuous and chimerical. (Intro. 8, A Treatise of Human Nature) ”

Hear also Goethes' caution:


“ The highest to which man can attain, is wonder; and if the prime phenomenon makes him wonder, let him be content; nothing higher can it give him, and nothing further should he seek for behind it - here is the limit (qtd. in The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler). ”

Good quotes. The question is: Can we break these boundaries? Can we attain a higher level of understanding? Lots of times throughout history people have said: We've reached the limit. But yet, the boundaries has kept being pushed back.

“ Originally Posted by Victor E
But on the other hand geniuses exists to make reality of wishful thinkings. ”

Geniuses EXIST.
They don't exist BECAUSE there is a need to to make reality of wishful thinking. It's a by-product of their existence.

That was what I meant, and you know that was what I meant. So why even comment it?

“ Also I am more intrested in finding reasons than finding facts. ”

What's the difference between a reason and a fact? Can a reason become a fact? Or do facts stem from reason?

Well, I'm seeing it as a ladder with a lot of different levels, the step above is the reason for the fact below, and that reason is just a fact of the reason above it. So ultimately we'll reach the top of the ladder: and find the real reason.

 

[Oli]

That was what I meant, and you know that was what I meant. So why even comment it?

Because I didn't know that was what you meant.
Have you tried actually saying what you mean instead of leaving it up to others to decipher your meaning?

 

[Victor E]

Because I didn't know that was what you meant.
Have you tried actually saying what you mean instead of leaving it up to others to decipher your meaning?

Sorry, it wasn't my purpose to write in such a way that only 90-95% of the readers would understand.