Text 157, 101 rader
Skriven 2004-09-25 21:57:00 av Guy Hoelzer (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: the why question
============================


in article cj1f0m$s7d$1@darwin.ediacara.org, Anthony Cerrato at
tcerrato@optonline.net wrote on 9/24/04 8:37 AM:

> "Guy Hoelzer" <hoelzer@unr.edu> wrote in message
> news:civ2db$2sf$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>> in article cis9gj$29h0$1@darwin.ediacara.org, Anthony Cerrato at
>> tcerrato@optonline.net wrote on 9/22/04 9:33 AM:
>> 
>>> It isn't the job of scientists to ask "why?"--they only ask how. It is up
to
>>> philosophers and ethicists to probe the "why" questions if they wish. You
>>> must realize that "why" is a man-made concept -- the universe has no
concern
>>> for this concept.
>> 
>> You might be correct, but this viewpoint is inconsistent with the existence
>> of universal laws.
> 
> I assume you mean that universal laws demand a reason for
> their existence?

No.  I meant that your view is inconsistent with the EXISTENCE of universal
laws.  In other words, the existence of a universal law, whether or not we
know of the law, would demonstrate that the universe does indeed have
concern for the concept of "why" in the sense that universal laws would by
definition provide ultimate answers to "why" questions.  My view is that
universal laws, like those of thermodynamics, exist and provide a scientific
basis for asking and answering "why" questions.

> Why (NPI) should they? Anyway, this is
> still more of a "how?" question on a deeper level. We don't
> really even have proper answers to the big "how?"

Answers to "how" questions are not concerned with ultimate causation, the
way that "why" questions are; so they don't generally reach as deep as
universal laws (e.g., thermodynamics).

> questions--how were the values for the physical constants of
> the universe specified...how did the Big Bang "creation
> event" occur, etc.? Ultimately such questions cannot be
> answered--they lie _"outside"_ the universe
> and are undeterminable from within.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the particular questions you listed, but it
would certainly outside the scope of science to even posit the existence of
anything outside of the universe.  That would surely lie exclusively in the
realm of philosophy.  I would argue that universal laws, should they exist,
reflect incontrovertible logics, hence need not emanate from outside the
universe.
 
>>> To ask anything like "why?" is to get the answer "why not?"!
>> 
>> A scientific answer to "why not?" might be something like "it violates one
of
>> the laws of thermodynamics."
> 
> True, but the laws of thermo are really axioms of the universe--they are part
> of all the laws set up when the universe began and there is no way they can
be
> justified, certainly not from "within." To attempt to do so is folly--or at
> least, metaphysics, not science.

There is, of course, no evidence that universal laws were ever conditionally
"set-up," as if the universe could have gone another way.  I disagree with
you on the value of trying to understand the bases of universal laws,
although you might be right.  I think this is all a diversion from my claim,
however, that the existence of universal laws is all that is necessary to
scientifically address "why" questions.
 
>>> All big scientific theories and questions are in fact, in essence, a
>>> tautology; this includes Darwin's Thy. of Evolution, the Anthropic
>>> Principle,and the Fermi Paradox as well as physical theories like classical
>>> and quantum mechanics and more advanced ones.
>>> 
>>> My philosophy is not to ask why we are here and other such questions, but
to
>>> find those reasons within our own lives. Not easy, but it can be done.
>> 
>> I agree with you here.  Ultimately, we are here for the same (thermodynamic,
>> IMHO) reasons that anything else is or has existed, but that answer is
>> probably not the sort of answer that would satisfy anyone asking this
>> question.  It often implicitly assumes, for example, that we are more
special
>> than other things.
> 
> Exactly! And we should have learned long ago that
> anthropocentrism is unscientific. and
> wrong. Bye,        ...tonyC

Cheers,

Guy
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/25/04 9:57:21 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)