Nigel Posted October 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 29, 2013 How and why are the same in this context. On a pragmatic level, how something is happening is also precisely why it is happening. It is following its laws. Some of which we know and some of which we don't yet know. As for the reasons. Some peoples' pre-occupation with trying to perhaps put some spiritual meaning to it all will ultimately be their frustration. 'Why' did someone/something do it or 'why' did someone/something put us here. In that sense, for those people, that's the 'why' that can't be answered and never will be. By 'why' Id assume he was talking less about motive (which would be a human construct) but rather why would the rules follow as they do. In which case it wouldnt be the same as 'how'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaguy Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) Yeah Nigel that's my point, the how is pretty much the mechanics of the subject, the why would be what leads to them behaving in the way the subject does so. In no way would I suggest there is a motive or creator behind the universe, however nothing can be ruled out. Edited October 29, 2013 by villaguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 29, 2013 Moderator Share Posted October 29, 2013 Well if we accept that physical things will interact with each other in certain ways based on their properties and the properties of everything around them then the 'why' is exactly that. They are behaving like that why? It is dictated by the physical properties of everthing and because of the way everything interacts with everything else. Which is also the 'how', which goes back to my original point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaguy Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Well if we accept that physical things will interact with each other in certain ways based on their properties and the properties of everything around them then the 'why' is exactly that. They are behaving like that why? It is dictated by the physical properties of everthing and because of the way everything interacts with everything else. Which is also the 'how', which goes back to my original point. There would be absolutely no need for theoretical science if everything was to be just accepted as they are though, and then there would be no breakthroughs in understanding. The fact is we don't fully understand things, so it is important to ask questions to look for answers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted October 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 29, 2013 Yeah Nigel that's my point, the how is pretty much the mechanics of the subject, the why would be what leads to them behaving in the way the subject does so. In know way would I suggest there is a motive or creator behind the universe, however nothing can be ruled out. I had a very interesting talk once with a particle physicist who also happened to be a devout Christian (True story). The obvious question had to be asked in that the two would seem to be at odds with each other. His reply was simple and unanswerable...what created the singularity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 29, 2013 Moderator Share Posted October 29, 2013 Oh I'm not saying don't ask. Quite the opposite. I'm just saying that particular question can't really yield any answer as it's almost a philosophical one. The answer to that question is that the laws are there. The question that needs answering IMHO is 'What are those laws? And I mean all of them'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted October 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 29, 2013 Well if we accept that physical things will interact with each other in certain ways based on their properties and the properties of everything around them then the 'why' is exactly that. They are behaving like that why? It is dictated by the physical properties of everthing and because of the way everything interacts with everything else. Which is also the 'how', which goes back to my original point. But its not the same thing. For example we knew all about gravity before we knew why it existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaguy Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Oh I'm not saying don't ask. Quite the opposite. I'm just saying that particular question can't really yield any answer as it's almost a philosophical one. The answer to that question is that the laws are there. The question that needs answering IMHO is 'What are those laws? And I mean all of them'. Yeah that's what I meant by 'why'. Just a re-worked version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 29, 2013 Moderator Share Posted October 29, 2013 Well if we accept that physical things will interact with each other in certain ways based on their properties and the properties of everything around them then the 'why' is exactly that. They are behaving like that why? It is dictated by the physical properties of everthing and because of the way everything interacts with everything else. Which is also the 'how', which goes back to my original point.But its not the same thing. For example we knew all about gravity before we knew why it existed.Which is exactly why we just need to know all the laws. I think we're getting too hung up on interpreting the word 'why' as it's just as valid to say we now know 'how' gravity works or 'what' it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 29, 2013 Yeah Nigel that's my point, the how is pretty much the mechanics of the subject, the why would be what leads to them behaving in the way the subject does so. In know way would I suggest there is a motive or creator behind the universe, however nothing can be ruled out. I had a very interesting talk once with a particle physicist who also happened to be a devout Christian (True story). The obvious question had to be asked in that the two would seem to be at odds with each other. His reply was simple and unanswerable...what created the singularity? Well, quite clearly, the Abrahamic God of the Bible, father of Jesus, enemy of all other religions, which are clearly incorrect. All the evidence points to it, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 We're in a computer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 29, 2013 Moderator Share Posted October 29, 2013 We're in a computer.A computer wouldn't allow the levels of speling and, grammar that are on the interweb so that's a non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 We're in a computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Yeah Nigel that's my point, the how is pretty much the mechanics of the subject, the why would be what leads to them behaving in the way the subject does so. In know way would I suggest there is a motive or creator behind the universe, however nothing can be ruled out. I had a very interesting talk once with a particle physicist who also happened to be a devout Christian (True story). The obvious question had to be asked in that the two would seem to be at odds with each other. His reply was simple and unanswerable...what created the singularity? That is known as the 'first cause' argument. The problem with it of course, is that something must have caused God to exist and therefore 'He' cannot be said to have all the properties those who believe in him say that he possesses. It is defeated by its own implicit logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 29, 2013 Correct. It is no more absurd or irrational to posit a universe that needs no creator, than it is to posit a creator that needs no creator. In fact, applying Occam's Razor, it's less so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaguy Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 I certainly am not religious, I still think why is a question that needs to be asked to better understand what we don't. It's fine being able to model scenarios, but surely we should strive to be able to know the reasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted October 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 29, 2013 Yeah Nigel that's my point, the how is pretty much the mechanics of the subject, the why would be what leads to them behaving in the way the subject does so. In know way would I suggest there is a motive or creator behind the universe, however nothing can be ruled out. I had a very interesting talk once with a particle physicist who also happened to be a devout Christian (True story). The obvious question had to be asked in that the two would seem to be at odds with each other. His reply was simple and unanswerable...what created the singularity? Well, quite clearly, the Abrahamic God of the Bible, father of Jesus, enemy of all other religions, which are clearly incorrect. All the evidence points to it, doesn't it? I think the point he was making was that the question still remains, thus a belief can still survive even for a scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted October 29, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 29, 2013 Yeah Nigel that's my point, the how is pretty much the mechanics of the subject, the why would be what leads to them behaving in the way the subject does so. In know way would I suggest there is a motive or creator behind the universe, however nothing can be ruled out. I had a very interesting talk once with a particle physicist who also happened to be a devout Christian (True story). The obvious question had to be asked in that the two would seem to be at odds with each other. His reply was simple and unanswerable...what created the singularity? That is known as the 'first cause' argument. The problem with it of course, is that something must have caused God to exist and therefore 'He' cannot be said to have all the properties those who believe in him say that he possesses. It is defeated by its own implicit logic. Religion does not deal in logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Yeah Nigel that's my point, the how is pretty much the mechanics of the subject, the why would be what leads to them behaving in the way the subject does so. In know way would I suggest there is a motive or creator behind the universe, however nothing can be ruled out. I had a very interesting talk once with a particle physicist who also happened to be a devout Christian (True story). The obvious question had to be asked in that the two would seem to be at odds with each other. His reply was simple and unanswerable...what created the singularity? Well, quite clearly, the Abrahamic God of the Bible, father of Jesus, enemy of all other religions, which are clearly incorrect. All the evidence points to it, doesn't it? I think the point he was making was that the question still remains, thus a belief can still survive even for a scientist. The original anecdote, which is typical of those much beloved by believers, suggested that there was something rationally consistent between the scientist's scientific beliefs and his religious beliefs. This proved to be false on examination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaguy Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 I'm not even close to being religious, assumptions shouldn't ever come near a science thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts