Why?

[LiamOS]

This'll probably seem quite incoherent, but it could inspire some rather interesting discussion.

-What is the nature of the question 'why?' in this universe?
-Given its link to causality, must there be a first 'meaningful' cause for 'why?' to applicable in this universe?
-If causality is invalid, is to ask 'why?' objectively meaningless?

[NoisForm]

This'll probably seem quite incoherent...

No, not incoherent at all - and an important observation in my opinion.

The 'why' question of that sort implies that intentionality must be coupled with any given cause. That is, something beyond simple cause, and delving into the territory of meaning with a capital M.

That sort of why question in sociology or psychology might be fine (where it deals explicitly with conscious beings with motives, therefor an intention can be assumed), but in (hard) science, I find it a presumptuous and rather useless question. There is no 'why' in my opinion in those areas, and no reason to think that there should be, outside of our inherent penchant for anthropomorphizing everything.

I debated with a particular theist friend for over a year and decided in the end, that this was a fundamental difference - perhaps the difference - in how we approached these questions. After what I felt was a sufficient answer had been discovered, he then felt the need to ask 'why', and I found it unnecessary (even nonsensical).

[ConiectoErgoSum]

In my opinion, the origin of "why?" is linked to biological evolution.

Yes, linked. But not in the direction you have said. The existence of the concept of "biological evolution" is predicated entirely on the existence of humans with the ability to question "why?".

Let me explain. Normal logical processes go something like this:

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state, when 14 billion years ago expansion started... wait... the earth began to cool, auto-tropes began to drool, Neanderthals developed tools, we built a wall, we built the pyramids... etc.

My logical process goes something like this:

I exist. I have thoughts. I see things and hear things. I learn. I perceive that there are other entities. These other entities convey to me, through my seeing and hearing, that they too think I exist. I wonder why. I begin to study the results of my perception. I call these results "observances" because other entities seem to want to use that nomenclature. I study observances. I perceive trends. I trace my existence back to a very old era. I gather that the whole universe was once, according to the limited information before me, in a hot dense state.

So yes, the origin of "why" is linked. But the link goes like this, for me: Why, therefore, evolution.

Whereas I think your argument goes like this: Evolution, therefore, why.

[Ragna]

Whereas I think your argument goes like this: Evolution, therefore, why.

Yes, well, we indeed have gone through your description of the process to be able to reconstruct what the universe has been like before we started thinking. I think I can put an analogy. Imagine you wake yourself in a dark room and start remembering why you are there. The real story is not dependent on whether you are there or not, that you are there is a result of the story. The order is the true order, if you reverse it you are going into skepticism (which we could discuss separately). Also here I was talking "why" as a mental human structure and therefore the question adverb, but I'm not certain if that's what you mean here.

That we want to discover things' causes or sometimes purposes is a result of our evolution. Most why's are just hidden how's:

- Why is the rock pointy? > How did the rock get pointy from being non-pointy? > What caused the rock to be "pointy"?

These are cause-why's and are just our curiosity to discover the causes of effects we see. Our mental structures to be able to understand these things are a biological adaptation, and therefore here evolution precedes the mental structure needed for us to understand cause-effect.

The other kind of why's are more philosophical or religious why's:

- Why do humans exist? > "What is the purpose of humans?"

I think this question, read like that, would be meaningless, as it's searching for intention where there is not (a personification, an anthropocentric extrapolation). The other question "What caused humans to exist?" or "How did humans get to exist from there being non-humans?" is, in my opinion, the real question and should suffice to explain the observations.

So yea, chronologically: evolution first, then the structures which enable us to perform cause-effect questions and reasonings. If you are referring to our way to know the world, then you are right that we must first use these structures to be able to understand it, but that doesn't affect the order it happened in the world. You hear a noise and you go into a room, and you know that a jar has fallen because you see it torn appart in the floor, but that doesn't mean that the order is: "Pieces, therefore, jar". The true chronological order is "Jar, therefore, pieces".

[ConiectoErgoSum]

Well, I think I at least understand what wavelength you think I'm on... that's a start.

Perhaps a different way of asking Aki's question would clear things up. What is logic? You'd say that "logic" is something that arose out of the physical relationships among particles. (ok maybe that's not exactly what you'd say, but let's go with it).

I'd say logic is defined as "human perception of logic". Is there some absolute logical standard? Maybe there is among humans. There's a logical standard that says "I see fossils, therefore animals existed in the past." But that's a human standard. Another example would be: "According to the rules of logic that exist in my mind, I cannot both exist and not exist". Logically, psyche precedes the very existence even of chronology. Thus I favor a logical progression, not a chronological one.

Your statement, under this mentality, reads as follows:

[Human perception of evolution] first, then the structures which enable us to [perceive].

Out of order, if you ask me.

[Ragna]

Well, I think I at least understand what wavelength you think I'm on... that's a start.

Perhaps a different way of asking Aki's question would clear things up. What is logic? You'd say that "logic" is something that arose out of the physical relationships among particles. (ok maybe that's not exactly what you'd say, but let's go with it).

I'd say logic is defined as "human perception of logic". Is there some absolute logical standard? Maybe there is among humans. There's a logical standard that says "I see fossils, therefore animals existed in the past." But that's a human standard. Another example would be: "According to the rules of logic that exist in my mind, I cannot both exist and not exist". Logically, psyche precedes the very existence even of chronology. Thus I favor a logical progression, not a chronological one.

Your statement, under this mentality, reads as follows:

[Human perception of evolution] first, then the structures which enable us to [perceive].

Out of order, if you ask me.

I can understand that, but I think everything points that before humans arrived here, and therefore before "perception of evolution" (let's call it "idea of evolution", the mental concept), there was still evolution.

In other words, I think that if the real world looks like before we arrived there was a real world, it's because before we arrived there was a real world.

Do you suggest that before humans existed there were no dinosaurs, no Earth, no Big Bang? Why is it here then? I've come through this philosophical position several times and I think it's an interesting one (so don't be shy if you are in this). The thing is that I don't share it because I have a different concept of the nature of "ideas" and their relation with the world.

If you are not in this skepticism, however, then I would say we totally agree, just that I'm focusing on our reconstructed and probably real story of the universe and you are focusing in our mental processes that allow for us to know it. (In order or out of order, it's like the jar, both are equally valid views differently).

[ConiectoErgoSum]

Do you suggest that before humans existed there were no dinosaurs, no Earth, no Big Bang?

Suffice it to say that I think we have some understanding of what objectively existed before humans, but that it is no more a complete understanding than a duck's understanding of buoyancy. We have practical knowledge, but not complete knowledge.

So let's agree that either view is equally valid... it's more a question of emphasis. When discussing the nature of the question "why", which of our viewpoints is most meaningful? Should we attribute the question to psychological roots or evolutionary roots?

-What is the nature of the question 'why?' in this universe?
-Given its link to causality, must there be a first 'meaningful' cause for 'why?' to applicable in this universe?
-If causality is invalid, is to ask 'why?' objectively meaningless?

[Ragna]

Do you suggest that before humans existed there were no dinosaurs, no Earth, no Big Bang?

Suffice it to say that I think we have some understanding of what objectively existed before humans, but that it is no more a complete understanding than a duck's understanding of buoyancy. We have practical knowledge, but not complete knowledge.

I think it's more complete. How complete do you want it to be? What do you mean by "complete"?

So let's agree that either view is equally valid... it's more a question of emphasis. When discussing the nature of the question "why", which of our viewpoints is most meaningful? Should we attribute the question to psychological roots or evolutionary roots?

-What is the nature of the question 'why?' in this universe?
-Given its link to causality, must there be a first 'meaningful' cause for 'why?' to applicable in this universe?
-If causality is invalid, is to ask 'why?' objectively meaningless?

I don't feel they're different at all, just different angles (yea emphasis). You can explain how "why" has been important for us to discover how the world works, and then you can reconstruct how this understanding which makes us ask "why?" in our brains developed in such a world.

[ConiectoErgoSum]

By saying we don't have a complete understanding of things in nature, I mean, for one thing, there's a lot we have yet to discover, and for another thing, there are many things our brains are not capable of understanding.

The reason I lean towards a psychological emphasis on the origin of logic is that I find it more practical, and less theoretical. When analyzing scientific evidence, we are building all our thoughts on the findings of others. Personally, I don't think those findings can be considered "conclusive" until they become practical. There are massive areas of physics that humans are just barely on the fringe of discovering, much less understanding. We don't truly understand science until we can use that knowledge. I'd say humans have got thermodynamics pretty down pat... why? Cause I use it every day. We still don't fully understand Newtonian fluids - but we understand it well enough to use it. Structural analysis? It works. Quantum determinism? Um... I've heard many different "facts" from many different "experts", most of them falling into one of two mutually exclusive views... random, or not random. Me not being a particle physicist, the only honest answer I can make on things like that is "who cares". Anything before about a million years ago lies in that category too. If I had some hard facts other than "just google it" before me, and I could see some practical benefit of studying it, I might be inclined to wonder.

[Ragna]

By saying we don't have a complete understanding of things in nature, I mean, for one thing, there's a lot we have yet to discover, and for another thing, there are many things our brains are not capable of understanding.

Yeah, there's a lot to discover yet .

How can you assert there are things you are not capable of understanding if, by definition, you cannot understand them? Seems like there's no basis for doing so, it's a void reasoning.

Or is it that you can somehow know which things you cannot, by definition, understand? Which, where are these things? Illustrate me.

I still don't get the duck example. Like I've been discussing in another thread, we humans are certainly good at our capacity to understand. Our sensorial perception, like any animal's, is incomplete, but we can fill these holes with our discoverings and understanding. A duck can't.

The reason I lean towards a psychological emphasis on the origin of logic is that I find it more practical, and less theoretical.

Logic is a formal science, not empiric, so how is it practical?

When analyzing scientific evidence, we are building all our thoughts on the findings of others.

You just have to assume that what you feel through your senses and your memory, excepting sickness, is real. Otherwise you would go into skepticism. Are you going into skepticism?

Once these "assumptions" are made, evidence is evidence, and it's our thoughts which are built upon the evidence. Evidence is defined as "facts that support a theory". It's the evidence that makes possible the theory, we don't build the thoughts about the evidence upon other theories (well, theories can complement each other, but that's not what you're saying).

Personally, I don't think those findings can be considered "conclusive" until they become practical.

No, they would be theoretical. Several subatomic particles were theoretical until they were experimentally observed. This is known as scientific method - a hypothesis requires testing and experimentation in order to become a theory (if this is what you mean by "finding").

There are massive areas of physics that humans are just barely on the fringe of discovering, much less understanding. We don't truly understand science until we can use that knowledge. I'd say humans have got thermodynamics pretty down pat... why? Cause I use it every day. We still don't fully understand Newtonian fluids - but we understand it well enough to use it. Structural analysis? It works. Quantum determinism? Um... I've heard many different "facts" from many different "experts", most of them falling into one of two mutually exclusive views... random, or not random. Me not being a particle physicist, the only honest answer I can make on things like that is "who cares". Anything before about a million years ago lies in that category too. If I had some hard facts other than "just google it" before me, and I could see some practical benefit of studying it, I might be inclined to wonder.

These people have more than "just google it", that's why they are inclined to wonder. The more they wonder, the better they will understand. Understanding needs a lot of thought.

Plus, what does "understand quantum theory" mean?. If you are saying predict, maybe we will never, it can be unpredictable. But understand? Our understanding of it will be accumulatively more accurate, the more we know. Knowledge is knowledge regardless of use. In order to create and use an atomic bomb, it had first to be understood. Seems like you're reversing the order.

It's really common in life when we don't know something to go for trial and error. Yet, in science, this trial and error in the form of hypotheses is not blind, the hypothesis must be understood. If not, the result is a chance one, and while it uses to happen with inventions, most theories that grant us understanding are not a moment's imagination but hard work and deep thought.

To get a theory which can successfully predict, the better is to think of a good one, and not just invent theories like myths. Well you can see examples... a lot of mythologies in human history, and none even got close to how the sun and the stars were born. It needed observation and thought to be able to, after that, draw conclusions, which are later checked to be true.

[ConiectoErgoSum]

How can you assert there are things you are not capable of understanding if, by definition, you cannot understand them?

Given that there are a whole lot of things in nature that have lower intelligence capacity than humans, I'm willing to bet that the human intelligence capacity is also finite.

This involves the duck analogy. A duck uses water to float. The duck cannot conceive of dividing the water up in its mind, into tiny little particles... or assigning pressure gradients all 'round, or any of the other stuff involved in fluid statics. It doesn't have the capacity to figure this out. A duck's brain simply is not highly evolved enough to do math. However, a duck does know that if it gets in the water, it will float. Trial and error wins out, and the duck can look just as smart as a human if the contest is as simple as making stuff float. However, a duck could never manage to make a raft (ok... even if it had opposable thumbs it still couldn't). Cause it doesn't have the mental capacity to apply specific observances to other situations. A duck can't generalize, but humans can. That's what science does... observe, wonder, hypothesize, test... etc... then eventually generalize, and use knowledge for a whole heap of applications. (Aside comment: knowledge is not knowledge until it is used. Before that, it's something to argue about till we're all blue in the face.)

My logic is this: extrapolate the following. Duck:Fluid-science as Human:Science. What if Human:Science as Hypothetical-Smarter-Thing:Super-science.