Quantum Ninja

Is it possible that humans are capable of finding out all of the answers to the universe's mysteries? It is my belief that we are not. Consider the following analogy:

A child asks his parent a question. Parent responds with an answer. Child immediately responds with the question, "Why?" Parent then answers this question. Child again responds with, "Why?" Parent provides further explanation to the child. Child, yet again, replies, "Why?" The process continues for several more rounds. Eventually, parent ends the conversion with, "Because I said so."

In this scenario, the conversation could continue ceaselessly into an infinite chain of questions and answers. "Why, why, why," ad infinitum. The only breaking point is when the parent says, "Because I said so." At that point, all inquiry stops because the child realizes that he has reached a dead-end.

How is scientific investigation any different than the child who continually asks, "Why?" Confronted with something they do not understand, scientists ask the universe, "Why?" And they perform their experiments, examine the data, make conclusions, and arrive at an acceptable answer, to which they reply, "Why?" Such a line of inquiry could continue endlessly, and thus we can never hope to understand everything. Or, we arrive at a dead-end in knowledge, which also means we fail to understand everything.

For instance, why does the color red look the particular way it does? Can science ever hope to explain that, or is it a dead-end in knowledge? "Red looks that way because I said so," replies the universe. Maybe there is no explanation for it, other than "that's just the way it is."

Do you think the universe holds an infinite amount of questions that can be answered by science, or do all paths lead to dead-ends?

triplew00t

As the to-be step father of a 2 year old, I know about the why questions. Ultimately, I answer 'because the universe is that way', 'why not?', 'why ask why?' or the best 'because your mother said so'. Through this process though, it has become very evident that what I have always heard is true. Science is about explaining HOW things happen, and how to predict what will happen based on these things. It is not about WHY they happen. Ultimately the only two answers are 'just because, its all random' or 'goddidit'.

-Nero

Malagasy Rain

I'll bet money that any child who asks "Why?" ad infinitum will be an agnostic by college years.

jpbrooks

Perhaps the "dead ends" are considered as such only because no one desires to continue the line of inquiry beyond the "dead end". As a child, I often played the why question "game" on myself (attempting to answer all of my own "why" questions). Almost invariably, I found that the questions eventually become psychological in nature perhaps because answers that can only be justified on the basis of someone's authority become unavoidable.

But the "endlessness" of paths of inquiry shouldn't cause us to avoid seeking answers to probing questions that arise along the particular paths that we follow. In fact, I'm tempted to suggest that such probing inquiry should be fun!

Santas little helper

It is conceivable that one would arrive at an
answer which explains itself although I must admit
I cannot imagine what such an answer would look like

sophie

Quantum Ninja asked why does the color red look the particular way it does?

The answer to the truth of redness lies in the intersection of external lightbearing data and internal subjective understanding processes.

Firstly we may be able to note some similarities between lightbearing data to our eyes which is always in a diffuse pattern and the sum of most subjective understandings which experience and communicate the label red.

We can therefore move on to quantify what may be redness and whether this is a play on diffuse light or a real treat for our understanding.

You can now ask why there are not two questions instead of one.

sophie

Quantum Ninja asked us to consider the following analogy: A child asks his parent a question. Parent responds with an answer. Child immediately responds with the question, "Why?"... "Why?" "Why?" Eventually, parent ends the conversion with, "Because I said so."

This in my knowledge is a foolish parent. Parents like these should have their children taken from them and have them brought up with proper care in a proper environment.

There should be no doubt that the basis of a child's understanding is simple, it grows with care. The extent to which parents watch the development of their children, their understanding and the scope of their knowledge allows a parent to make explainations in relation to the understandings the child has acquired. The never ending why's are probably the simplest of questions a good and decent parent has to answer.

From my experience with children, there has never been any "Because I said so.", implying I was never a foolish parent.

Love

Sophie

jpbrooks

The question about the color red above cannot be adequately answered from a scientific standpoint because of the lack of sufficient sense/perceptual and neurological data. For example, we don't even know enough about the sense-data/neurological data relationship to determine whether the color red could look any way at all other than the particular way(s) it has already appeared to us.

triplew00t

Take this:

Me: Sit down please
Him: why
Me: Because if you dont you will hurt yourself
Him: why
Me: Because you will fall
Him: why
Me: Because you will lose your balance and gravity will pull you down
Him: why

Now I am left either saying "Just do it" in some form or another or attempting to explain why objects are attracted to each other through the bends in space-time created by mass to a two year old. Alot of good that would do. And anyway, then he would ask why and I would have to develope Einstein's incomplete Unified Field Theory to explain further.

Regards, Nero

Koyaanisqatsi

Why do you ask?

Seriously, though, there is no reason we can't uncover "all" the answers behind the "mysteries" of the universe, since they aren't actually "mysteries," as much as they are "current unknowns." We just call them "mysteries" because that sounds more interesting; more magical.

If we can survive long enough as a species (however long that may be), then revealing what the "current unknowns" are is precisely what we do on a regular basis. We have even imagined a being that has this ability; we typically call it "God."

As for the infinite regress you've artificially brought up, it's not actually infinite so much as it may be dynamic, but then, once that's factored in, you've got more understanding.

The child could, indeed, ask "why" for all eternity, but each time it receives an answer, it is, indeed, receiving an answer. That it comes to a point is a choice made by the parent and not necessarily indicative of the fact that no answer is available or possible to be found.

Thus, saying, "I don't know" (which is the proper response to that end-point...ahem...you parents out there who say, "just because") simply reflects the point at which current knowledge is unavailable.

That does not necessarily mean it is permanently unavailable.

triplew00t put it best; science isn't necessarily about "why," it's about "how." Turn to science about how the universe works as it does and you'll rarely be dissappointed; turn to philosophy and/or theology about why the universe works as it does and you'll always be dissappointed.