12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 9, 2019 at 7:47 comment added Koray If physics won't give us an answer for the question "why" should we read the religious books to learn the answer instead?
Jul 6, 2019 at 18:24 history edited xray0 CC BY-SA 4.0
grammar fix
Jun 12, 2018 at 17:58 comment added user151841 @G.Bergeron I don't disagree; for sophisticated audiences, explanations that are epiphenominal of simpler phenomena, or are emergent behaviors or properties, are typically satisfying for a "why" question. I suspect this is what they are "actually" asking
Jun 9, 2018 at 2:14 comment added G. Bergeron @user151841 Although I partly agree with you and tend to place those questions in some part of metaphysics, I disagree with you reducing it to a teleological argument. It is not the same as asking why the value of $\pi$ is what it is, which would be meaningless. Rather, it may be the case here that the alternative is not even consistent, in a mathematical sense, which would provide an answer not based in teleological arguments.
Oct 12, 2016 at 22:55 history made wiki Post Made Community Wiki by user46925
Feb 15, 2016 at 14:10 history bounty ended N.S.JOHN
Jan 22, 2016 at 17:03 comment added user46925 @user151841 yes, because why must be answered by a logical demonstration in the current theory. But we cannot demonstrate a postulate. This one stays on robust observations and experienced theories
Jan 22, 2016 at 16:58 comment added user151841 There is a problem with asking 'why' in the sciences. In everyday English, 'why' and 'how' are often synonymous: The answer to "Why is the sky blue" is the same as "How is the sky blue". But for deeper questions, 'why' becomes meaningless, because it is a teleological question (not theo_logical)-- it's ultimately inquiring about _purpose or end goal. But the laws of nature are not designed for a particular goal; they just are. Thus, 'how' is really the only question science can answer. In this case, the how results from the equations.
Jan 22, 2016 at 0:43 comment added user46925 @immibis I tried to show that there is no answer to this why because it is an experimental fact which is assumed like a postulate, even if the concept of speed may be discussed. Perhaps its status will evolve with more knowledge and more synthesis, but today who knows how to deduce the speed limit from other assumptions ?
Jan 22, 2016 at 0:20 comment added user253751 That's "Why do we know there is a speed limit in our universe?" which is a very different question to "Do we know why there is a speed limit in our universe?"
Jan 21, 2016 at 10:18 history edited anna v CC BY-SA 3.0
grammar and syntax
Jan 20, 2016 at 22:38 history answered user46925 CC BY-SA 3.0