Timeline for Do we know why there is a speed limit in our universe?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
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 |