What kind of question is that though? In that sort of question, I sense a hostility toward a plain answer.

We violently exploded and cooled, and the crispy outer crust of a planet started to organize itself, eventually resulting in a loose group of combinations of matter called people. I mean that's what happened.

That, or we're here to be nice to other people... I don't think the mathematical models are at issue here.

> We violently exploded and cooled, and the crispy outer crust of a planet started to organize itself, eventually resulting in a loose group of combinations of matter called people. I mean that's what happened.

Your answer is not the answer. How we was able to explode when there was nothing to explode? When there was no space to explode?

Once upon a time lived a man named Newton. He invented gravitational theory. We study this theory in school and have no questions for it (or at least the most people don't). But the contemporaries of Newton had a lot of questions. They didn't like the idea of long-range interaction between planets. How planets can know their masses and masses of other planets to move smoothly by Newton's law of gravity?

Make a break, think a little about how did you feel about newtonian gravity before you discover general relativity. Isn't newtonian gravity looked great theory explaining all the things? And if so, maybe general relativity in you mind is another semantic stopsign* like newtonian gravity was? Maybe its just the cheap way to answer complex questions without answering?

I'm not sure about general relativity, but I'm almost sure about quantum mechanics: QM do not answer questions, QM is just a bunch of calculation methods to predict nature behaviour. Like Newton gravity equation was just calculation method, which is able to predict, but unable to explain.

> That, or we're here to be nice to other people... I don't think the mathematical models are at issue here.

Yes, you are right. Mathematics is unable to solve such a problems, because philosophy has not made sufficiently strict and clean abstractions, which mathematicians can use in their equations. Mathematics can't work with real problems, only with abstract ones.

*) https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Semantic_stopsign

The question was paraphrased from the Hawking quote:

"Why are we here? Where do we come from?"

I haven't made this assumption. I have only confirmed that (most) philosophers are no longer capable of following the latest trends in physics. Strictly speaking that's an empirical hypothesis in need of further confirmation. But it doesn't seem implausible to imagine that most contemporary philosophers would fail a written test that examines whether they have the mathematical skills to understand string theory and other advanced contemporary physical theories to a degree that is sufficient for making valuable contributions.

Regarding the assumption, you're not far off though. I'm willing to assume a way stronger claim (without proof):

Everything that can be explained, can be explained using mathematical models.

I have many reasons for accepting this claim, but I'm also sure that not all of my colleagues would agree with it.