Science doesn't really aim to answer the 'why'-questions, but rather the 'how'-questions. The scientific method boils down to falsifying hypothesis, and it's a lot easier with 'how does the tide work?' than 'why does the tide work (the way it does)?'.
Science can't say anything about 'Why does anything at all exist rather than not exist?', because there is no way to test any of the answers. So it's left to mythology, religion or philosophy to answer.
A possible answer to this stems from the anthropic principle. We evolved in a place with a moon because the moon helped us evolve. We don't see no moon because complex life such as us would not have developed without it. A stable rotation and gentle tide are conducive to the evolution of complex organisms; tides were instrumental in getting life out of the seas and onto land.
"Why is the sun the way it is?" can be answered similarly. A smaller star has too small a habitable zone where liquid water can exist. A larger star would have burned out sooner than the 4.5 billion years it took to develop sapient life. A double star has a much smaller set of stable planetary orbits. That the sun is an appropriate star for our life on earth is not divine providence or an enormously unlikely coincidence; it's the result of a universe-wide scenario of statistical multiple endpoints.
totally agreed with you up to that point which I have hard time understanding.
so you say universe is kind of fractal and we happen to be in the right place on that fractal, where all the ingredients come together?
'How' asks about the current state of things and how they are possible.
'Why' asks about the past, and how the current state of things came to be.
Depending on interpretation of the question, 'why' can be a lot more philosophical than 'how'.
While I disagree with almost everything Chomsky says about everything, and I think it was meant to be somewhat sympathetic, it's really unfair to propose an affinity between Chomsky and O'Reilly in this manner. What the hell.
Equally unfair is Norvig calling Chomsky a mystic for his invocation of Plato. Chomsky is a rationalist, not a mystic.
Philosophy does not imply God.
And it drives me nuts when people don't see that many important questions cannot even be expressed within the framework of science.
"God" (in its various versions and revisions around the globe) is just an anthropomorphized version of the previous proposition.
People tend to map a lot of other stuff onto it.
Boy do I have news for you!
Assuming solipsism (however absurd it may be), both me and the universe do exist.
Take physics, for example. It can tell you why some objects behave the way they do by telling you there are certain particles, interacting forces, etc.. In this way you can explain, say, the photoelectric effect.
But it isn't really an answer to the "why" question, is it? It just pushes the question one level lower. Why are there such and such particles and forces? Why the constants? The very nature of these answers is descriptive. It is a description of how the world works, not why it works that way.
Maybe asking "why" in this ultimate manner is an ill-posed question - but that's not the deal here. It just doesn't seem that science in its current form, unlike religion or philosophy, could ever even attempt to answer it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly atheistic myself, but there are some inherent limitations of scientific exploration and clarification with respect to the answers it can provide.
I don't think anyone mentioned God, and, to be fair, the problem of what exactly constitutes reality and what would be the best ways to imitate it is quite complex. We, as a species, have been trying to find the rational answer to this problem for at least 2,500 years (since the pre-Socratics), but as far as I know we haven't come to any definitive answer, we don't even know if there is such an answer.
There are several ways one could model language, from a top down purely statistical approach that Norvig likes, something in the middle which Chomsky proposes, to a bottom up neural model of chemical interactions. There are advantages and disadvantages to each method for many different reasons.
Yeah, I was just trying to take a step back (and maybe I was too OT, I agree), but at some point we should start asking ourselves more fundamental questions. Anyway, this discussion is way over my head, I'm just glad that HN users think there's an answer for everything, is like Godel or Kant have never written anything in their entire lives.
Science assumes that there is a "justification" (for language, the universe, you name it). A true philosopher always begins by asking himself if there is such a thing as "justification". Just think about it, science has helped us put a man on the Moon and create the Tsar bomb, but it isn't able to answer Epimenides's "All Cretans are liars" paradox, a 2,500 years-old problem.
You take as a given that paradoxes are or at least should be "un-answerable". This Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox#Possible_resolutio...) mentions a list of guys that tried to answer it, but anyway, this problem is way over my head, I should go back to writing Drupal modules before I also start rambling about Solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Gorgias_.28of_Leontin...) :)
“Paradox” is just a word. There is nothing special about something being a paradox (except that paradoxes are cool to think about).
†That’s at least a common definition. That’s where I’m getting such crazy ideas like “paradoxes have no answer.” You are free to define “paradox” some other way. Be assured that it was never my intention to claim that the definition I used is in some sense the true definition. Definitions are all about communication (you need to agree on definitions in order to be able to talk to each other), not tools for finding the truth.
"Mistake" means there is a "right answer", a point of reference. What is that? Otherwise, your use of the concept "mistake" doesn't make sense.
> Paradoxes are defined as un-answerable
Yeah, of course we can define things ad-nauseam. That doesn't just make "reality" any more "real", it just helps us send men on the Moon, curing diseases or building atomic bombs.
That’s the ultra verbose version of that sentence. I can crank the verbosity up quite a bit still but I would rather not want to.
The point of reference you are asking about is the goal of creating a paradox. That was sort of implied but seem to be quite a fan of verbosity. It is, of course, possible that someone – for example – just stumbles upon something that looks like a paradox. The mistake would then be the identification as a paradox.
I’m not really sure what you are trying to tell me with your last point. You started trying to define paradoxes some other way as they are commonly defined. (Quote: “You take as a given that paradoxes are or at least should be ‘un-answerable’.” – thereby implying that according to you definition of “paradox”, the same can have answers.) I wouldn’t have brought definitions up otherwise.
I agree with you that merely defining doesn’t tell you much (maybe nothing) about the nature of reality and said as much. Definitions are for communication, no tool for finding truth. Those tools are the meat of science, not definitions.
Some questions are metaphysical, not because they are complex, but because they are ill-posed and not subject to falsifiable experimentation of observation.
BTW, a lot of real-world phenomena, like some large events of history or sociology or macroeconomics, fall into the same category of scientific unapproachability, due to practical limitations of our civilization and any plausible future civilization.
... My jaw is on the floor. It drives me nuts when people go from 'We can't explain that yet' to 'The only explanation is God.'
The tides are incredibly complex when you insist on 'why' all the way back to the beginning of the universe. Everything is!