This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
Billy Brown wrote:
> I think you both misunderstand the question. We aren't talking about
some
> philosophical argument about the ultimate meaning of life. When a
physicist
> asks "Why does something exist?", what he means is "What process is
> responsible for the existance of observable reality?" In some ways
this is
> equivalent to asking "Why do we have these particular laws of physics,
and
> not some other set of laws?"
> A lot of scientists have backed away from this kind of questioning,
either
> because they think it is unanswerable or because it sounds too much
like
> religion. However, it is merely the logical end result of the ongoing
quest
> for a real theory of cosmology. If it seems meaningless now, that
simply
> indicates that we don't yet know enough to properly address the issue.
> I think the point of disagreement is over definitions of
science/physics/existence.
I certainly believe it is valuable to investigate the tolerance limits
of the so called laws of nature.
For example playing with different values of universal constants to see
which ones can support a viable universe and which cant - this helps us
to understand the relationships between them. However this does not,
nor will it ever explain WHY the universe exists - it only tells us HOW.
Science is about measuring things, finding out how they work - philosophy deals with the why.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
Billy Brown wrote:
> I think you both misunderstand the =
question. We aren't talking about some
> philosophical argument about the ultimate =
meaning of life. When a physicist
> asks "Why does something exist?", =
what he means is "What process is
> responsible for the existance of observable =
reality?" In some ways this is
> equivalent to asking "Why do we have these =
particular laws of physics, and
> not some other set of laws?"
> A lot of scientists have backed away from this =
kind of questioning, either
> because they think it is unanswerable or =
because it sounds too much like
> religion. However, it is merely the =
logical end result of the ongoing quest
> for a real theory of cosmology. If it =
seems meaningless now, that simply
> indicates that we don't yet know enough to =
properly address the issue.
> I think the point of disagreement is over =
definitions of science/physics/existence.
I certainly believe it is valuable to investigate =
the tolerance limits of the so called laws of nature.
For example playing with different values of =
universal constants to see which ones can support a viable universe and =
which cant - this helps us to understand the relationships between =
them. However this does not, nor will it ever explain WHY the =
universe exists - it only tells us HOW.
Science is about measuring things, finding out how = they work - philosophy deals with the why.