The Big Why

[El_Machinae]

All explanations will always drill down to a 'how', but that's usually a much more fundamental answer. Macro events, like Moon orbits, etc. can actually be answered in a 'why' way by describing them as the sum of micro events that we can only explain using 'how'.

Or, you need to understand how quantum mechanics works in order to explain why a fire gives off heat. Does that make sense? That might be why consciousness is felt to be so profoundly mysterious. I keep thinking we should be able to break down why consciousness occurs based on how certain laws of physics apply.

I mean, as it is, I'm not sure whether neurotransmitter packets are merely our own evolutionary quirk that caused consciousness, and whether there are underlying principles that would allow silica to think, or whether biomolecules are completely irreplaceable to the process!

 

[warpus]

In my mind there isn't much of a difference between explaining the orbit of the moon using gravity and explaining sensation using the method that I did. It's the same thing - there just isn't a different answer.

But that's only if we assume that OP meant sensation to mean.. well, sensation - the processing of senses by the sensory system. There are no mysteries there.. but OP meant something else - he just used a word that has another meaning.

 

[luiz]

Why does the moon orbit the Earth? Wouldn't you just answer the question using our understanding of gravity? There is no why - the best you can do with a lot of phenomena is a description of how it works. Same with sensation - but I'm guessing OP didn't really mean to use the word "sensation".

I think we can answer pretty satisfactorily why the moon orbits the Earth. What we can't answer is why the laws that make the moon orbit the Earth work the way they do. We can only describe them.

It's the same with the Big Bang. We can (very roughly) describe what happened, but why were the conditions there? Where did all that energy come from? What existed before the Planck Epoch, that is, before time itself?

Let's not kid ourselves. Science offers no answer to those questions, and it's possible that it never will.

 

[warpus]

I think we can answer pretty satisfactorily why the moon orbits the Earth. What we can't answer is why the laws that make the moon orbit the Earth work the way they do. We can only describe them.

Do you mean that we don't truly understand gravity yet, since we haven't figured out a theory that unifies it with the other forces?

Is there a similar problem with our understanding of sensation and sensory input?

 

[dusters]

I think we can answer pretty satisfactorily why the moon orbits the Earth. What we can't answer is why the laws that make the moon orbit the Earth work the way they do. We can only describe them.

It's the same with the Big Bang. We can (very roughly) describe what happened, but why were the conditions there? Where did all that energy come from? What existed before the Planck Epoch, that is, before time itself?

Let's not kid ourselves. Science offers no answer to those questions, and it's possible that it never will.

If you can call theorethical physics science, we got a lot of fancy math about multiverses and you can entertain yourself about reading a lot of mumbo-jumbo which is supported by rather prominent scientists like Greene, Hawking, de Grasse Tyson and Susskind.

When i picked up quantum physics and M-theory, i was amazed how much is kept only in scientific papers. Also - dark energy and dark matter has been observed much more in past decade and we got new ideas what is its role. Worth a look.

 

[luiz]

Do you mean that we don't truly understand gravity yet, since we haven't figured out a theory that unifies it with the other forces?

Is there a similar problem with our understanding of sensation and sensory input?

Hum, yeah, there's that. But I'm pretty confident we will have an unified theory of physics at some point, so it wasn't what I meant.

What I meant is that a fundamental level we can only describe how stuff work. As I mentioned earlier, matter attracts matter. But it could just as well repulse it, no? Things don't make "sense", they're just observed.

 

[El_Machinae]

In my mind there isn't much of a difference between explaining the orbit of the moon using gravity and explaining sensation using the method that I did. It's the same thing - there just isn't a different answer.

But that's only if we assume that OP meant sensation to mean.. well, sensation - the processing of senses by the sensory system. There are no mysteries there.. but OP meant something else - he just used a word that has another meaning.

Well, I guess I can see that there's no difference in some ways. It's more at the scale in which we turn from a 'how' to a 'why' question.

We actually don't know how gravity works. We have a bunch of phenomenon, and we're really, really close to knowing how gravity works, but we don't actually know how it works yet.

But, that said, we're really sure the 'why' of the Moon's orbit is 'gravity'. We know both the necessary AND the sufficient inputs to get orbits, to get moons, to get tidal locking, etc.

I'm not sure we have the same thing with sensation. We only know in loosest terms what's 'necessary'. We only know in loosest terms what's 'sufficient'. Like I said, we can't even tell if fish are sentient.

We also don't know where sentience exists, in space, other than in the loosest sense. Is it within the neurons? Is it in the cerebrospinal fluid? Is it in the synaptic cleft? Is it the intersection of the EM fields generated by neurons? Is it within the informational content of neurotransmitter packets?

We've got very little of the 'why' answered. We're at the stage "brains do it".

When it comes to the Moon orbit, we're like, "oh, yeah, Higgs Field plus X, Y, Z"

Totally different scales of understanding!

 

[warpus]

What I meant is that a fundamental level we can only describe how stuff work. As I mentioned earlier, matter attracts matter. But it could just as well repulse it, no? Things don't make "sense", they're just observed.

Don't the forces in our universe work the way they do, due to the events during the early stages of inflation and the big bang?

I mean, it seems to me that the question being asked doesn't have an answer. Some things you can only explain to such and such level - and an answer beyond that just isn't possible.

I'm not sure we have the same thing with sensation. We only know in loosest terms what's 'necessary'. We only know in loosest terms what's 'sufficient'. Like I said, we can't even tell if fish are sentient.

I don't think sensation is reliant on sentience. Fish have sensory systems too, even if they aren't sentient.

But it's clear now that OP wasn't actually asking about sensation. I guess he was more asking about.. . .. sentience? And seeing the world through your eyes and so on?

In that case, yeah, I'm not sure if there is an answer. But that's a guess.

We also don't know where sentience exists, in space, other than in the loosest sense. Is it within the neurons? Is it in the cerebrospinal fluid? Is it in the synaptic cleft? Is it the intersection of the EM fields generated by neurons? Is it within the informational content of neurotransmitter packets?

I really think it's just an abstract layer sitting on a whole bunch of other abstract layers, the brain tissue sitting way at the bottom of the stack. So it isn't really sitting anywhere aside from the neurons and connections between them. But that is all also a guess - but one that to me seems to be a good guess.

 

[luiz]

Don't the forces in our universe work the way they do, due to the events during the early stages of inflation and the big bang?

If the events that transpired during the early stages of the Big Bang and inflation determined the laws of physics, why did they transpire the way they did? Certainly there were laws governing what went on. My understanding is that the events of the Big Bang actually followed the laws of physics, only we don't entirely understand how the laws operate at such heat levels.

I mean, it seems to me that the question being asked doesn't have an answer. Some things you can only explain to such and such level - and an answer beyond that just isn't possible.

Pretty much. And that's rather uncomfortable for the philosophically-minded, but we need to just let it go.

 

[warpus]

If the events that transpired during the early stages of the Big Bang and inflation determined the laws of physics, why did they transpire the way they did? Certainly there were laws governing what went on. My understanding is that the events of the Big Bang actually followed the laws of physics, only we don't entirely understand how the laws operate at such heat levels.

There definitely has to be a way to describe what was happening at the time using some sort of an internally consistent model.

But it seems to me that you can continue pushing the "why?" question back until you're blue in the face. "Why is that law the way it is?".. "Why did it form?".. "The thing that caused it to be like that, why was it like that?" and so on.

Could you ever arrive at a satisfactory answer? It seems that it'll always be possible to ask: "But why?"

Pretty much. And that's rather uncomfortable for the philosophically-minded, but we need to just let it go.

Agreed.

 

[Hygro]

Terx you sent me a PM but your PMs are disabled.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I also have thought of the notion that this is all some cosmic joke.

Me too!

If water didn't expand when it freezes, we could cryogenically freeze ourselves and wake up whenever we wanted in the future.

No matter how fast we go, time dilation means exploring the stars takes centuries no matter what.
All because the speed of light has to be constant.

Someone put all the oil in the middle east.

We can't clone dinosaurs because the DNA degraded too much.

Then one day you're taking a college class in your 80's, and someone asks you why you bother.

Could it be that we can't know the ultimate reasons?

Suppose we could, and we found out what the ultimate reasons are? What then? (Actually, my brain's beginning to ache a bit now.)

We'd be disappointed.
There is not a single answer to the why of our existence that we can imagine that would satisfy people and make them happy once they heard it.
Best not to know.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't think sensation is reliant on sentience. Fish have sensory systems too, even if they aren't sentient.

Ah, I see. I'd just assumed he was talking about that internal experience that only sentient organisms have when their sensory systems transmit information to their cognitive centers.

It's that thing that only conscious entities have. So, my answers may make more sense in that light.

 

[warpus]

What is that called, anyway? Cause the word "sensation" is sort of taken.

It really sounds like what the OP is after is "sentient consciousness" or something similar. But that's very different from "sensation". Sensation could be when someone pinches your butt. That's a sensation.

 

[El_Machinae]

It is. I guess there's the implicit assumption you need a conscious entity in order for there to be a sensation. If you pinch a corpse's butt or a anesthetized patient's butt, is there still a sensation?

 

[warpus]

I think the requirement is not consciousness - because not every organism with a sensory system is going to be conscious.

Or is it? I don't really know.

 

[El_Machinae]

The oblique question would be 'what do we call the thing that non-sentient organisms collect before a reaction is determined'?

But then, that's what my thermometer does. It measures the room's heat. It's a sensory system designed to control my house's temperature. Is it responding a sensation?

 

[warpus]

What do you mean by "collect" here? It doesn't seem to work with the rest of the sentence.

 

[El_Machinae]

Lol, fixed.