body-body problem

[quatona]

Does this help:

Reason: An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence

source of definition

No, not at all. Please re-read my post.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think you're saying "I don't know how to answer the question, therefore it is meaningless."

 

[sandwiches]

I think you're saying "I don't know how to answer the question, therefore it is meaningless."

I could be wrong, but maybe quatona means that the question of "Why are the conditions within the universe the way they are?" is akin to asking "What was there before there was anything?"

 

[quatona]

I think you're saying "I don't know how to answer the question, therefore it is meaningless."

If that´s all you manage to extract as a summary from my intense efforts to explain my point in multiple ways I guess I can´t help it.

 

[quatona]

I could be wrong, but maybe quatona means that the question of "Why are the conditions within the universe the way they are?" is akin to asking "What was there before there was anything?"

Well, that´s close, but I think the problem is even more obvious with the question: "What is the cause for there being causality?"

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Well, that´s close, but I think the problem is even more obvious with the question: "What is the cause for there being causality?"

I see thats a good point. There can't be a cause of causality, at least not in the ordinary sense of a physical antecedent for a physical event, because thet would be to assert something outside of the set (of causation) is actually a cause, which would be a contradiction. But I am thinking along the lines of "logical causes" for physical events. For instance, the law of the excluded middle (either A or not A) seems to belong to the sturcture of reality. And also there might be "mathematical causes". For example, things can be described numerically (e.g. there are 3 bananas in the basket), so maybe there are rules of mathematics which are also "causes" governing reality but not in the physical sense of a spatio-temporal antecedent. And perhaps somewhere physical causes are grounded in mathematical and logical "causes". That would be my guess.

 

[sandwiches]

I see thats a good point. There can't be a cause of causality, at least not in the ordinary sense of a physical antecedent for a physical event, because thet would be to assert something outside of the set (of causation) is actually a cause, which would be a contradiction. But I am thinking along the lines of "logical causes" for physical events. For instance, the law of the excluded middle (either A or not A) seems to belong to the sturcture of reality. And also there might be "mathematical causes". For example, things can be described numerically (e.g. there are 3 bananas in the basket), so maybe there are rules of mathematics which are also "causes" governing reality but not in the physical sense of a spatio-temporal antecedent. And perhaps somewhere physical causes are grounded in mathematical and logical "causes". That would be my guess.

That's fine but the point is that there might still be a point where it is simply illogical, absurd, or meaningless to ask "Why?" There might not be a reason beyond it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That's fine but the point is that there might still be a point where it is simply illogical, absurd, or meaningless to ask "Why?" There might not be a reason beyond it.

That may be the case yes, but I humbly dont think asking "Is there a reason that laws of nature are such?" is necessarily such a case.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It seems to me, though, that when we observe nature and formulate from those observations "laws" that it is strange to ask why.

It is not as if that because we call them "laws" there is a lawgiver. These "laws" are observations of what is.

Do we not eventually reach a point where we are asking "why is there reality", and should we consider that a reasonable question?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It seems to me, though, that when we observe nature and formulate from those observations "laws" that it is strange to ask why.

It is not as if that because we call them "laws" there is a lawgiver. These "laws" are observations of what is.

Do we not eventually reach a point where we are asking "why is there reality", and should we consider that a reasonable question?

Abraham Heschel:

"Radical amazement has a wider scope than any other act of man. While any act of perception or cognition has as it's object a selected segment of reality, radical amazememt refers to all reality; not only to what we see, but also to the very act of seeing as well as to our own selves, to the selves that see and are amazed at the ability to see."

If we are capable of this (the latter, radical amazement) whilst remaining rational, then I am sure we are capable of the former (why physical laws?).