To everyone saying “Feynman did explain it” you’re missing the point - his answer is that there isn’t really an answer to why magnets attract; he never says in that interview that there is, other than that is how the universe works.
He can explain the precise way in which they attract each other, can explain what properties of materials give rise to magnetism, and so on, but this is all ultimately a description. The only way science can answer a “why” question is with a description of general behaviour that encompasses what is asked about, so: why do magnets attract, because of spins and magnetic fields and so on. But why do spins and magnetic fields cause the attraction? There is no known general behaviour that encompasses that behaviour, and if there were, it would be subject to the same questioning. Ultimately, all “why” questions reach an end.
This means, first of all, that there will always be a practical end to good answers to “why” questions.
But if you think that there is truly no end, it also means that the workings of the universe are infinite in a very strange sense: if there’s an infinite succession of explanation, what does that mean? An explanation is a description of something that implies the characteristics of what you’re explaining, right? And it can’t just describe all the details of the thing being explained, it must be simpler on some level.
I don’t really see how you get this infinite succession of simplifications. Maybe it makes sense if the universe is infinitely complex, so that for example, the behaviour of atoms is explained by the behaviour of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are explained by quarks and still smaller sub-electron particles, and this sequence of subdivision goes ever smaller. I don’t see any good reason to believe that though.
This is what I mean, I believe our limitations, biologically, chemically, or otherwise, are not sufficient to express reality as is to the full extent of the definition- in fact I think that all observation is negation or division, meaning, it is polar, our language is Hegelian in nature, by positing things against one another as a means to progress in understanding, it fundamentally defines by dividing or subtracting, because how could you posit two opposing things without excluding all other things that they do not represent?
Classical philosophy of science- we can say what is not a lot easier than we can say what is, and thereby narrow down the scope of what [likely] is. But due to the very nature of nature, we can never be certain, because we function under imperative of space-time, and time progresses forward, into a deep unknown, nobody knows the future, right? It is my contention that even fundamental laws of nature deteriorate, evolve, mutate, or change over time. At the end of the Universe, at the point of total entropy, not even laws of nature would exist. How could they? What would it mean for them to exist? What would the word “exist” even mean?
I am saying that a map can never 1:1 perfectly capture the nature of reality. So, every time we ask “why”, we take one step closer to approximating truth, and we can get infinitely close to it, but we can never reach or attain it, due to the limitations of how our own minds work.
It is my contention that even fundamental laws of nature deteriorate, evolve, mutate, or change over time. At the end of the Universe, at the point of total entropy, not even laws of nature would exist. How could they? What would it mean for them to exist? What would the word “exist” even mean?
Why do you think the laws of nature - what we know of them - change? We don’t have any reason to believe it. The “point of total entropy” sounds like the heat death of the universe, which certainly we do and can discuss and make predictions about.
I am saying that a map can never 1:1 perfectly capture the nature of reality. So, every time we ask “why”, we take one step closer to approximating truth, and we can get infinitely close to it, but we can never reach or attain it, due to the limitations of how our own minds work.
This is somewhat different to what I’m talking about.
The secret to this, which works on all children, mine included, is to turn it and ask them what they think. Leads to more fun answers as well. Not right, but fun.
Never discourage that phase, imagine if our population never grew out of questioning the world. Just don’t be afraid to say “I don’t know, maybe you will figure out why and can teach me someday.”
I work with kids, including a bright little boy who told me that “Why?” is his favorite question. I explicitly tell him that I hope he never stops asking it. His questions challenge the depths of my knowledge and compel me to look up questions I never thought of before. I love it.
I call him my “little scientist.” He’s only 4 and he teaches my coworkers new things all the time. I feel so lucky to get to work with a little knowledge-sponge that’s as curious as I am!
I generally say things like “it’s complicated, but let’s see if we can find out.”. Unfortunately when my daughter said “Why are your parents divorced,” I had to leave it at “It’s complicated.” Basically, magnets.
“Sweetie, there’s just no easy way to say it: your MeeMaw is an unrepentant cock goblin. Wait, I guess that was pretty easy, actually! Sleep well, pumpkin!”
Why does gravity cause two things to attract? Why does the strong nuclear force hold protons together? Why is the speed of light 3 x 10^8 m/s and not half that, or 1000x as fast?
It’s often possible to figure out how certain initial values of the universe cause it to behave in certain ways. But, as for why those initial values are the ones that they are, that’s like asking about angels dancing on the head of a pin.
The interviewer in the referenced clip did actually press Feynman to explain the “why”, which led Feynman into an explanation about how “why” is impossible to completely answer, which is what OP is talking about.
To everyone saying “Feynman did explain it” you’re missing the point - his answer is that there isn’t really an answer to why magnets attract; he never says in that interview that there is, other than that is how the universe works.
He can explain the precise way in which they attract each other, can explain what properties of materials give rise to magnetism, and so on, but this is all ultimately a description. The only way science can answer a “why” question is with a description of general behaviour that encompasses what is asked about, so: why do magnets attract, because of spins and magnetic fields and so on. But why do spins and magnetic fields cause the attraction? There is no known general behaviour that encompasses that behaviour, and if there were, it would be subject to the same questioning. Ultimately, all “why” questions reach an end.
ICP runs deep.
I think they actually don’t reach an end. The only thing possibly ending is the scope and tolerances of our measurements and descriptions.
This means, first of all, that there will always be a practical end to good answers to “why” questions.
But if you think that there is truly no end, it also means that the workings of the universe are infinite in a very strange sense: if there’s an infinite succession of explanation, what does that mean? An explanation is a description of something that implies the characteristics of what you’re explaining, right? And it can’t just describe all the details of the thing being explained, it must be simpler on some level.
I don’t really see how you get this infinite succession of simplifications. Maybe it makes sense if the universe is infinitely complex, so that for example, the behaviour of atoms is explained by the behaviour of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are explained by quarks and still smaller sub-electron particles, and this sequence of subdivision goes ever smaller. I don’t see any good reason to believe that though.
“The map is not the terrain” - Alfred Korzybski
This is what I mean, I believe our limitations, biologically, chemically, or otherwise, are not sufficient to express reality as is to the full extent of the definition- in fact I think that all observation is negation or division, meaning, it is polar, our language is Hegelian in nature, by positing things against one another as a means to progress in understanding, it fundamentally defines by dividing or subtracting, because how could you posit two opposing things without excluding all other things that they do not represent?
Classical philosophy of science- we can say what is not a lot easier than we can say what is, and thereby narrow down the scope of what [likely] is. But due to the very nature of nature, we can never be certain, because we function under imperative of space-time, and time progresses forward, into a deep unknown, nobody knows the future, right? It is my contention that even fundamental laws of nature deteriorate, evolve, mutate, or change over time. At the end of the Universe, at the point of total entropy, not even laws of nature would exist. How could they? What would it mean for them to exist? What would the word “exist” even mean?
I am saying that a map can never 1:1 perfectly capture the nature of reality. So, every time we ask “why”, we take one step closer to approximating truth, and we can get infinitely close to it, but we can never reach or attain it, due to the limitations of how our own minds work.
Why do you think the laws of nature - what we know of them - change? We don’t have any reason to believe it. The “point of total entropy” sounds like the heat death of the universe, which certainly we do and can discuss and make predictions about.
This is somewhat different to what I’m talking about.
I see you have not recently interacted with a toddler in the “why” phase.
The secret to this, which works on all children, mine included, is to turn it and ask them what they think. Leads to more fun answers as well. Not right, but fun.
Never discourage that phase, imagine if our population never grew out of questioning the world. Just don’t be afraid to say “I don’t know, maybe you will figure out why and can teach me someday.”
I work with kids, including a bright little boy who told me that “Why?” is his favorite question. I explicitly tell him that I hope he never stops asking it. His questions challenge the depths of my knowledge and compel me to look up questions I never thought of before. I love it.
I call him my “little scientist.” He’s only 4 and he teaches my coworkers new things all the time. I feel so lucky to get to work with a little knowledge-sponge that’s as curious as I am!
“Hmm, I’m not sure honey - why do you think metal stick to magnets? Maybe there are some books at the library we can read to find out more…”
I generally say things like “it’s complicated, but let’s see if we can find out.”. Unfortunately when my daughter said “Why are your parents divorced,” I had to leave it at “It’s complicated.” Basically, magnets.
“Sweetie, there’s just no easy way to say it: your MeeMaw is an unrepentant cock goblin. Wait, I guess that was pretty easy, actually! Sleep well, pumpkin!”
But once again, those will explain how, not why.
I read somewhere that a good response is: why do you think?
Are you able to answer all their why questions satisfactorily? No? Then that’s where they reach an end…
Taking it all the way back to OP’s meme. Love it.
Why does gravity cause two things to attract? Why does the strong nuclear force hold protons together? Why is the speed of light 3 x 10^8 m/s and not half that, or 1000x as fast?
It’s often possible to figure out how certain initial values of the universe cause it to behave in certain ways. But, as for why those initial values are the ones that they are, that’s like asking about angels dancing on the head of a pin.
So he answered ‘how do they work’. No one was asking why.
The interviewer in the referenced clip did actually press Feynman to explain the “why”, which led Feynman into an explanation about how “why” is impossible to completely answer, which is what OP is talking about.