Can human being ever find the real basic laws of our universe?

[zergju]

When i learned Newtonian mechanics i had this question is that we know a object have certain inertial.. but why does it acts this way? what actually is inertial?
we know f=ma but why it works that way?
we know so much about quantum mechanics but why is it true?

In today's world it seems that all we can know is that we give a prediction of how it seems to work but seldom we wonder about why it works that way..

Talking about this i feel our physics is of such a fragile base and wondered if we can one day find out the true reason for any theroy to be true..

Ok, i hope u understand my poor english..

Hope we can have a fun discussion~~ thanks for viewing~~

 

[Dale]

I think you misunderstand what a scientific law is. A scientific law does not address why, it only describes the observed behavior in a framework that allows us to predict the outcome of experiments.

Fundamentally, scientific laws are not designed to address "why" questions. If you want answers to "why" you are generally looking for philosophy or religion, not science.

Given that, I personally think the answer to your question is "yes, we will eventually have a theory of everything".

 

[out of whack]

Every question that is answered raises a new question. Why does it do that? Because it works like this. Why does it work like this? Because of that principle. Why does this principle apply? It originates from that law. Where does that law come from? The law devolves from this system. Why is there such a system? ...

Ultimately, the question "why" is unanswerable.

---

"Why is it unanswerable?" asked the kid to his dad. "Shut up" he explained.

 

[Fra]

but why does it acts this way? what actually is inertial?
we know f=ma but why it works that way?
we know so much about quantum mechanics but why is it true?

When we say there is a law of nature, it is true that while we think we know "how", one might not now "why". But the one "why" a scientific method should answer is "why do we think this law holds". It thus moves the question of motivating why we maintain this law. And the answer to that lies in the scientific method.

So the why is still important, because laws are not observed as singular observations in nature, they have been developed from experience and processing of a lot of observations. So I think the why to focus on, is the logic of science.

If you question a law, the thing to question is IMO the method that yielded it.

Still, I think that a deeper understanding of stuff like "mass and inertia" will come with deeper understanding of fundamental physics. But I think it's important to channel yours "why question" in a constructive way, along some lines of a scientific method and "theory of knowledge". This way, the why can be constructive.

/Fredrik

 

[p122525177]

zergju...
I believed that DaleSpam, out of whack and Fra's reply are the best as you can get. In physics there are too many " whys " and " hows". Personally, I have studied Regeneration energy of Black hole for awhile...which i had to go through all the astrophysics and quantum physics. Believe me its not pretty...for such long time we still don't understand the universe. So don't even mention the Unification laws.
Let's keep hoping the best, hope some genius will figure out all these things.

/Peter

 

[evagelos]

Given that, I personally think the answer to your question is "yes, we will eventually have a theory of everything".

So we will eventually become Gods?

 

[Borek]

So we will eventually become Gods?

There is a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path.

 

[Dale]

But the one "why" a scientific method should answer is "why do we think this law holds". It thus moves the question of motivating why we maintain this law. And the answer to that lies in the scientific method.

Good point. I don't know how you would set up an experiment to gather empirical data that would address a more general "why" question.

So we will eventually become Gods?

Well, a God is generally held to be a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

A correct theory of everything will not in principle give us any information about initial conditions. Also, a correct theory of everything is not likely to be very mathematically tractable, so we will have to do numerical solutions which will severely limit the scope of the predictions. So a correct theory of everything will not make us omniscient.

As Borek said, an omniscient being may still be somehow fundamentally limited in their ability to apply their knowledge to accomplish their goals. So even if we become omniscient through a theory of everything we may not be omnipotent.

And even if we become both omniscient and omnipotent using our theory of everything, I don't think there is any hope that we would become omnibenevolent through science.

 

[evagelos]

There is a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path.

define knowledge

 

[evagelos]

give us an example of a correct theory not mathematically tractable with numerical solutions if you wish please

 

[Dale]

Both the Einstein Field Equation and Maxwell's Equations are examples.

 

[humanino]

give us an example of a correct theory not mathematically tractable with numerical solutions if you wish please

QCD (Yang-Mills). If you prove me wrong, you make $1M

 

[Fra]

Good point. I don't know how you would set up an experiment to gather empirical data that would address a more general "why" question.

I think a sensible why question, must specify it's context. Most why questions are probably fuzzy, but I think one could probably in many cases clarify them.

Sometimes a why question, as in questioning a fact X and ask "why X" can have different meanings. It's like an abduction and sometimes an abduction while not beeing unique, can served the purpose of "data compression" and thus be said to have an utility.

An organism, say a human, has limited brain capacity, so compactification of knowledge seems to have a clear utility. So just to mention one thing, such a why, could have an utility. Then asking the why-question, simply would mean, asking for a more compact or more efficient representation. And instead of falsification of an answer, we get a selection for humans that evolve the ability to efficiently use it's limited brain. Evolution will select, perhaps not the "right" and unique, but probably the "best answer" in each case.

Similar questions are when we try to find more basic principles, and simpler theories. A theory that reduces say the number of free parameters. The other extreme would be to not care about theories at all. We could just file every single observation we ever have done in a gigantic archive, and "let it speak for itself" - no further speculation needed. The problem with that is the other extreme of the why questioning.

However there is still a problem of measuring effiency, and in general I think that is relative, and possibly observer depedent.

/Fredrik

 

[Dale]

define knowledge

Knowledge is a justified belief in something that is true.

 

[evagelos]

Both the Einstein Field Equation and Maxwell's Equations are examples.

What is the correct theory here?

What is not mathematically tractable here ,with numerical solutions??

 

[evagelos]

Knowledge is a justified belief in something that is true.

is not also knowledge a justified belief in something that is false??

 

[evagelos]

Also when we say for something ' i do not know what it is' Isnt that also knowledge??

 

[LightbulbSun]

Ultimately, the question "why" is unanswerable.

I will add that the OP's reasoning is flawed because he/she is already assuming there has to be a why. He/she is essentially committing the pathetic fallacy by attributing human aspirations to physical phenomena. There is no why, only how.

 

[Dale]

What is not mathematically tractable here ,with numerical solutions??

Both the EFE and Maxwell's equations are messy partial differential equations. They don't have general analytical solutions, and instead have to be evaluated numerically for most problems.

is not also knowledge a justified belief in something that is false??

No. "Justified true belief" is just the basic epistemological definition of knowledge.

Are you trying to make a point with any of your comments, or are you just trying to make conversation?

 

[Borek]

we know a object

we know f=ma

we know so much

all we can know

define knowledge

Well, you used the verb "to know" in your first post, so it is up to you to explain what you meant then.

 

[rewebster]

I think you misunderstand what a scientific law is. A scientific law does not address why, it only describes the observed behavior in a framework that allows us to predict the outcome of experiments.

Fundamentally, scientific laws are not designed to address "why" questions. If you want answers to "why" you are generally looking for philosophy or religion, not science.

Given that, I personally think the answer to your question is "yes, we will eventually have a theory of everything".

most if not all 'why' questions can be paraphrased as a 'how' or 'what' question, so only 'some' questions/answers deal with philosophy and/or religion. If you look up definitions of 'why', 'how', or 'what'--they overlap.


"Dictionary: why

adv.
For what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive: Why is the door shut? Why do birds sing?

conj.
The reason, cause, or purpose for which: I know why you left.
Usage Problem. On account of which; for which: “The reason why [regular verbs] are called regular is that we can predict what all the other three forms are” (Randolph Quirk).
n., pl. whys.
The cause or intention underlying a given action or situation: studying the whys of antisocial behavior.
A difficult problem or question."

http://www.answers.com/topic/why

and, I do agree that, while there still will be more questions (and deeper questions), but still some of the more basic levels of 'why', 'how' and 'what' of the questions of the workings of 'things' will come out/ 'be understood'.

 

[Dale]

most if not all 'why' questions can be paraphrased as a 'how' or 'what' question, so only 'some' questions/answers deal with philosophy and/or religion.

My experience on this forum is the opposite of yours. Most of the "why" questions I have seen here are like the OP's question:

we know f=ma but why it works that way?

Which seems to be a philosophical or religious question, not a scientific question.

How would you parphrase this question to be scientifically addressable?

 

[evagelos]

Well, you used the verb "to know" in your first post, so it is up to you to explain what you meant then.

i am sorry i think you making a mistake here my name is not zergju,and i did not write the very 1st post

 

[Borek]

i am sorry i think you making a mistake here my name is not zergju,and i did not write the very 1st post

Oops. Still it was not question to me, but to the OP.