- #1
HeisenbergGER
- 5
- 0
I recently engaged in Kant's philosophy and I have now a "knowledge dilemma". I understood physics to this point as the deeper understanding of nature. However, it seems to my that we are only describing nature, without fathoming the reasons why it behaves how it does. Since I was a little child, I was curious how the world around me works. But centuries of scientific engagement only describe the phenomenons we see, rather than explaining them. We have made models to describe those, but it is uncertain that those models are accurate or realistic, they just seem to work for us. Quantum theory tells us that you can not know certain things for sure, for instance at what specific point in time a radioactive nucleus will decay. This turns my whole Weltanschauung upside down, as I thought for the majority of my life that every effect has a cause. And know someone comes along, saying that there can't be a cause.
I tried to talk about my dilemma with my teachers, however, most of them seem to be happy with the description of events.
If you apply this to knowledge we take for granted, isn't it impossible to fathome these aswell? As a kid, I used to ask my parents a simple question, for instance: "How does a radio work?" I then continued to ask "why?" to every reply I got, until my parents weren't able to elaborate further. Doesn't that mean that every thing we know is based on something we don't know and hence becomes ambiguous? It is the same if you want so solve a system of equations with 4 variables, having only 3 equations.
What do you think?
I tried to talk about my dilemma with my teachers, however, most of them seem to be happy with the description of events.
If you apply this to knowledge we take for granted, isn't it impossible to fathome these aswell? As a kid, I used to ask my parents a simple question, for instance: "How does a radio work?" I then continued to ask "why?" to every reply I got, until my parents weren't able to elaborate further. Doesn't that mean that every thing we know is based on something we don't know and hence becomes ambiguous? It is the same if you want so solve a system of equations with 4 variables, having only 3 equations.
What do you think?