Why will there always be questions in the universe?

[Mattius_]

Always with the questions!

Ive been thinking... (uh oh) and as far as i can see, there will always be questions within the universe. So far, we are at a pretty specific(dependent upon interpretation) in our studies, and as far as i can see, there will always be questions.

For example... I could ask:

Q: Why do things fall?
A: because there is gravity
Q: How does gravity work
A: Higg's Boson
Q: What gives a Higg's Boson it's properties?
A: ?

Hyopthetically, as time progressed, we could figure out the answer to these smaller problems but in the end, we would end up at an unknown again, because the logic of the universe, which by my definition is linear and categorized, always is composed smaller entities which define the latter. For whatever particle we discover, there will always be constituents which determined that particle's properties.

Anyone else agree?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Ive been thinking... (uh oh) and as far as i can see, there will always be questions within the universe. So far, we are at a pretty specific(dependent upon interpretation) in our studies, and as far as i can see, there will always be questions.

For example... I could ask:

Q: Why do things fall?
A: because there is gravity
Q: How does gravity work
A: Higg's Boson
Q: What gives a Higg's Boson it's properties?
A: ?

Hyopthetically, as time progressed, we could figure out the answer to these smaller problems but in the end, we would end up at an unknown again, because the logic of the universe, which by my definition is linear and categorized, always is composed smaller entities which define the latter. For whatever particle we discover, there will always be constituents which determined that particle's properties.

Anyone else agree?

Sort of. For whatever particle, you will of cours find it's properties, but this doesn't have to lead to infinite regress. If the T.O.E. were to discover the truly fundamental particle and define it's properties, you would have no more questions to ask about particles, would you?

As to a more general, philosophical, take on your post, I'd have to agree with you: no concept can be completely defined, if complete definition requires that every term in the definition is completely defined.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Ive been thinking... (uh oh) and as far as i can see, there will always be questions within the universe. So far, we are at a pretty specific(dependent upon interpretation) in our studies, and as far as i can see, there will always be questions.

For example... I could ask:

Q: Why do things fall?
A: because there is gravity
Q: How does gravity work
A: Higg's Boson
Q: What gives a Higg's Boson it's properties?
A: ?

Hyopthetically, as time progressed, we could figure out the answer to these smaller problems but in the end, we would end up at an unknown again, because the logic of the universe, which by my definition is linear and categorized, always is composed smaller entities which define the latter. For whatever particle we discover, there will always be constituents which determined that particle's properties.

Anyone else agree?

The beauty of the universe is the fact that we have evolved to question the WHY of everyting. One questions asked brings two more. But that does not mean that we do not get closer to answering the last WHY? An infinite number of questions has to equal the final answer. The final answer will be WHY.

 

[pace]

microcosmos(as this first post was about) and macrocosmos, is old definitions and debate.

There's a difference between asking how does gravity work, and what is gravity, or why. Gravity is one of the big mysteries. Maybe we'll find out one day? That'd be cool.

Originally posted by Rader
The beauty of the universe is the fact that we have evolved to question the WHY of everyting. One questions asked brings two more. But that does not mean that we do not get closer to answering the last WHY? An infinite number of questions has to equal the final answer. The final answer will be WHY.

afaiu if we believe the final answer is why, we already presume there's a reason(and a will?) before existence, so maybe it's a little dangerous just starting to ask that? We could also believe existence came before reason. I find the 'what came first: the hen or the egg?' question similiar. But maybe they came both, and exists both, at the same time? We're a lot of wills, let's approach each other.

"It's not how the world exists that's mysterious, but that it exists " - L. Wittgenstein.