Thread replies: 12
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Ok /sci/ let's have some fun.
Is there a point where it becomes ignorant to continue asking why? I don't mean like stupid stuff that can be Google'd. I mean something like in quantum physics or whatever.
Like gravitational waves, for instance. Right now we're looking for waves, then we'll look for where they come from, then we'll look for why they come from there, then we'll look for what causes the process that causes the process of the formation of gravitational waves, and so on.
When does it become ignorant to keep going? Is there a limit?
Sorry if that was a bad example, but I hope it gets my point across.
>>
>>8539787
never. all knowledge is useful to extend and help enjoy your life
>>
>>8539787
I think the limit is when the answers doesn't add anything to science(I.e can't make predictions, can't be verified by experiments, etc)
>>
Depends if it's in an argument or just for your own contemplation
I'd say it's impolite to discount people's ideas about one strata of whyness by trying to go deeper with another why if it's not warranted
It can also drive yourself to nihilism if you do it internally too much. At the core though the issue is an important one since you're really trying to get at the underlying basis of reality, it's just you have to do it in steps and can't dig too hard for answers that won't come
>>
>>8539817
Very interesting insight there. Makes a lot of sense.
>>
File: 1473019353341.png (686KB, 634x875px) Image search:
[Google]
686KB, 634x875px
Why isn't there anything inside a quark?
>>
I think once the cause becomes non-physical, where we have a fundamental rule of the universe, it's not productive to look for more causes
>>
>>8541044
That's probably the best way to think about it
>>
>>8539817
>It can also drive yourself to nihilism if you do it internally too much
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. If there really is no inherent meaning in the universe, I say it would be a good thing that a rational being figure that out as quickly as possible and adjust accordingly.
>>
It becomes useless to ask why when we don't have any emprirical evidence for an explanation. There are always some fundamental experiments that haven't been explained in simpler terms E.g. What is spin? Spin is something we have observed, that's about all you can say. There are no experiments that exist to explain it in a fundamental way, so the question becomes unscientific.
>>
>>8539787
Your example is wrong.
We know gravitational waves are a thing we should observe, according to GR.
We detect gravitational waves.
We have more evidence GR is a good theory. Thats all.
We done did it.
Now we might use gravitational waves as a mean to get info about the universe.
>>
>>8539787
why would it be?
Thread posts: 12
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2