It was asked whether within the concept of existence if everything can be explained logically. Scientifically, etc. An explanation in general that is not some made up bullshit like the sky is blue because Mr. T wants it to be blue, or those trite Chuck Norris piles of shit. To this, I believe it relies HEAVILY on relativity. First of all, clarity would need to be made in regards what exactly is the definition of “existence” in this case. For all intensive purposes as to what I BELIEVE the person was asking, objective existence, such as the keyboard beneath my fingers as opposed to the colors one observes. It would need clarity, also, as to what an “explanation” is. Does this include an answer to a question of what, how, why, who? Does this an explanation in regards to the assumption of whether or not an answer as to the thing’s existence has already been answered as yes, or no? Is an explanation also in regards to the existence of the fact that thing does NOT exist, or only explanations for those that exist? I am going to assume, yet again, that the person’s underlying question is WHY something is and would also want an explanation as to why something is not.
Now, surpassing the question’s relativity, there comes the relativity in the answer. First off is f you view the base of the universe’s workings as structured or cyclical. If you view it as structured, the explanations for one event, thing, phenomenon, etc. are unique; that only this one whatever has that explanation as to why it exists. If you ask why a photon does not pass through one object and why a ball does not go through an object (generalized hypothetical situations, people), both do not share the same explanation, but are unique from one another despite how similar the explanation sounds. If so, then, it may be more likely for one to view that science cannot explain each segment of existence as they may try to explain one thing and regard that as the explanation for another, but this person not viewing interconnected things regards this as an inability to explain one in an attempt to explain the other. However, one may be a “structurist” and still view that by simply rearranging semantics of one explanation, they form a new explanation for the other individual thing. One who views the workings of the universe as cyclical will see that explanations can be recycled, where an explanation for one thing (I hate using this word) can serve as the explanation for another thing. They may view the explanation for a photon being unable to go through something as the same explanation for a ball being unable to go through a wall. (Again, generalized). However, as in the case of “structurists”, “cyclists” (hehehehe) may favor the answer of everything in the universe being able to be explained through science, but this does not mean they have to regard the universe as explainable. They may see that if one segment cannot be explained, this also connects to another segment of existence. Rendering that segment unexplainable as well. The “cyclists” my also view that if we continually ask why for an event, we reach a point that is unexplainable (unable to EVER be explained) and this therefore connects to ALL segments of reality. Despite the composition fallacy (or, in general, a hasty generalization), this would be there view. Some may view cyclists as committing the fallacy of begging the question as they answer a question about the thing by stating why it is over and over each time a question as to why it is, and why it is the way it is. In the realm of physics, this is applicable, begging the question, as with many factors in physics, the mere existence/composition of the thing is why it is and why it is why it is is because, again of its mere existence. Claiming begging the question so quickly in physics as being a point of logical fallacy would be a strawman/red herring (however you view it) in this case as, again, in physics, this type of logic is applicable as to the forces that govern us.
Another relativity that is taken into consideration is that when regarding the objective existence of things is whether we also take into account people’s personal beliefs on the objective existence? Though this question may seem obscure, I believe the God questions best illustrate this relativity. Do we take into account those whom believe that God exists and ask them to explain why this is so, and the opposite perception? Or, do we regard ONLY that which exists and we withhold questioning an explanation as to why God exists as he has not yet been solidified. I assume, it would be best to pose the question to both parties, thus opening more relativity. Those that believe in God’s existence would favor a view that there is an explanation for everything’s existence, whereas one who does not hold belief in God may favor the opposite. If God does objectively exist, then I would state that not everything can be explained such as God’s origin, or lack thereof. Now, something should fire off in your mind. Wait a minute, how do we define God? This introduces yet another level of relativity where the view of existence of one thing may be held as differing explanations that are just as plausible as the other as the existence of this thing can be taken into differing ways, none of which as a solidified objective truth, but still maintains a truth. In this case, as whether or not we regard God or gods existing in terms of our belief, and where a lack of existence for one definition of God may result in the idea of one believing that an explanation for everything is so, but the same definition of God may result in one holding an explanation for everything is not so. I believe God is a flying, omnipotent spaghetti monster (for all intensive purposes of this explanation) and hold that is cannot be explained why God is so. However, that same perception of God may hold that this is so because God chose to be a spaghetti monster with his omnipotent powers. God simply being a flying spaghetti monster is one explanation of the same concept (God being a FSM), but God CHOSE/PREDESITNED to be the monster is another explanation of the same concept, and that even if one is regarded. It cannot be truly said that one explanation can be objectively right nor objectively wrong, but relies purely on interpretation, which may almost necessitate the involvement of personal views on reality per the original question of whether everything in the universe can be explained. There is one more point of relativity as to whether reality can be explained wholly or not, and that may be how we define a thing as existing. Though we may agree on the definition of existence, an objective existence, once we reach the same definition of a thing, such as God (He is so versatile in this explanation), we may not agree that God’s precise existence is not quite the same type of existence agreed upon, where they may see one concept of God as inherently being not of objective existence, such as the Christian God, as he lives not on a different universe, but a different “plane of existence”.
All in all, whether or not everything can be explained is incredibly relative and per my relativity, I say am unsure as I am a non-theological agnostic (not the theological definition of agnostic, but the general definition). Everything may be able to be explained as an objective, scientific fact/explanation or as an non-false truth, be the truth relatively objective and subjective (The "why-God-is-what-he-is" scenario), and that may be ground enough for it to have an explanation as to why it exists.
I would also like to add, as a nit-pick, that "why" and "how" may be used interchangeably in presenting the question of one's existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment