Anthony Cerrato wrote:

>>
>>In a response to another post I have offered an analysis
>>of 'ought' point to predictions of causal hypothesese and
>>'reasons' constitue ENTAILMENTS of causal hypothesese:
> 
> 
> Phil,
> I think ultimately. the only requirements for the universe
> are the physical laws which obtain. The universe is
> ultimately akin to an axiom or a tautology. As for human (or
> animal) behavior, all that's needed is genes, evolution, and
> game theory. Bye,           ...tonyC
> 

Agreed.  My point is that understanding requires the imposition
of concepts such as EXISTENCE, CAUSATION, PROPERTY, REASONS,
etc., and that perhaps some of the confusion about reasons, why,
etc. should more appropriately dealt with in terms of their
psychology.

By way of my own experience with an ultimate 'why' that
I personally found to suffice was the issue of the inverse
square law pertaining to gravitational attraction.  I always
did lousy in high school physics class because, while the
other kids were content to simply plug in the formulas, I
just couldn't stop wondering about why the mathematics
worked.  Why should nature be mathematical.

With respect to the inverse square law, I finally obtained my
answer, not from physics, but from Immanuel Kant.  The reason
why gravitational attraction obeys this law is simply because
the amount of graviational attraction a zillion miles from
a planet or star is exactly the same as at its surface, its
just that its diffused over an increasingly larger sphere of
influence.  So the mathematics is just a reflection of the
math associated with the surface of larger and larger spheres.
To me, this fully answers the issue of WHY nature obeys the
inverse square law, and no futher 'why' is necessary.  Of
course, one can always dream up further regressions of the
why questions, but to what end?

PR
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/29/04 6:06:08 AM