"Phil Roberts, Jr."  wrote in message
news:cjdga9$1ev5$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>
>
> 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


I agree--the psychology of why the "why?" question is asked
is very pertinent to the answers sought. The prime example
is given by the religious mind-set of the question asker.
Rabid Muslims, Catholics, and Atheists will interpret (and
accept or not) answers to the "why?" question in radically
different ways-- as almost always is the case in the
universe, there is no absolute reference standard for
ultimate truth!

I love your example of explaining the inverse square
law--and of course it can be generalized to many other laws.
Hopefully, something like String Thy. will someday carry he
explanation one level deeper and explain the nature of the
gravitational force itself in equally simple terms...but
'till then, your explanation says it all in a very neat way.
Would that physics teachers were more cognizant of the need
of students for such simple explications! Regards,
.....tonyC
---
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 10/2/04 5:06:41 PM