I’m about to teach and then fly to D.C. to do some of that wonderfully fun government work that we are occasionally called upon for. But I couldn’t leave before pointing out an interesting story by Benedict Carey in today’s Science T…

“Why are planetary orbits elliptical” is answered by “how bodies move with a inverse square law force”, “why does sickle cell anemia persist in human populations” is answered by “how natural selection works with a recessive trait”.

Our “why” questions are answered by a description, sometimes mathematical, concise and precise; and sometimes somewhat wordy; and the description is about how something happens. Why is gravity an inverse square law force? We can answer that if it reduces to a “how” question in a quantum field theory or string theory.

“Why anything exists at all?” needs to be recast in the “how” mold. E.g, given the Big Bang, how various structures form is available, but “why the Big Bang?” will need something more (maybe a “how” description from branes in string theory?)

Of course, the ultimate theory will have to describe itself in this “how” fashion, otherwise, the “why” question will remain – why this particular theory? The ultimate theory, of course, has a loophole, the answer to the why could be that the ultimate theory is unique. Still, the “why the ultimate theory?” is likely to remain the one unanswerable question.

I’ve never really understood why people say that. Perhaps
they mean something special by “why question”. But on
the face of it physics did a good job with, just to take one
of zillions of examples, “why are planetary orbits elliptical?”,
and in biology, how about, “why does sickle cell anemia
persist in human populations?”…

Then pray let me know why anything exists at all?

Thanks! The full lecture from which the Max Weber quote was taken is worth reading, it is here:

http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/Weber/scivoc.html

Another excerpt:

Under these internal presuppositions, what is the meaning of science as a vocation, now after all these former illusions, the ‘way to true being,’ the ‘way to true art,’ the ‘way to true nature,’ the ‘way to true God,’ the ‘way to true happiness,’ have been dispelled? Tolstoi has given the simplest answer, with the words: ‘Science is meaningless because it gives no answer to our question, the only question important for us: “What shall we do and how shall we live?” ‘ That science does not give an answer to this is indisputable. The only question that remains is the sense in which science gives ‘no’ answer, and whether or not science might yet be of some use to the one who puts the question correctly.

Back in 1919 Max Weber famously had this to say about the impact of science in the modern world:

“The fate of our times is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization and, above all, by the “disenchantment of the world.” Precisely the ultimate and most sublime values have retreated from public life either into the transcendental realm of mystic life or into the brotherliness of direct and personal human relations. It is not accidental that our greatest art is intimate and not monumental.” (see e.g. http://www.bartleby.com/66/46/63446.html)

Sociologists have been debating why the scientific “disenchantment of the world” hasn’t led to a terminal decline in religion ever since.