To begin, one of the most fundamental question that has bothered me since I can remember is: why is the world the way it is? — darthbarracuda

Well... I'd say because of the predicating factors that have lead to to things being as they currently are and since these factors have been set into 'motion' they cannot be 'unset' into motion. Much like you cannot really 'unring' a bell once it has been rung.

Why do stars expand and contract due to pressure changes? They just do.
Isaac Newton postulated that things fall to the ground due to gravity. But why does an apple fall to the ground due to gravity? It just does. — darthbarracuda

That sounds like an answer. It might be satisfactory for what you wish it to be, but as far as I can tell there is no law within science that states we have to be happy with the answers we find.

Anyway...

We can "explain" why a volcano erupts, but not why a volcano erupts necessarily. — darthbarracuda

Do you mean 'why' as in having a purpose for doing what it does... as if there is a universal sort of must be a necessity to it all?

The cliche saying is that science answers the "how", philosophy answers the "why". Not only do I find this too simplistic, but it may be blatantly wrong. The "how" can just as easily be the "why", as long as we have a basic axiom to work on. However, this "why" is not a metaphysical "why", but a descriptive "why". These descriptive "why"s beg a regress ad infinitum, which is impossible. There must be a metaphysical "why". — darthbarracuda

I'm not following you here.

Why should a regress that is infinite be impossible?

Why should determining factors have a limit placed upon them other than the limits of our personal ability to deal with them?

Why hold determining factor hostage to our personal limitations of perspective and understanding?

The only reason for a metaphysical "why" as far as I can tell is when we are personally dissatisfied with our place in the universe and wish to make the universe dance according to our wishes. The only reason for a metaphysical "why" being at all necessary is when our ego take the high ground and we wish to think the universe is here and is as it is simply because of ourselves. That's why I tend to call it MEphysics. It is nothing more that an egotistical delusion of megalomania.

Anyway...

Obviously one answer to this question is that god made the world the way it is. I don't find this, currently, to be that appealing, so why does a volcano erupt instead of turning into a daffodil? — darthbarracuda

God is not an answer in any why shape or form. To simply make an appeal to an 'unknowable and invisible product' being sold as the causal agent of anything is not an answer. It changes nothing in terms of understanding, but rather makes a tactical dodging of the issue.

I can provide a scientific reason as to why a volcano erupts rather than become a field of flowers, but it will not include intention, purpose or agenda, as these are conjectures, attributions and assertions of value... these are relative to personal preferences and group social preferences, but not the results of nature phenomenon. We are the agents of value conjecture, attribution and assertion and not the volcano; thus the question of intention, purpose or agenda natural phenomenon has is a moot point... often a red herring to grant credence/justification to deities and other proxys of the human ego.

Now, before I continue, make no mistake, I do not want to discuss pessimism in this thread. There are a myriad of others out there for that. — darthbarracuda

Why should pessimism enter the fray at all?

Such value notions as pessimism make no difference to the situation. Honestly, neither science or nature cares what we think or feel about things. For that matter, nature and science does not care because it cannot care... we do that, so maybe we should avoid making science or nature into anthropomorphic entities.... capable of fielding value conjectures, attributions and assertions, as well as holding some sort of intention, purpose or agenda?

Regardless of your opinions on the metaphysical Will, I think his approach to this issue from the appearance vs essence is very interesting. — darthbarracuda

I find delusion to just as interesting. Same goes for love, but we cannot measure degrees of delusion with color charts or measure depth of feeling with a yardstick.

How do we measure "will"?

Again, these are notions of value we place into motion via conjecture, attribution and assertion.

why the universe is the way it is — darthbarracuda

Because of all of the predicating factors leading up to them being as it is at the current point in time and space. (works for me)

the nature of scientific explanations, and whether or not these explanations are suitable/adequate to answering the first question. — darthbarracuda

I find them adequate, but I try not to make the universe dance to my personal prefered song list. and avoid the selfish enterprise of MEphysics all together. ;)

Meow!

GREG

Well... I'd say because of the predicating factors that have lead to to things being as they currently are and since these factors have been set into 'motion' they cannot be 'unset' into motion. Much like you cannot really 'unring' a bell once it has been rung. — Mayor of Simpleton

An interesting idea, MoS, but I'm not sure if a metaphor is sufficient to answer the problem here.

How did these factors get set into motion, and what set them into motion?

Do you mean 'why' as in having a purpose for doing what it does... as if there is a universal sort of must be a necessity to it all? — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes. Why is it that eyes let us see and not let us fly? Why does a volcano erupt and not turn into a field of daffodils?

Why should a regress that is infinite be impossible? — Mayor of Simpleton

I was not aware that there were instances that an infinite regress is possible.

The electricity that powers the lightbulb next to me had to come from somewhere. It came from the powerline. But if it's powerlines all the way down, then there is no source of power at all.

Why should determining factors have a limit placed upon them other than the limits of our personal ability to deal with them? — Mayor of Simpleton

Do you mean something along the lines of that, since we are the products of evolution, we are limited in our cognitive abilities?

Why hold determining factor hostage to our personal limitations of perspective and understanding?

The only reason for a metaphysical "why" as far as I can tell is when we are personally dissatisfied with our place in the universe and wish to make the universe dance according to our wishes. The only reason for a metaphysical "why" being at all necessary is when our ego take the high ground and we wish to think the universe is here and is as it is simply because of ourselves. That's why I tend to call it MEphysics. It is nothing more that an egotistical delusion of megalomania. — Mayor of Simpleton

I agree that much of metaphysics seems very anthropocentric.

But to be dissatisfied with an answer is the spark of curiosity that leads to great discoveries. If we had all just given up because we didn't think it was possible to get to the moon, we wouldn't have gotten to the moon.

Curiosity seems to stem directly from our desire to know how we fit into this world.

God is not an answer in any why shape or form. To simply make an appeal to an 'unknowable and invisible product' being sold as the causal agent of anything is not an answer. It changes nothing in terms of understanding, but rather makes a tactical dodging of the issue. — Mayor of Simpleton

Pretty much agree.

Why should pessimism enter the fray at all? — Mayor of Simpleton

IT DOESN'T. HERE ME LOUD AND CLEAR, LET'S KEEP THIS THREAD FREE OF IT.

What I mean to say is that there are plenty of other threads dedicated specifically to pessimism, and I wanted to make sure nobody jumped on board to debate the nature of a pessimistic Will when this isn't really the focus of this topic.

To begin, one of the most fundamental question that has bothered me since I can remember is: why is the world the way it is? — darthbarracuda

There isn't very much that is necessary about the world the way it is. Astrophysicists say that "had the initial conditions of the newly emerged universe shortly after the big bang been just slightly different, there wouldn't be stars, galaxies, planets, volcanos, daffodils, apples, Newton, or darthbarracuda. The post bang universe would be altogether different.

"Why did it turn out this way and not some other way?"
"Because it did."

It wasn't necessary that life form on this celestial ball, but it did.

It wasn't necessary that methaneophiles should have gobbled up all the lovely methane that dominated the earth's atmosphere early on, and excrete oxygen as a waste product, but they did. It wasn't necessary that the sky turn from green to blue, but it did.

It wasn't necessary that the great extinctions occur, but they did.

It isn't necessary that you exist but you do, and we can be glad for that.

We have learned quite a but about the "how" of it all, but the "why" is simply not open to investigation. If it has bothered you thus far, it will either continue to bother you, or it won't. This may be one of the few things you can do something about.

It isn't necessary that you exist but you do, and we can be glad for that. — Bitter Crank

Aww thanks BC. (Y)

A computer program might show up on my monitor and display odd shapes of varying colors. Why?, I might ask. Well, the programming of the program.

Similarly, is there a programming behind the universe that makes it operate the way it does? Because it sure is peculiar that the universe operates in a strict, peculiar fashion.

The universe is not programmed and must operate as it does.

Unless, of course, you believe in a "Primum Causum" -- First Cause -- like God. But for the obsessive question asker, that doesn't help because then the question becomes "Why did God do it that way?" and "where did God come from?" The answer to those is not on the way either.

The cliche saying is that science answers the "how", philosophy answers the "why". Not only do I find this too simplistic, but it may be blatantly wrong. The "how" can just as easily be the "why", as long as we have a basic axiom to work on. However, this "why" is not a metaphysical "why", but a descriptive "why". These descriptive "why"s beg a regress ad infinitum, which is impossible. There must be a metaphysical "why".

It's really not a cliche - that expression really does refer to different kinds of reasons. There's a lot to be said for the four kinds of causes in Aristotelean philosophy - material, formal, efficient and final. Science doesn't really have counterparts for formal or final causality, and is mainly concerned with material and efficient causes. I think the volcano example can be entirely answered in terms of material and efficient causes - kinds of pressures, forces, materials, and so on.

But in the human realm, the kinds of reasons are of a completely different order. Then you're often asking 'why' in terms of motivations, goals, and intentions. And I don't think that science has any particular advantages in those matters; it is, presumably, the domain of psychology, but that is hardly scientific in the same sense that the physical sciences are (despite what many psychologists would like to believe.)

It ought to be recalled that the notion that the Universe can be understood without any kind of formal or final cause is a pretty recent innovation in the history of ideas; it really only became feasible to entertain such an idea in the 20th Century.

An interesting idea, MoS, but I'm not sure if a metaphor is sufficient to answer the problem here.

How did these factors get set into motion, and what set them into motion? — darthbarracuda

As far as I can tell, at the moment, is that we hit a wall at the singularity (the big bang). What happened prior to this is not really something we can address like anything else post singularity.

The reasoning for this is simple...

... we need a language we do not have.

huh?

I get that a lot.

Language is all based in a context. There is no such thing as a non-contextual language. The base context of language is spatial and temporal, as out context of experiences where language has its foundation is space and time.

How can we use a language seated in space and time to speak of ????? that is prior to space and time?

Kwalish Kid once said something to the effect that the singularity is not a triumph of science, but rather a 'failure' or better said a short coming of science in that we can only have some speculation with a degree of logical consistency regarding this issue, but until we have an ability to speak of space before space and time before time in a coherent manner, science will and must fail to provide an answer... as this might well indeed prove to be unanswerable.

btw... Metaphysics does not answer this, it simply dodges it with magic and magical thinking; thus adds nothing to the debate.

Yes. Why is it that eyes let us see and not let us fly? Why does a volcano erupt and not turn into a field of daffodils? — darthbarracuda

I cannot improve on this. At some point or another we have some things that whether we like them to be so or not simply are as they are. I can only make an attempt to bring in happenings just shortly after the big bang to trace a trail of determining factors, but honestly I find that such a question is simply an appeal to magical thinking. It's not dogma as much as all indicators of determining factors point to this being the logical outcome.

Indeed it is good to place the given into question, but at some points one might wish to look at the alternative... in the case the field of flowers options and simply figure why this is just silly magical thinking.

Do you mean something along the lines of that, since we are the products of evolution, we are limited in our cognitive abilities? — darthbarracuda

Well, I'd say that might be a small part of it, but why not see the reason not as THE reason, but as one of many reasons?

You'll see if you drop the idealistic THE answer for things and address answers for thing as many parts it is far easier to get a grasp upon.

Back to the point...

... we have limited lifespans, limited fields of perspective, limited understanding of technologies, limited understanding of processes, limited amounts of information (in that we only have a very small sample of the determining factors leading up to an event/actions being as it is)... in short, this is why science is involved in investigations and metaphysics is involved in certainties. One is in the process of gaining knowledge and other other is in the process of excluding this gain and ignoring it as to preserve faith in a central meaning or a central purpose. This is the main problem of idealistic thinking. It claims to be 'open minded' or having a greater perspective, where all it has done is rather dogmatically insisted upon things in the universe play along with metaphysical preferences. I'm trying my best to be nice about this... in short metaphysical questions are not really questions at all, but rather claims of (religious) faith founded upon the denial of what is observed. Metaphysics cannot take criticism and when something does not line up with its preconceived notions it is either brushed off or spun in such a manner as to make it magical. It's basically idealistic bullshit institutionalized. (and that is me being nice)

I agree that much of metaphysics seems very anthropocentric.

But to be dissatisfied with an answer is the spark of curiosity that leads to great discoveries. If we had all just given up because we didn't think it was possible to get to the moon, we wouldn't have gotten to the moon. — darthbarracuda

But to be dissatisfied with an answer is the spark to imprison many a fellow who has a different notions to what one WANTS to be the case.

Science has to fight tooth and nail against such agents of metaphysics, superstitions and magical preferences/desires.

Curiosity seems to stem directly from our desire to know how we fit into this world. — darthbarracuda

It can also mean how we wish to fashion the world into our own image.

Here's a funny bit for you:

IT DOESN'T. HERE ME LOUD AND CLEAR, LET'S KEEP THIS THREAD FREE OF IT.

What I mean to say is that there are plenty of other threads dedicated specifically to pessimism, and I wanted to make sure nobody jumped on board to debate the nature of a pessimistic Will when this isn't really the focus of this topic. — darthbarracuda

I only have one addition to this...

... I think the pessimism only occurs when the results of science simply don't match up with the preferences of the individual. This disappointment leads to pessimism, but actually it's nothing more than a school bully being called on his bluff. I feel these people need to simply grow up and realize that the universe is simply not all about them and get over their narcissism that leads to this pessimism.

I enjoy my limitations and uncertain understandings. They seem to match up well with science and the process of adaptation that adds to scientific understanding. The universe doesn't care about me or what I think or what I believe. The universe simply doesn't care because it cannot care. It doesn't have that petty ability of valuations of things and events. In short, it is all there. Problem is I cannot possibly access it all of perceive it all; thus like science... I don't know everything which is why I do not stop. Metaphysics and idealism do make claims of knowing everything... and if they don't then the answers they field with certainty are all magical claims or selling us an invisible product that has really done nothing to answer anything... perhaps this is them simply being in love with the sound of their own voices inside their heads, who really knows, but this is why (I find that) they are so stagnated and pessimistic... but then state that they are spiritual.

Whatever...

... I don't do this often, as Dawkins is rather unpopular, but this bit is not bad at all. He rather hits the nail on the head:



From 7:16 to 7:52 is the best thing Dawkins has ever stated. That's my point here as well.

Meow!

GREG

Metaphysics cannot take criticism and when something does not line up with its preconceived notions it is either brushed off or spun in such a manner as to make it magical. It's basically idealistic bullshit institutionalized. (and that is me being nice) — Mayor of Simpleton

What are you conceiving the nature of metaphysics of being? There's the pop-culture New Age metaphysics bullshit, and then there's academic metaphysics, which today does not really include theology (which I find to be quite unnecessary and mostly bullshit).

I understand and agree with you in your assessment that we are insignificant anomalies in a vast, uncaring universe. However, your position is that all the speculation we put forth into the nature of the cosmos (that is not empirical) is bullshit, and I'm not entirely sure why you believe this to be the case. I don't mean to be rude and I say this simply to garner discussion but to me it seems like you are romanticizing our eternal ignorance.

I reject many of the older, "rationalist" metaphysical structures that were far too anthropocentric. But I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. I don't see why the universe can't have a discernible, underlying structure...in fact, it would be rather odd if it didn't.

Nature is the way it is. Very simple rules, like gravity, keep every thing moving, and enable matter to develop into much more complex forms. Throughout, nature seeks the simplest way, just as water seeks its own level, and how certain elements combine only in certain manners because of the way they are constituted.

We see 'emergent' phenomenon in nature, because of how things are constituted, and how they can possibly combine given a particular context. A soap bubble is spherical because that shape provides for the lowest surface tension, and when a soap bubble reaches a certain size it busts. This is similar to why a volcano erupts, the earth's surface is cracked and the molten material from inside the earth seeks the easiest way out.

To begin, one of the most fundamental question that has bothered me since I can remember is: why is the world the way it is? — darthbarracuda

I wouldn't be surprised if the answers you're getting here are dissatisfying to you. Here's the closest we'll get to a direct answer to the question. There's a distinction to be drawn between explanatory and justificatory questions.

Paradigmatic explanatory questions include (1) "Why does the sky (under standard conditions) appear blue to human eyes?" and (2) "Why does steel (under standard conditions) have a melting temperature 250°F lower than that of iron?" and (3) "Why is mental functioning interrupted by injury to the brain?." Answers to these questions might take the form of (1) empirical generalization; (2) theoretical postulation (i.e. the introduction of new, unobservable entities like atoms or quarks into our ontology); or (3) metaphysical assertions (i.e. claims to the effect that mental properties supervene on or are grounded in the physical properties of the brain and nervous system).

Paradigmatic justificatory questions include (1) "Why would you ever do something like that?" and (2) "Why is that one can't maintain both that-p and that-not-p?" and (3) "Why does this one count as a diamond while that one does not?." Answers to these questions might take the form of (1) reports of beliefs and desires, or rules for correct action; (2) appeals to principles of logic or reasoning; or (3) commentaries on the way that language is used.

As you present the issue, it doesn't sound like your question is an explanatory question. You're not looking for empirical generalizations from available evidence: this misses the point of the question. Neither are you looking for a new class of theoretical postulates that will explain the available evidence: this simply adds more to the class of facts specifying how the world is. And neither are you looking to carve out the metaphysical relationships that ground one class of facts or properties in any other: again, those relationships themselves would just be more to explain. Theological answers to your question seem to make the mistake of confusing it for an explanatory question, and in so doing propose original causes as unexplained explainers. As should be no surprise to anyone, this still leaves us wondering how it could be that there should be such a thing as an unexplained explainer--a wonder which eventually finds shape in yet another explanatory question.

But the question doesn't work as a justificatory question either. Like the explanatory question why steel melts at lower temperatures than iron, the question why things are as they are cannot be answered by appeal to beliefs and desires or rules for correct action or principles of logic or conventions of language. It's simply not that kind of question either. It's neither kind of question. And some philosophers, particularly early analytic philosophers much concerned with clarity in language, might conclude from this that it's not a question at all--but rather a pseudo-question disguised as a question.

However, there clearly is something to the question. What's important to keep in mind is that questions are artifacts of our very specific human linguistic faculty, and the appropriateness of a particular answer to a particular question turns not only on facts about the extra-linguistic world, but also on the structure of language itself. My suspicion is that the uncertainty that motivates this question (and neighboring questions, such as "Why is there something rather than nothing?") simply cannot be articulated as a question, for the reason that it does not admit (even in principle) of any answer. It obviously still indexes a very real and very important uncertainty that we all can be made to feel. It seems clear, however, that we're simply not able to think about the issue with any real clarity--or, at least, without mistaking it for either an explanatory or a justificatory question. It's simply never entirely clear what's being talked about.

Splendid entry Glahn and welcome.

However, there clearly is something to the question. What's important to keep in mind is that questions are artifacts of our very specific human linguistic faculty, and the appropriateness of a particular answer to a particular question turns not only on facts about the extra-linguistic world, but also on the structure of language itself. My suspicion is that the uncertainty that motivates this question (and neighboring questions, such as "Why is there something rather than nothing?") simply cannot be articulated as a question, for the reason that it does not admit (even in principle) of any answer. It obviously still indexes a very real and very important uncertainty that we all can be made to feel. It seems clear, however, that we're simply not able to think about the issue with any real clarity--or, at least, without mistaking it for either an explanatory or a justificatory question. It's simply never entirely clear what's being talked about. — Glahn

I'd like to add a metaphysical point I've been thinking about. One thing that has occasionally puzzled me, as an avowed and happy-to-be-atheist atheist, is that sometimes people of a religious background or upbringing ask me, But how do you manage without god(s)? Why the 'a' in 'a-theist'?

I've realized that this supposed deficit is in a related area to the o p. In our histories, some people have asked themselves some sort of question like 'Why are we here?' - and dug down through science and art to the bedrock question - and they have found an answer in a deity or a conjunction of deities.

Once such an answer has been conjured up, it seems to them like an absence - to some, an evasion - to say, as I would, 'There just is no answer to such a question as far as I can see.'

Some people have also, if I offer a response like this, taken me for a prim, analytic-to-the-core, heartless Dawkins-loving atheist. Again, to me this is a surprise, for I love the arts, for instance, sex and good food and being involved in mutual political activity and deep enquiry. Some of these activities have caused deep, maybe profound feelings in me, of intellect and emotion combined, and I feel quite a correlation between these reactions and others' descriptions of religious feeling.

I don't know why, however, such feelings - which for some might go as far as mysticism, or obsession, or ecstasy - would have anything to do with the origins of the world around us, or of ourselves, and yet they do for many people of a religious persuasion. They seem to me very different phenomena. But there we are.

But how do you manage without god(s)? Why the 'a' in 'a-theist'?

I generally find your 'forum persona' very congenial, and your posts a model of clarity, but I differ in this regard, not being atheist. However my religious affiliation is Buddhist, which doesn't recognize a creator God or the Bible, obviously. But it is not 'atheist' in the sense that it certainly believes there is something like a moral law or, perhaps better put, a principle of 'moral causatinon', namely, karma - and I don't think there is anything that maps against that in atheism, is there?

But beyond that particular question, one observation I would make is that, if a realistic or naturalistic attitude to life is perfectly satisfactory, what then does philosophy consist of? What difference is there between those who ask philosophical questions, and those who don't? Just a turn of phrase? A way with words? I would like to think not: I would like to think that there is something difficult to fathom, subtle, 'perceptible only to the wise', the knowledge of which constitutes the difference between the philosopher and the hoi polloi. Rather a Platonist attitude, I suppose, but there is is.

Also I suggest a read of Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament.pdf by Thomas Nagel if you haven't encountered it. Explores this issue in some depth.

But beyond that particular question, one observation I would make is that, if a realistic or naturalistic attitude to life is perfectly satisfactory, what then does philosophy consist of? What difference is there between those who ask philosophical questions, and those who don't? Just a turn of phrase? A way with words? — Wayfarer

Thank you for your generous remarks. You are always remarkably calm in the face of angry naturalism, I must say :)

I don't find a 'realistic or naturalistic attitude' 'perfectly satisfactory', myself. I like Nelson Goodman because he accepts, indeed argues for, pluralism, for there being multiple shared 'real worlds', depending on the language community. He also sees the arts as equally important and insightful with science and philosophy, and that's an area where my recent interest in analytic philosophy has amazed me: how little analytic philosophers refer to the arts, how little humility they show towards artists, indeed how oddly self-important their pronouncements are. Most of this stuff will blow away on the wind, leaving Picasso and Shostakovich and Toni Morrisson and Adrienne Rich to testify to the future about how we thought in our time. (Indeed, sociologists may understand more, though only Continental philosophers admit they exist, most of the time!)

As I see it. Still, there is something there, to something to burrow deep down into and come back up to the surface with insight, or I wouldn't be digging myself! 'Something difficult to fathom, subtle' as you put it. What we call 'aesthetic' has something to do with it, for me. I'm not a Platonist, in fact the Plato of the Republic sometimes makes me shudder. My Greek hero is probably Euripides: a man who was as fascinated as his fellows by heroes and gods, who saw into human affairs bleakly but poetically and movingly. Among a certain arty crowd of whom I would count myself a member, it's remarkable how the Greek dramas speak to us, even now, and I love how Sophocles or Aeschylus or Euripides (to me) have insight beyond the neat systems of Aristotle or Plato into tragedy and love and hope.

Maybe there's an atheistic philosophy being built, but it hasn't had much time to grow yet. The idea of 'ecology' writ large certainly appeals to me as a systematic way of looking at things. And inside that, musical metaphors are usually my deepest level of explanation: a feeling of harmony, of the musics and movements of the worlds we know.

Some more thoughts on this I'd like to share:

The world we live in has been transformed by the creativity and labor of mankind. We live in a world of technology.

Take, a flashlight. Who knew it was even possible to harness electricity and use it to illuminate your surroundings?! Obviously a flashlight is not a "naturally" occurring thing, since it is built by a human. But the fact that it is even possible, in this universe, to build a flashlight, strikes me as sort of remarkable.

I find it remarkable that we can even harness anything in the universe and use it as a tool.

But it's not just simplistic tools, like a club or a bowl. We have built computers! We have built skyscrapers, and elevators within them! We have built nuclear bombs capable of unimaginable destruction!

It's strange, I think, that the universe should harbor such potential to be used to make such complex and useful tools.

This might be explained by the anthropic principle. Also, it's not entirely easy to make these contraptions. We can't just wake up one day and build an entire skyscraper in the afternoon. Gravity's a bitch sometimes. And there's insurmountable dangers with technology, as well, such as the capability to kill other people. So I think an appeal to an omnibenevolent deity that "made it all for us to be used" is misguided, because it would be a very incompetent deity since they obviously didn't have the foresight to realize their grand design of the universe would result in us utilizing it to achieve destruction.

But this does bug me a bit. It does kind of seem like the universe is "designed" to be utilized. It's not perfect, to be sure, but neither is it a blank slate that we can't do anything with.

The world we live in has been transformed by the creativity and labor of mankind. We live in a world of technology. — darthbarracuda

Reeks of Marx!

Obviously a fleshlight is not a "naturally" occurring thing, since it is built by a human. But the fact that it is even possible, in this universe, to build a fleshlight, strikes me as sort of remarkable. — darthbarracuda

Ahh yes, indeed, what a great wonder of the world :P !

But this does bug me a bit. It does kind of seem like the universe is "designed" to be utilized. It's not perfect, to be sure, but neither is it a blank slate that we can't do anything with. — darthbarracuda

Either this, or otherwise we have evolved to be extremely adept at using the Universe :)

Does the scientific method give us the truth about the natural world?

I don't think that's possible, assuming you mean an objective truth. We are bound by our own physical and mental limitations, as well as our own perspective. We're essentially video game characters trying to figure out the coding for the game we exist in. We can't possibly do it because we are products of said coding. Only being outside of the game allows for the kind of perspective necessary to see these "truths". So, nothing within the game itself can possibly show us an objective picture of the game coding, we can only find results or manifestations of the code and try to infer from those manifestations what the code is that produces them. This is akin to the universal laws we have come up with, like gravity. We can observe how things work and notice patterns, but we cannot possibly discover why things work that way, what the actual code is--or, for that matter, who wrote the code.

Metaphysics and metaphysical questions are typically disregarded, which is a bit of a shame. I think there is value to thinking about them, even if by the definition "meta" we surely cannot get direct answers to our questions.

David Hume famously rejected metaphysics and If directly asked about Hume's views, people can have different opinions, but usually unconsciously we follow the same guidelines. Normally people are empiricists of the likes of Locke and Hume. A scientist doesn't need more philosophy than that.

So, the topics I would like to discuss here are why the universe is the way it is, — darthbarracuda

It is the result of universal creative activity of different sorts. All science is doing is observing the activities and giving it different names.

why is the world the way it is?

Now, I don't see how science could ever explain this. — darthbarracuda

I would say that science offers explanations for specific events and other observations and seeks to construct models, find universal laws, etc. with respect to questions like the origin and history of specific things like the Earth, galaxies, the cosmos, etc.

It is not an indictment of science that science is unable to explain vague, abstract things like "the world the way it is".

Physicalism/materialism, not science, is what fails us. Science, as far as I know, has never claimed to be in the business of explaining everything. Science, as far as I can tell, acknowledges that its scope is the physical things that humans can observe and make predictions about--nothing more, nothing less. Philosophical physicalism/materialism, on the other hand, says that matter and energy are all that exist. Okay, but why do things other than matter and energy not exist?

If you want answers to questions like why the world is the way that it is, you are probably wasting your time and energy thinking about physical material. Maybe that is why the question has bothered you--you have been enculturated into a system where focus on the physical world (or the part of it that our senses can sense, our instruments can measure, etc., at least) dominates. If theological explanations like "The world is the way it is because it was made out of God's goodness" do not suit you, I'm sure that there is an abundance of alternatives out there. Discover as many of those non-physicalism, non-science alternatives as you can and the answer to your question will probably gradually become clearer.

But the latter likely will not be definitive, final answers. Even scientists and physicalists have to live with that.

To begin, one of the most fundamental question that has bothered me since I can remember is: why is the world the way it is? — darthbarracuda

The world that we experience, and the detailed world that physicists find, when they closely investigate and examine the world, must, of course, be a world in which your existence is possible. It must be consistent with there being you. Your experience must be consistent. A set of inconsistent propositions aren't facts.

For example, why is there quantum mechanics? Answer: Because life, at least the kind of life that we are, requires atoms that are stable, and are of consistent particular kinds. That requires discrete-valued quantities. A way of achieving that is via standing waves.

Hence wave-mechanics, matter-waves.

Michael Ossipoff