Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: The "why" and "how" words

  1. #1 The "why" and "how" words 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Fort Lee, NJ, USA
    Posts
    153
    In a recent conversation someone said " ... Science and religion are two sides of the same coin in regards to truth; science is attempting to answer "how" and religion is attempting to answer "why". Neither has, nor will probably ever, have a complete answer. ... " Repluing to this I wrote: " Unfortunately, the words "why" and "how" are in our languages. They are used by all people, including deists and scientists. The "why do we have solar eclipses?" is a scientific question, according to most people. The same is true for the "how do we cure malaria?," "how to build an atom bomb,? etc. Deistic questions can also be asked by using the "why" and "how" words. Do we need a language police? "


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    there are 3

    why is it being done
    what is being done
    how is it being done

    the difference between them is probably more psychological than physical
    but its very real nonetheless


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    I decide 'what' is to be done and leave it to my subordinates to decide 'how' to do it.

    the reason 'why' I made that decision is that my boss made a decision
    about 'what' to do and left it to me to figure out 'how' to do it.

    my 'why' is my boss' 'what'.
    my 'what' is my subordinates 'why'.
    my 'how' is my subordinates 'what'.

    my subordinates may be geniuses at figuring out 'how' to do things but
    at the same time be totally oblivious of the 'context' in which those doings are done.
    What works in one context wont necessarily work in another context.

    sounds simple but in the real world one has many bosses and many subordinates
    and one has to juggle and interweave many 'whys', 'whats', and 'hows' at once.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Fort Lee, NJ, USA
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by granpa
    there are 3

    why is it being done
    what is being done
    how is it being done

    the difference between them is probably more psychological than physical
    but its very real nonetheless
    Yes, the word "what" is also used a lot, by most people, no less that the other two words. I did not hear anyone objecting to the use of the word "what." But I know a physics teacher who urges scientists to stop using the word "why." He claims it belongs to metaphysics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    like I said its more psychological than physical

    the answer is probably going to depend on how you look at it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: The "why" and "how" words 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by kowalskil
    In a recent conversation someone said " ... Science and religion are two sides of the same coin in regards to truth; science is attempting to answer "how" and religion is attempting to answer "why". Neither has, nor will probably ever, have a complete answer. ... " Repluing to this I wrote: " Unfortunately, the words "why" and "how" are in our languages. They are used by all people, including deists and scientists. The "why do we have solar eclipses?" is a scientific question, according to most people. The same is true for the "how do we cure malaria?," "how to build an atom bomb,? etc. Deistic questions can also be asked by using the "why" and "how" words. Do we need a language police? "
    They are not the two sides of the same coin!



    Religion asks why and how and science too. True.

    However, science depends on proof and religion on faith.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    Why the cosmos? Nothing cannot be or stay.

    How? Quantum fluctuations about the ZPE.

    What? Stuff.

    Where? Space.

    When? Future.

    Then? Past.

    Who? Our being.

    Any other basics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by questor
    Why the cosmos? Nothing cannot be or stay.

    How? Quantum fluctuations about the ZPE.

    What? Stuff.

    Where? Space.

    When? Future.

    Then? Past.

    Who? Our being.

    Any other basics?
    Zero-point energy : who knows

    Future, past.....comes down to time. What if time does not exists apart from our mathematical equations?

    stuff - no answer.

    'our being' - define.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    In a recent conversation someone said " ... Science and religion are two sides of the same coin in regards to truth; science is attempting to answer "how" and religion is attempting to answer "why".
    In that context, the "why" is an assertion that there must be some higher reason for things to exist--an implication of godly intelligence. It's circular and non-nonsensical.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    It's circular and non-nonsensical.
    Was the double negative not unintended?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    'our being' - define.
    Here's an attempt at deriving 'being' from the basics of why, how, what, where, then, now, and when:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...t=transitional
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    What if time does not exists apart from our mathematical equations?
    Is that really a “what if” you want to consider? If time doesn't exist then reality as we know it doesn't exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    It's circular and non-nonsensical.
    Was the double negative not unintended?
    I thought it was funny.....guess not :wink:
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    In a recent conversation someone said " ... Science and religion are two sides of the same coin in regards to truth; science is attempting to answer "how" and religion is attempting to answer "why".
    In that context, the "why" is an assertion that there must be some higher reason for things to exist--an implication of godly intelligence. It's circular and non-nonsensical.
    As an example one can ask the question "why is there something rather than nothing". This does not necessarily imply "there must be some higher reason for things to exist" suggesting some form of "godly intelligence".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    In a recent conversation someone said " ... Science and religion are two sides of the same coin in regards to truth; science is attempting to answer "how" and religion is attempting to answer "why".
    In that context, the "why" is an assertion that there must be some higher reason for things to exist--an implication of godly intelligence. It's circular and non-nonsensical.
    As an example one can ask the question "why is there something rather than nothing". This does not necessarily imply "there must be some higher reason for things to exist" suggesting some form of "godly intelligence".
    I don't think your example fits the intended meaning when it's associated with religion. When religion is associated with "why," its roughly equivalent to "purpose," with all the divine, if subtlety hidden, implications that go along with it.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    [I don't think your example fits the intended meaning when it's associated with religion. When religion is associated with "why," its roughly equivalent to "purpose," with all the divine, if subtlety hidden, implications that go along with it.
    Fair comment when the "why" is associated with religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    What if time does not exists apart from our mathematical equations?
    Is that really a “what if” you want to consider? If time doesn't exist then reality as we know it doesn't exist.
    Exactly. The reality as we know it doesn't exist except in our limited mind and brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    Exactly. The reality as we know it doesn't exist except in our limited mind and brain.
    If reality only exists in our mind/brain then that suggests the complexity generatingpower of the min/brain exceeds that of the unreal environment, which means in turn that limited is an inappropriate adjective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    Exactly. The reality as we know it doesn't exist except in our limited mind and brain.
    If reality only exists in our mind/brain then that suggests the complexity generatingpower of the min/brain exceeds that of the unreal environment, which means in turn that limited is an inappropriate adjective.

    Quantum mechanics shows that the human’s materialistic common sense notion of reality is just an illusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    Quantum mechanics shows that the human’s materialistic common sense notion of reality is just an illusion.
    Would you care to back this up, or explain further? In the meantime, how about you go kick a large rock with your bare foot. As hard as you can. Then come back and tell me about the unreality of the existential.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    Quantum mechanics shows that the human’s materialistic common sense notion of reality is just an illusion.
    Would you care to back this up, or explain further? In the meantime, how about you go kick a large rock with your bare foot. As hard as you can. Then come back and tell me about the unreality of the existential.

    Let's assume that reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.

    In the Newtonian way and classical mechanics the world is measurable; the measurements reveal the true state of the world.

    For most of humans there was ‘reality’ that the sun orbits round the earth.
    Was this truth? No, because humans often describe reality in terms of common space we all experience.


    Quantum physics has shown us a very important fact. We can't know reality.
    Because, reality goes beyond our experience.

    We can understand what we think reality is, because we assume what we perceive is real. The stone /which you asked me to kick/ is not solid in the way I think it is. It is mostly vacuum and forces, not 100% matter.

    Also Planck has shown that we cannot experience the physical reality beyond a certain limit.

    The whole universe is an enormous wave function, with a huge possibility of different words and realms. Are those worlds real? Sure. Where they real prior to humans coming up with quantum physics?

    In quantum mechanics, there is no way of identifying the true state of the world. We can only predict the probabilities for different outcomes.

    What would happen if the human rise was wiped out?
    Will reality still exist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    As an example one can ask the question "why is there something rather than nothing". This does not necessarily imply "there must be some higher reason for things to exist" suggesting some form of "godly intelligence".
    “Why does anything exist at all?” is much akin to the great philosophical question of “Why is there something instead of nothing?”

    Both questions are stated backwards, for something is the natural state, for nothing cannot exist, or even persist for an instant, even if this lack of anything even ‘tried’ to be so, since, as the QM state of uncertainty must always be fuzzy, and zero (nothing) would be a certain state.

    The fundamental ‘something’, or perhaps even its ever being born of its basis of that nothing cannot be or stay, such as via the quantum fluctuations (the ‘how’), is, either way, the absolute ‘why’ of existence—since nothing cannot be, thus ‘something’ being the normal state of affairs.

    Furthermore, we can see that a total lack of anything did not occur, obviously, and so all the more we note that it could not occur, for if it did, and it was a stable state, there would still be a lack of anything ‘here’.

    Even if actual basic same stuff itself was not around forever, it being ever formed by QM pair production, some staying and some going back in, this process would still have been going on forever, and so that is really the same thing, basically, as stuff having around forever (it just wouldn’t be the same exact stuff), so, still, the something is the way all must be, not nothing.

    One might still say that a state of nothing would be perfectly unstable, since we do note that simple states are highly reactive and readily go through phase changes, which is fine, for then this nothing still couldn’t exist and never could, absolutely; yet, in the overview of Totality, it could, if all the positives and the negatives in the cosmos summed to zero. This solves what would have been the last remaining problem: that there was nothing to make stuff of, and so that could be the likely answer. Perhaps it is opposite charge that nullifies all of existence, for matter and antimatter make light, not nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    Quantum mechanics shows that the human’s materialistic common sense notion of reality is just an illusion.
    Would you care to back this up, or explain further? In the meantime, how about you go kick a large rock with your bare foot. As hard as you can. Then come back and tell me about the unreality of the existential.

    Let's assume that reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.

    In the Newtonian way and classical mechanics the world is measurable; the measurements reveal the true state of the world.

    For most of humans there was ‘reality’ that the sun orbits round the earth.
    Was this truth? No, because humans often describe reality in terms of common space we all experience.


    Quantum physics has shown us a very important fact. We can't know reality.
    Because, reality goes beyond our experience.

    We can understand what we think reality is, because we assume what we perceive is real. The stone /which you asked me to kick/ is not solid in the way I think it is. It is mostly vacuum and forces, not 100% matter.

    Also Planck has shown that we cannot experience the physical reality beyond a certain limit.

    The whole universe is an enormous wave function, with a huge possibility of different words and realms. Are those worlds real? Sure. Where they real prior to humans coming up with quantum physics?

    In quantum mechanics, there is no way of identifying the true state of the world. We can only predict the probabilities for different outcomes.

    What would happen if the human rise was wiped out?
    Will reality still exist?
    Oh, I get it. Semantics. Please see the quote below.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Giant,

    Science not semantics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    Giant,

    Science not semantics.
    Go post your interpretations of quantum mechanics in the physics section, I dare you!
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The stone /which you asked me to kick/ is not solid in the way I think it is. It is mostly vacuum and forces, not 100% matter.
    Interesting. It is solid in the way I think it is. In short, if I drop it on my foot my foot hurts. Why? Because a solid rock has just hit it from some height. That is real. That is solid. That is what I mean by solid.

    Solid is, on one scale and perception, a mix of tiny somethings and mysterious forces. The reality is, however, if I hit you really hard on the head with a solid rock, you aren't going to feel the 'mostly vaccum', you are going to feel the 'really solid'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    As has been said, why implies purpose, usually interpreted along religious lines: how being the mechanical manifestation of the why.

    I don't think it wrong for humans to seek relevance or meaning in phenomenon, but this has the cart before the horse. How things occur is the first order of business, then we can seek to assign our meaning to it - without recourse to a higher purpose.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    Giant,

    Science not semantics.
    Go post your interpretations of quantum mechanics in the physics section, I dare you!

    I am taking your challenge and posting it there.

    In the meantime little food for thought:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Z8CqAiYI8
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    I am taking your challenge and posting it there.

    In the meantime little food for thought:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Z8CqAiYI8
    Well, that was an entertaining popularization, thank you.
    If you delve to any depth in the study of QM, you will discover that popularization's are inadequate approximations to the reality of the science.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    I am taking your challenge and posting it there.

    In the meantime little food for thought:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Z8CqAiYI8
    Well, that was an entertaining popularization, thank you.
    If you delve to any depth in the study of QM, you will discover that popularization's are inadequate approximations to the reality of the science.
    Yes, it was put in the easy language so what?

    If you ever went under a scalpel of neurosurgeon would you want him/her to explain things in an easy way or come up with the technical language?

    We have to depend on specialists in their field. We have no time or expertise to check all the processes which lead them to conclusion.

    I really envy your easiness to call views of respected scientists – popularisation..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Gee, I came up with something nice to say, "entertaining popularization", then I said "thank you". I mean, I watched the whole thing and I was entertained. I'm not saying that popularizations are "bad", but would you want your neurosurgeon to have depended on them for their whole education?
    P.S. The inclusion of technical language allows me to more accurately evaluate my own understanding. I prefer it's use. I'd rather know that the water is deep as opposed to wrongly supposing it is shallow.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Gee, I came up with something nice to say, "entertaining popularization", then I said "thank you". I mean, I watched the whole thing and I was entertained. I'm not saying that popularizations are "bad", but would you want your neurosurgeon to have depended on them for their whole education?
    P.S. The inclusion of technical language allows me to more accurately evaluate my own understanding. I prefer it's use. I'd rather know that the water is deep as opposed to wrongly supposing it is shallow.
    Tell me one good reason why should I respond to your post?
    From the moment, I have arrived on this forum you could not stop ridiculing or patronizing me.
    You have really made me feel unwelcome here.

    And then, being surprised by somebody else answering me - you wrote:


    SpeedFreek wrote:
    Hippocampus wrote:
    What would happen if the human rise was wiped out?
    Will reality still exist?


    Who is asking? (This is a serious reply)

    My primary deduction is that you (SpeedFreek) have a Phd and are not a crank, so, I am honestly very curious about what you have to say concerning this
    Am I crank? Who knows? Can I put some letters to my name………who knows too?

    BUT STOP BEING FULL OF YOURSELF AND PATRONIZING.

    MAKE THE NEW ARRIVALS TO THIS FORUM WELCOME EVEN IF THEY TALK RUBBISH.

    HERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE and point of view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Christ on a stick dude, chill out. You are jumping at conclusions. You're one of those people who have an apoplectic fit when someone says, "Good morning". Aren't you?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Gee, I came up with something nice to say, "entertaining popularization", then I said "thank you". I mean, I watched the whole thing and I was entertained. I'm not saying that popularizations are "bad", but would you want your neurosurgeon to have depended on them for their whole education?
    P.S. The inclusion of technical language allows me to more accurately evaluate my own understanding. I prefer it's use. I'd rather know that the water is deep as opposed to wrongly supposing it is shallow.
    Tell me one good reason why should I respond to your post?
    How about because it was a polite, measured response to a hysterical outburst on your part?

    As GiantEvil later suggests, chill out man! If you can't take the rough and tumble of vigorous debate then you probably shouldn't be here. If you are going to be so sensitive you interpret a polite post as a put down, then you probably shouldn't be mixing in society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    "entertaining popularization''


    Entertaining? This is the word which implies fun, enjoyment and laughter.

    Popularization it also means changing to a lower state (a less respected state).

    Due to his previous comments ,I have found it sarcastic and mocking me again.


    Exchanging different opinions should be respectful from both sides.

    I don’t think, I have deserved being ridiculed .

    Maybe, it was not the best questions in this topic.

    Still, It was a search on my part for some answers from the people who can add to my knowledge. Instead of dismissing me only because I know much less then they do..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    @Hippocampus, I was avoiding responding to your "Reality" post in "Physics" because I didn't want to "taint" the results of that particular experiment. It is very easy to affect the general tenor of a thread with an initial response.
    When I told SpeedFreek I didn't think he was a crank, I was not implying that you were.
    So far the only intentional scorn I've shown towards you has been the following light, little, bit;
    Oh, I get it. Semantics. Please see the quote below.
    While it might be that when I say "popularization", I actually mean "popularization", it is also possible that I mean "A steaming pile of dreck, fit only for the purpose of filling a paper sack and lighting afire at midnight on the porch of some fool".
    I will leave it for you to decide.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •