Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Ronak comments on Failing to Learn from History - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 August 2007 08:22PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (11)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Ronak 26 March 2013 08:03:51AM *  1 point [-]

It does, because you are asking a different 'why' than scientists do; the scientist's question is 'why do I need to postulate this?' And when he/she asks 'why does this phenomenon happen?' he/she is asking 'What model can I use to explain this phenomenon?'

So, the question 'why gravity?' can be answered in the first way, saying that it models falling and revolving objects rather well, or in the second way in which case the answer is, as you say, curved spacetime. But the second question, it can only be answered in the first way, as of now; I'm tempted to say that those concepts which we can only answer in the first way are postulates, but I'm sure non-trivial brainstorming (which I don't feel like doing right now) will show that to be bullshit.

Edit: I think the why you speak of is a weirder version of the second, kinda influenced by words like 'fundamental.'