The Limits of Possible Explanation

[Mark]

Mark, I apologise if I have given you the impression that i believe there is a "special class of explanation which fails to supply an account of the relationship between things"

I don't think I've ever said or infered that. My argument comes from the fact that your definition precludes an explanation from covering the origin of something/everything.

Well, unless there is such a thing as acceptable explanation that does not supply an account of the relationship between things, then then everything is not something that is subject to acceptable explanation, whether in terms of an origin or anything else. It appears now that you yourself now concede this. So what what, according to you, is explanation?

Obviously, as I believe you pointed out this discussion is based around an infinite regress of cause and effect, back to the intial cause.

Well, infinitely regressive explanation would be a consequence of assuming that everything must have a cause. One would then have to specify its cause, and off you go. But I doubt that there is an infinitely regressive set of actual things, forces, whatever, waiting to be discovered in an infinite regress of scientific exploration. You would never reach the end in any case, so you would never have the explanation of the set of all existing things.

So as has been the case (In plate tectonic theory for example) the advancement of scientific technique and knowledge creates more explanations, based on the relationships between observed phonomena which explain their origin

Well yes, it has been the case that science becomes more and more ramified and more and more knowledge is gained about the regularities of this world. But this has nothing to say to our argument.

... surley you can see that if the relationships between all matter (i.e. the universe) where defined ... then it's origind would be described in those relationships?

Actually no, I fail to see why or how a set of descriptions of all the regularities that "govern" (metaphorically) this world, once obtained, would constitute an explanation of its origin. This would merely explain how the ensemble of things interracts; it would not explain why or how it was here. Origin from what? If from Factor X, what explains Factor X? If from nothing, why did this particular ensemble of things pop out of nothing?

Supposing for example you had the origin of time and space in a tiny singularity from which everything burst 4.5 billion years ago, a common account, you would not have an explanation of the singularity itself, would you? Or supposing you had an infinite regression of time on back forever, with various events being supposed to have happened (a much less common account, so I understand), you still would not have a explanation of why or how the whole thing came to be, would you? Or supposing you had a model of manifold alternative universes, all somehow existing together, what would constitute the explanation of the ensemble? Suppose it's all 11-dimensional vibrating stings. Well, what explains why it's that, and where it all came from?

What I am saying is that whatever "it all" is, explanation is not something that can possibly be applied to "it all."