Here's why Creatards might be right

[Alex K]

---

See the Third Law here.

I totally understand what you're trying to tell me. But science cannot explain why's of the natural world.

Are you familiar with programming?
If you look at this piece of code you will better understand what I'm trying to say:

void main()
{
int x=5,y;
printf("Enter a number: ");
scanf("%d",&y);
printf("The number is %d.",y+x);
}

This function is like our natural world. After a few try's we'd be able to figure out that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. This is what science does. Science make observations and derive conclusions. What science cannot do is why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. The only answer is - it's how it's always have been.
Our world is like that function. We have no clue why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give. The only thing we know is that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give through observation.

You get me? I have the idea in my head but I'm having trouble communicating it in a way people would normally do. :/

---

Yes I understand - that actually makes sense. We would eventually discover the fundamental law of physics "y+5", and unless we find deviations from it, that would be the end point of our search. However, since in reality one always measures with finite resolution and since one can never enter all possible numbers y to cross-check the theory with the black box (nature), the possibility always remains open that something new might await us - you can never know that you have found the ultimate rule. For example, 10 years later we might discover that it is actually closer to

printf("The number is %f.",(y+x)/(1+y/100000000000000.));

But then we'll still never know whether that is now the final answer. It might be even worse - we discover that the answer we get depends on other things we do, that don't seem to be captured by a single simple function. (I am mimicking here the progression from Newtonian physics (your example) to Relativity and quantum physics, respectively)

It is a deep question of philosophy of science whether such a final true rule as you propose it above exists in nature - one towards which our discovered laws of physics converge. The question is not clear at all.