The Limits of Possible Explanation

[Mark]

The point is this: however certain or uncertain we may be of what the set of all existing things consists of, and however certain or uncertain we may be of the explanations we have constructed that relate these things to each other, we will never have an explanation for the whole shebang.

How do you know we won't? Do you mean because we could always go further and further back so we will never have the full explanation?

Etc.

No, I mean that since explanation inevitably relates one thing to another, and since by definition there is nothing outside "the whole shebang," whatever that may be supposed to be, the whole shebang is not the sort of thing that can possibly be explained. I am not talking about the possible state of future knowledge. I am saying that the idea that the set of all existing things could possibly be explained is a category mistake, like saying that some day we might be able to discern how much Donald Duck weighs. How do I know that? Because a cartoon duck is not the sort of thing that has a weight, just like the set of all existing things is not the sort of thing that has an explanation.

That there might be an ultimate explanation of the whole shebang is a seductive idea, just because we live in a seemingly endless field of things, each of which appears to have an explanation. And it is in our nature always to look for explanations. And so to grasp that the totality of all existing things can't possibly have an explanation is a little difficult. This proposition is nevertheless true, not as a matter of fact, but flowing from what explanation is. Just like the impossibility of Donald Duck having a definite weight flows from what weight is.

And just like we will never be able to say how much Donald Duck weighs, we also will not be able to say what is the explanation of all existing things.