The Limits of Possible Explanation

[Mark]

I argue here that there can be no explanation of the set of all things that exist, considered as a totality. This point is important, since religious believers often advance the proposition that a god is necessary to explain the physical universe. A frequently-encountered version of this argument is that "something cannot come from nothing." I do not argue that everything considered as a totality came from nothing (which would be an explanation) but that necessarily, there can be no explanation of this totality. To ask the explanation, or the cause, of the set of all existing things is a category mistake, akin to asking how happy an orange is.

My argument is quite simple: explanation accounts for something by relating it to something else. My house is red because yesterday I had painters come and make it so; the earth orbits the sun because of countervailing centrifugal and gravitational forces; John's wife is angry at him because he forgot their anniversary; I had a good day fishing because I got up early, chose a good spot and used a good lure; and so on and so forth. You cannot construct an explanation that does not relate one thing to another, and I would go further and say that you cannot construct an acceptable explanation of an existing thing that does not relate it to another existing thing. People would laugh if you seriously attributed the little holes in the side of your garage to Woody Woodpecker, the cartoon character.

So to explain anything that exists, we seek to uncover its relation to one or more other things that exist. For example, "God created the physical universe" is, in principle, an acceptable explanation of the physical universe, supposing God exists.

Turning then to the set of all existing things, clearly this is not the sort of thing that can be explained. Definitionally, nothing exists outside this set, so there is nothing to which it can be related. Explanation simply does not apply to this object.

Admittedly, this is difficult for the human mind to grasp. It is in our nature to seek explanation, and since we live within a seemingly boundless field of things, we are conditioned to think that anything must have an explanation. The set of all existing things is something that can be conceived of, but it can't practically be beheld, so it's a bit difficult to reckon with. But it remains, as I have shown, that this set is not something that can be explained.

Coming back to the supposed god, the question of his existence equates to the question of whether he is among the Totality of Things. But whether or not this set includes a god, and whether or not the supposed god did indeed cause all other elements of this set, it remains the case that the Totality of Things can have no explanation. Thus for example, if the god of the Christians exists, one thing that this entity cannot do is explain why he exists.

There may perhaps be some reasons to posit a god that is separate from the physical universe and responsible for its creation, but to account for the existence of all things cannot possibly be one of them. For the supposed god himself has no explanation, unless he himself has a creator and so on ad infinitum. Personally I see no reason to posit such a god, preferring to admit into the set of existing things only those things that are actually known to exist by direct observation. Since some great set of things must be taken as sufficient unto itself, why not the Cosmos?

[Sam]

Interesting points raised here Mark,

I think the problem comes from your reasoning, i.e. My house is red because I had it painted etc ... In my opinion this simplistic form of explanation cannot be applied to the universe (By which I mean the totality of all things.)

I think it's actuatley quite rational and valid to search for this explanation in terms of governing dynamics and laws, like the development of quantum mechanics and string theory. I think by defining the governing laws of the universe we can gain the explanation ...

Cheers

Sam

[Mark]

Interesting points raised here Mark,

I think the problem comes from your reasoning, i.e. My house is red because I had it painted etc ... In my opinion this simplistic form of explanation cannot be applied to the universe (By which I mean the totality of all things.)

I think it's actuatley quite rational and valid to search for this explanation in terms of governing dynamics and laws, like the development of quantum mechanics and string theory. I think by defining the governing laws of the universe we can gain the explanation ...

Cheers

Sam

If you consider what a scientific theory is, you will see that it is invariably an account of how things are related. Newton's or Einstein's theory of gravitation, for example. You may say if you like that any such theory, or a completely unified theory if one every came about, would "explain" the universe. But it certainly would not, not in the sense of explaining why the universe is here; what accounts for its existence. All it would do would be to supply a general account, however simple or elaborate, for how things are related within the set of all things known to exist.

Suppose that you had in hand your unified theory and it clearly implied that Factor X, which were somehow distinct from the physical universe, were nevertheless its cause. Well in that case, the set of all things would consist of the physical universe and Factor X, and for the ensemble, there would be no possible explanation. We could say that the physical universe was here because of Factor X, but we could not say why Factor X was here.

It's nothing mysterious, it's only that explanation is inherently a description of relations between things. If you have a counter-example, please bring it.

[Sam]

---

Interesting points raised here Mark,

I think the problem comes from your reasoning, i.e. My house is red because I had it painted etc ... In my opinion this simplistic form of explanation cannot be applied to the universe (By which I mean the totality of all things.)

I think it's actuatley quite rational and valid to search for this explanation in terms of governing dynamics and laws, like the development of quantum mechanics and string theory. I think by defining the governing laws of the universe we can gain the explanation ...

Cheers

Sam

If you consider what a scientific theory is, you will see that it is invariably an account of how things are related. Newton's or Einstein's theory of gravitation, for example. You may say if you like that any such theory, or a completely unified theory if one every came about, would "explain" the universe. But it certainly would not, not in the sense of explaining why the universe is here; what accounts for its existence. All it would do would be to supply a general account, however simple or elaborate, for how things are related within the set of all things known to exist.

Suppose that you had in hand your unified theory and it clearly implied that Factor X, which were somehow distinct from the physical universe, were nevertheless its cause. Well in that case, the set of all things would consist of the physical universe and Factor X, and for the ensemble, there would be no possible explanation. We could say that the physical universe was here because of Factor X, but we could not say why Factor X was here.

It's nothing mysterious, it's only that explanation is inherently a description of relations between things. If you have a counter-example, please bring it.

---

I appreciate your position, but see it as wild speculation. The main assumption here is that an explanation of the relationships between all things (i.e. a unified theory) would have an intangible x factor outside of it ... it would be equally valid to suppose that such a theory would explain why the universe existed through the relationships between it's constituent parts.

So in the case of the ensemble of the universe and factor x, we could possibly define the governing dynamics which regulate both of these things and hence explaing both their presence and origin!

Sam

[Mark]

I appreciate your position, but see it as wild speculation. The main assumption here is that an explanation of the relationships between all things (i.e. a unified theory) would have an intangible x factor outside of it ... it would be equally valid to suppose that such a theory would explain why the universe existed through the relationships between it's constituent parts.

So in the case of the ensemble of the universe and factor x, we could possibly define the governing dynamics which regulate both of these things and hence explaing both their presence and origin!

Sam

I did not assert that there was a Factor X. I merely said, suppose you had your grand theory and it pointed to Factor X. I am happy to argue without supposing Factor X; it was just an illustration.

Since we don't need Factor X, according to you we could "explain the governing dynamics which regulate" the physical universe and hence "explain [its] presence and origin." But how could any conceivable "governing dynamics" that "regulate" all things also explain their origin? Explain their origin in terms of what? Explain their origin from what? The italicized relative pronouns could have no possible reference, could they, since whatever they signified would lie outside the set of existing things.

By the way, do you conceive that these "governing dynamics" exist or do they merely summarize in conceptual form the actual behavior of those things that do exist? If the latter, they certainly do not literally regulate, but are merely an elaborate form of explanation (that's pretty much what gravity is today, I would think). If the former, well then, these "governing dynamics" are part of the set of all existing things, are they not, and what then would constitute an explanation of: {the physical universe, whatever "governing dynamics" are supposed to have an objective existence} everything in brackets taken as a totality?

Maybe you would be good enough to supply a counterexample to my proposition that an explanation of an existing thing (which would include not only a red house but say, magnetic fields in general) can only relate it to one or more other such things? I maintain that all explanation, common or officially and formally scientific, is a form of this. If you think there is a class of acceptable explanation that fails to supply an account of a relation between things, it should be simple enough to cite it. But so far as I know, no one would accept an explanation of the form "The house is red because."

"Wild speculation" would be speculation about facts. If I say, "Perhaps there is a green lizard living at the center of the moon," that is wild speculation. It is not speculation to make statements about what "explanation" is. It is to analyze what constitutes acceptable explanation. Notice that I do not say what constitutes the set of all existing things; I merely say that whatever constitutes that set, the set itself is not the sort of thing to which "explanation" applies, just as an orange is not the sort of thing to which "happy" applies.

[Sam]

---

Well we don't need Factor X then, do we? According to you we could "explain the governing dynamics which regulate" the physical universe and hence "explain [its] presence and origin." But how could any conceivable "governing dynamics" that "regulate" things also explain their origin? Explain their origin in terms of what? Explain their origin from what? The italicized prepositions could have no possible reference, could they, since whatever they signified would lie outside the set of existing things?

Maybe you would be good enough to supply a counterexample to my proposition that an explanation of an existing thing (which would include not only a red house but say, magnetic fields in general) can only relate it to one or more other such things? I maintain that all explanation, common or officially and formally scientific, is a form of this. If you think there is a special class of explanation that fails to supply an account of a relation between things, it should be simple enough to cite it.

"Wild speculation" would be speculation about facts. If I say, "Perhaps there is a green lizard living at the center of the moon," that is wild speculation. It is not speculation to make statements about what "explanation" is. It is to analyze what constitutes acceptable explanation. Notice that I do not say what constitutes the set of all existing things; I mere say that whatever constitutes that set, the set itself is not the sort of thing to which "explanation" applies, just as an orange is not the sort of thing to which "happy" applies.

---

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.

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

Sam

[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."

[Edwardo Piet]

Mark...if I understand you correct - you are saying that if we found a cause...and origin for everything then that would become part of the universe and we'd still need to ask for a cause and an origin for that - if we were to continue down that road - and it would just go on forever...

If that's what you are saying then I will say the fact that we need to go on forever doesn't mean there isn't one first cause...I don't think science ever needs to find the answer because even if science finds it - it will still have to keep checking to make sure it hasn't missed something. It can never know for sure that it absolutely has found the first cause I believe - even if it does find it.

Hope I've said at least something relevant or useful lol.

EvF

[Tiberius]

The current thinking is that time once had a beginning, and so there was a "first cause". Of course, we know about 3 spacial dimensions and only 1 of time. There could be other time dimensions that we have no idea about

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah. And when we think we've found the 'first cause' we might later discover that it wasn't the first cause because something caused that!

Or if we find the first cause and fail to find whatever caused that...that doesn't mean nothing did. It may have done and we might find out later, or we might never find out later, or it might simply be impossible to go any deeper and find out later that what we think is the first cause isn't because something actually created that (and it actually might go further and further back down the line so the first cause is much further away).

But if a first cause is found then its assumed to be the 'first cause' until there is any evidence to suggest it isn't and something created that right

I.e science has working hypothesis so after the 'first cause' is found it still needs to keep checking to make sure it hasn't missed something

E.g: That there wasn't a cause before that and that what is thought of as the 'first cause' ISN'T the first cause :p

EvF