A proof (visual or otherwise) shows "how" some statement is true, as in how it is built by the preceding truths. But I always wanted to know "why" something is true. For example, a biological cell grows and division happens. I could find tons of literature which talks about "how" this happens, but not "why" this happens. What's the motivation or goal? And why that goal is pursued? What is the force behind seeking of that goal?
When I was 10 years old, I asked my maternal grandfather, "why does anything exist at all?"
My grandpa explained it in layman terms which even I could understand. He said, "If nothing should exist because it is simpler state to be in for everything, a sort of Primordial Law. Then what is the mechanism by which this law is enforced. Who or what is ensuring that Law is implemented everywhere for eternity. If we assume that such a mechanism must exist, then we have just proved that something must exist."
On the topic of biology specifically, you might like The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
He argues/explains how evolutionary forces become dominant, with much more focus on the why. Why it has come to be that living things grow, multiply, and over time changed in ways that out-succeeded the prior ones, down to the level of DNA--and that these driving forces are manifested by individual genes.
You can't anthropomorphise a cell, just like you can't anthropomorphise a lawnmower, or a Larry Ellison. It's just an entity harnessing an entropy gradient.
I've been thinking about cancer. Maybe systems of replicators are prone to overdoing it by nature. The idea was that any universes compatible with life will also have spontaneous cancers because that's just what those universes do.
And then I learned the theory that many cancers are caused by undiscovered DNA-based viruses which tamper with the cell cycle to activate the replicative machinery that they need to make copies of their genome (HPV does this, and several others too). So then it was a switch: not an immutable feature of the universe, but caused by an agent.
But it's starting to look like viruses emerged independently more times than expected, so maybe it is more like "the universe just does that," and viruses are just cancers with a space program. Back to where I started.
I suppose some would see these loops as unproductive. "First principles" people. Descartes, etc. But I think that unresolvable why's like this are what understanding is made of.
This seems the most concise and precise answer to the question of "why". At some stage, somehow, self replicating molecules appeared in the primordial soup*. Everything since then has just been improvements (or maybe complete overhauls) to that process.
*How (or why) this step occurred is another intriguing topic.
This is a category error. A cell is not a thing that has a goal. To imagine it has one is pure anthropomorphism. The religious may have other views of course.
Try talking about biological operations without invoking “function”. Claiming it’s “convenient” to do so doesn’t cut it: convenient for what?
Why do acorns become oak trees? They must be causally ordered toward that end. That’s telos.
Even efficient causality presupposes telos. Why does striking a match against a matchbox consistently produce fire? Because the match has a causal ordering toward that end. Otherwise, you could not explain why fire consistently results as opposed to random things like a flock of seagulls or a BMW 7 Series…or nothing at all.
Telos is not necessarily a matter of some external purpose or Paley-style watchmaker. That’s mechanistic metaphysics appealing to a watchmaker to explain a purpose things would - under that metaphysics - inherently lack. It is a matter of causal order and directedness.
> Try talking about biological operations without invoking “function”.
If you had a strong vendetta against mistaking map for territory, you could very well talk in terms of past survival and statistics. It's just not necessary for regular biological talk. It becomes relevant only when you start going to the boundaries.
> Why does striking a match against a matchbox consistently produce fire?
Because you wouldn't call these objects a "match" and a "matchbox" otherwise.
This is a good, succinct unpacking of the metaphysical stakes. Nonetheless I am curious for the world where striking a match results in a shower of seagulls.
A proof (visual or otherwise) shows "how" some statement is true, as in how it is built by the preceding truths. But I always wanted to know "why" something is true. For example, a biological cell grows and division happens. I could find tons of literature which talks about "how" this happens, but not "why" this happens. What's the motivation or goal? And why that goal is pursued? What is the force behind seeking of that goal?
When I was 10 years old, I asked my maternal grandfather, "why does anything exist at all?"
My grandpa explained it in layman terms which even I could understand. He said, "If nothing should exist because it is simpler state to be in for everything, a sort of Primordial Law. Then what is the mechanism by which this law is enforced. Who or what is ensuring that Law is implemented everywhere for eternity. If we assume that such a mechanism must exist, then we have just proved that something must exist."
On the topic of biology specifically, you might like The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
He argues/explains how evolutionary forces become dominant, with much more focus on the why. Why it has come to be that living things grow, multiply, and over time changed in ways that out-succeeded the prior ones, down to the level of DNA--and that these driving forces are manifested by individual genes.
You can't anthropomorphise a cell, just like you can't anthropomorphise a lawnmower, or a Larry Ellison. It's just an entity harnessing an entropy gradient.
I've been thinking about cancer. Maybe systems of replicators are prone to overdoing it by nature. The idea was that any universes compatible with life will also have spontaneous cancers because that's just what those universes do.
And then I learned the theory that many cancers are caused by undiscovered DNA-based viruses which tamper with the cell cycle to activate the replicative machinery that they need to make copies of their genome (HPV does this, and several others too). So then it was a switch: not an immutable feature of the universe, but caused by an agent.
But it's starting to look like viruses emerged independently more times than expected, so maybe it is more like "the universe just does that," and viruses are just cancers with a space program. Back to where I started.
I suppose some would see these loops as unproductive. "First principles" people. Descartes, etc. But I think that unresolvable why's like this are what understanding is made of.
> unresolvable why's like this are what understanding is made of
Certainly the deeper into the why chain one can get personally, the greater understanding one has.
Cells that didn't grow were outcompeted. Cells that didn't replicate were outcompeted.
This seems the most concise and precise answer to the question of "why". At some stage, somehow, self replicating molecules appeared in the primordial soup*. Everything since then has just been improvements (or maybe complete overhauls) to that process.
*How (or why) this step occurred is another intriguing topic.
This is a category error. A cell is not a thing that has a goal. To imagine it has one is pure anthropomorphism. The religious may have other views of course.
> What's the motivation or goal? And why that goal is pursued? What is the force behind seeking of that goal?
There's no force and there's no goal. These things happen because every moment is a direct consequence of the previous one.
> there's no goal
Try talking about biological operations without invoking “function”. Claiming it’s “convenient” to do so doesn’t cut it: convenient for what?
Why do acorns become oak trees? They must be causally ordered toward that end. That’s telos.
Even efficient causality presupposes telos. Why does striking a match against a matchbox consistently produce fire? Because the match has a causal ordering toward that end. Otherwise, you could not explain why fire consistently results as opposed to random things like a flock of seagulls or a BMW 7 Series…or nothing at all.
Telos is not necessarily a matter of some external purpose or Paley-style watchmaker. That’s mechanistic metaphysics appealing to a watchmaker to explain a purpose things would - under that metaphysics - inherently lack. It is a matter of causal order and directedness.
> Try talking about biological operations without invoking “function”.
If you had a strong vendetta against mistaking map for territory, you could very well talk in terms of past survival and statistics. It's just not necessary for regular biological talk. It becomes relevant only when you start going to the boundaries.
> Why does striking a match against a matchbox consistently produce fire?
Because you wouldn't call these objects a "match" and a "matchbox" otherwise.
This is a good, succinct unpacking of the metaphysical stakes. Nonetheless I am curious for the world where striking a match results in a shower of seagulls.
Universal goal of life: make more life.
I think this Veritasium video might speak to your questions: https://youtu.be/XX7PdJIGiCw?si=5lwB3rsFNKuXyMfA