Before leaving our
discussion of the scientific method, we should note the interesting, apparently
absolute, limit whereby the question "how" becomes the question
"why". Let's jump ahead 10,000 years, and assume that a unified field
theory has been discovered. A unified field theory is a theory that describes
the behavior of all forces and elements according to a set of fairly simple
laws. If and when such a theory is "proved" we may in fact have
succeeded in explaining the past, present, and future behavior of all observed
matter and energy. However the ultimate questions will remain. Why were the
unified forces that control energy and matter created? Why do they exist? Who
or what is the source of such primordial forces if they are the most
fundamental of forces? These will still be unanswered, and it is not hard to
see, will remain unanswerable.
Science will have
succeeded in fully describing the forces seen in nature, and their effects on
matter and energy. The question "how" forces work will, for the most
part, have been answered. But an explanation of the creation, the existence,
the source of the forces, the answer to "why" such forces exist, will
be missing. The ultimate question, "WHY?", most clearly defines the
limits of science and human beings.
Without realizing it,
we constantly bump against this invisible wall that surrounds us and limits our
knowledge. We know that the force of gravity causes objects to be attracted to
each other, but why is this so? Think about it a few minutes. Obviously gravity
needs to exist to prevent objects from flying apart, but why not have a gravity
that is half as strong, or maybe two times stronger? At a more fundamental
level, why does it matter if objects fly apart or stay together? Why do
sub-atomic particles group together to form atoms that form molecules that
eventually form us? We can reason that laws act like they do to preserve the
order of the universe, but that answer really begs the question why the
universe has any order in the first place?
In this increasingly
scientific era, many of us have lost the wonder we once had when we looked at
the physical world. For example, we take for granted the widely accepted fact
that all that is in the universe started as an almost infinitesimally small
speck of energy/matter. Because science appears to be able to tell us
"how" the universe evolved from a tiny fraction of a second after the
"big bang" up to today, we assume that science can tell us
"why" that initial speck exponentially exploded into that which
surrounds us. Yet science cannot explain the ultimate origin and existence of
what we euphemistically call physical "reality". Despite all that we
have discovered, despite what future insights the scientific method may yield,
science cannot deduce the origin of the universe. Each of us should recognize,
and be continually amazed by, the infinite complexity of the reality that
surrounds us that appears to have evolved from infinite simplicity. We should
live in a state of wonder at the fact that the question "why" is a
profound mystery beyond the ability of science and humankind to answer.
We should note in
passing that the anthropic principle points out that if the laws of the
universe were not suitable for our present existence on earth, we would simply
not be here to ask the question "why"? Yet applying that principle to
the question "why are the laws like they are" invites a less than
satisfactory, circular, answer. If we are here because the laws are as they
are, that does not lead to the logical conclusion that the laws are as they are
because we are here, so we are left without an answer to our basic question.
The anthropic answer, along with every other reasonable answer one can give to
what we might call an intermediate version of the question "why",
allows us to continue to ask the ultimate question "why"? In response
to the answer that the laws of the universe are as they are because they must
be so for us to be here, the very real question may still be asked,
"why" are we here? Perhaps the only answer we can give to the
question "why do forces exist and behave as they do" is "just
because" they do. Perhaps, however, the answer is that they behave the way
they were designed to behave.
The more we learn, the
more humble science becomes. What seemed obvious, now seems vague. If humankind
cannot know anything with complete certainty, then science is not the solid
rock it appears to be. Scientific discoveries possess an ephemeral quality
seldom recognized by observers. Since science has not, and perhaps cannot,
discover fundamental laws that guide the physical universe, the failure of
modern theories may be the precursor to incredible discoveries which challenge
concepts of space and time, uncertainty and determinism, entropy and order,
etc. As science matures, the idea that (for want of a better description of the
unknown) meaningful fifth and sixth and seventh dimensions may exist seems to
be an increasingly comfortable one. No matter what the future of science
brings, it is a logical, absolute, fact that unless the answer is somehow
"revealed" to us, the ultimate question will remain, "WHY?"