Fumfer Physics 12: Do We Face Infinite Whys and Finite Hows?
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner debate whether the limits of knowledge lie within philosophy, physics, or both. Rosner explains that what was once metaphysics has largely been replaced by theoretical and experimental science, leaving philosophy more concerned with humanity’s relationship to existence. While physics seeks the “how” of reality, philosophy pursues the “why,” which may be infinite. They discuss the logical foundations of existence, the role of contradictions, and how quantum mechanics blurs certainty at micro scales but stabilizes at macro scales. Even with a “final theory,” Rosner argues, our assumptions can always be questioned.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Where is the line between philosophy and physics here?
Rick Rosner: Ideally, the overlap used to be called metaphysics. Metaphysics was a way of understanding how the universe worked, based on principles abstracted from existence—such as theories about order versus chaos, or systems built from the elements of earth, water, fire, and air. Over time, that kind of metaphysics was replaced as theoretical and experimental science advanced our understanding of how the universe actually works. So there is less room now for metaphysics, and less room for speculation about the universe’s purpose or values. Philosophy instead shifts toward asking what we can reasonably do, given the universe as it is. It becomes more about our relationship with existence than speculation about the hidden forces behind existence. Rotten tomatoes, I suppose.
Jacobsen: Is it possible that we do not have the capacity to conceive things accurately? Is that likely, or unlikely?
Rosner: I think the closer we get to the logical underpinnings of existence—not necessarily mathematical, but logical—the less likely it is that we are completely fooled or completely misunderstanding things. However, there will always be new aspects of the universe to discover. Whatever you identify as the base layer of why things are the way they are, it is always open to questioning. There is always a point where you stop asking, but in principle, there are always more layers of why, no matter how deep you go.
Jacobsen: So you are saying there is a finite how, but an infinite why.
Rosner: Pretty much. The universe exists because the principles of existence allow it to exist, and those principles are generally built on freedom from contradiction. However, then you can always ask: why is contradiction such a big deal? I am not smart enough to fully parse that. It makes sense that only things which can actually be—non-contradictory things—can exist, while things that both can be and not be at the same time cannot exist because they are contradictory. However, you can still ask why about that. Why can’t contradictory things have some existence? Quantum mechanics touches on this because, at the micro level, entities have different probabilities of being, corresponding to different levels of existence. However, once you get to the macro scale, objects have only an infinitesimal chance of not existing. A baseball, for example—made of so many grams of matter—has odds so close to zero of being a phantom that appears and disappears instantly. However, you can still ask: why is that the principle? Why are these the fundamental rules?
Jacobsen: If you have a final theory with the math and the logical scaffolding around it, then you have your how. The math describes the operations and mechanics. That gives you one way to visualize the why: you can position it very close to the how, or move laterally and frame it differently. Even though the fundamental math stays fixed once we reach that framework, you can still ask the why in different ways.
Rosner: Yes, but you can still question it all.
Jacobsen: Yes, basically what I am saying is you are pointing to a more profound truth—that you can have your final theory, but since we are finite, to get different types of understanding of that theory, we reorient our questioning to gain different perspectives on it.
Rosner: I am not sure anything is the final theory, because you can always question the underpinnings of your assumptions. However, anyway, I do not know. I mean, then you get back to Feynman’s three paths of science: a universe that can be understood, a universe that cannot be understood, and a universe that always has new things to discover ad infinitum.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 