Lounge HQ

What's science backed by? There's no reason for me to keep replying then. Define, "real" life.

Whoops I posted on here already. XD

Beast. <3

You must be understanding it wrong, then.

Would you care to explain? The OP isn't worded in the best manner and it's confusing.

Here's a breakdown of your post and my understanding of what you are trying to convey. Please do correct me where I'm wrong and fill in the gaps.

Recently, I've come across various individuals who wish to understand the reason behind a specific behavior or process. Following this curiosity the question is often posed, "Why?" I'm here to propose two alternate perceptions, if you will, that may quench your thirst.

You've come across people wanting to know the reasons things happen the way they do, so they ask 'why'. You're going to provide alternate perceptions. So far, so good.

First, I offer, "Why not?" Instead of thinking with the general public, we will evaluate concepts as equations.

You have already lost me. When somebody asks the question 'why', how does asking 'why not' help his or her understanding at all? It is true that we may not know the answer at this time and therefore the only valid response we could give is 'I don't know'. Responding with 'why not' is simply avoiding responsibility for responding to the question.

Why - x+y=?

Why not - ?+x=z or y+?=z?

Again, I don't really understand these equations and their relevance to 'why not'.

Already, we may contemplate the presented material with several branches of knowledge. The question, "Why not?" seems to carry an infinite amount of possibilities in answers, without an expected answer or objective truth.

The question 'why not' about an unknown doesn't have an infinite number of possibilities. The question 'why not' asks to disprove the notion that some unknown can exist, but if somebody is asking 'why' about something that exists, that itself is proof that it can exist rendering the question useless.

The question, "Why?" seems to request that the answer provided is one that is assumed.

Not assumed, backed by science (at least for the most part).

The second alternative I wish to present is questioning the existence of a reason. It appears to be that individuals are always ready to provide a reason, when prompted to, or reason(s), provided that the first alternative approach of replying to answers is taken, for a process/system. From my existential state, I sometimes wonder if there even exists such reasons behind the presented material(s).

If a scientifically backed reason is provided, there is no reason to ponder if the reason exists. The only thing I can see your philosophy being applied to off the top of my head is something like the Big Bang, where science can't explain why it happened.

I realize that perhaps my thoughts may not be understood by most, but I wish to share them.

Then take the time to at least try and make this easy instead of responding the way you did.

In conclusion, I believe that this philosophy is extremely limited in its application to real life.

Unless I'm understanding this wrong it would seem as if this is simply an excuse to not provide evidence.