Need Essay done by 11PM

Welcome to RedShelf eReader! Just getting started? Head over to our partner support page for a guide on the basics.

The Meaning of Life

The second point is that there is an objective limit to which such explana- tions tend, and beyond which they are pointless. There is a very good reason for wishing to explain a less general by a more general theory. Usually, such a unification goes hand in hand with greater precision in measuring the phe- nomena which both theories explain. Moreover, the more general theory, because of its greater generality, can explain a wider range of phenomena including not only phenomena already explained by some other theories but also newly discovered phenomena, which the less general theory cannot ex- plain. Now, the ideal limit to which such expansions of theories tend is an all-embracing theory which unifies all theories and explains all phenomena. Of course, such a limit can never be reached, since new phenomena are con- stantly discovered. Nevertheless, theories may be tending towards it. It will be remembered that the contention made against scientific theories was that there is no such limit because they involve an infinite regress. On that view, which I reject, there is no conceivable point at which scientific theories could be said to have explained the whole universe. On the view I am defending, there is such a limit, and it is the limit towards which scientific theories are actually tending. I claim that the nearer we come to this limit, the closer we are to a full and complete explanation of everything. For if we were to reach the limit, then though we could, of course, be left with a model which is itself unexplained and could be yet further explained by derivation from another model, there would be no need for, and no point in, such a further expla- nation. There would be no need for it, because any clearly defined model permitting us to expect the phenomena it is designed to explain offers full and complete explanations of these phenomena, however narrow the range. And while, at lower levels of generality, there is a good reason for provid- ing more general models, since they further simplify, systematize, and orga- nize the phenomena, this, which is the only reason for building more general theories, no longer applies once we reach the ideal limit of an all-embracing explanation.

It might be said that there is another reason for using different models: that they might enable us to discover new phenomena. Theories are not only instruments of explanation, but also of discovery. With this I agree, but it is irrelevant to my point: that the needs of explanation do not require us to go on for ever deriving one explanatory model from another.

It must be admitted, then, that in the case of model-explanations there is a regress, but it is neither vicious nor infinite. It is not vicious because, in order to explain a group of explicanda, a model-explanation need not itself be derived from another more general one. It gives a perfectly full and consis- tent explanation by itself. And the regress is not infinite, for there is a natu- ral limit, an all-embracing model, which can explain all phenomena, beyond which it would be pointless to derive model-explanations from yet others.

What about our most serious question, “Why is there anything at all?” Sometimes, when we think about how one thing has developed out of another

p. 87

87

Play From Top Play Volume Rate

CloseBack Stop Forward