Nature Cannot Explain Anything

Nature cannot explain supernature, and nor can it explain itself. Nor then can it explain any part of itself. There be no complete explanation of any part of nature by any other part of nature, or even by the whole of nature.

Under Gödel, a consistent formal account of the whole of nature is logically incompletable. But notice that this Gödelian constraint applies with equal force to any formalized account of any part of nature. A complete consistent account of any concrete thing whatsoever is logically impossible.

Even if that were not so, any complete account of nature by any factor thereof would introduce a novel occasion – itself – to the system of nature it sought to explain; and contingent things cannot explain themselves. So even if completion were possible in principle, it would be impossible in practice.

This dual incompletability of any purely natural explanation is not due to Scientism’s reduction of the Aristotelian causes to efficiency and materiality. It constrains explanation even when formality and finality are kept in the mix. The stack of formal, ergo final causes of any concrete real is infinitely deep. To complete an account of any contingent thing, you’d need to traverse that entire infinite stack. The traversal is impossible for any finite being.

We should not feel too surprised at Nature’s explanatory incapacity. She is, after all, the explanandum, not the explanans. To expect her to explain herself is a category error.

Notice the analogy between traversing the infinite stack of logical calculi necessary to any formal account of any contingent thing, ergo to any actuality thereof, on the one hand, and on the other Achilles’ journey toward the tortoise. There are too many steps in each traversal – an infinite number of steps – for any such traversal to transpire. Yet we find (tace Parmenides and Zeno) that Achilles does in fact reach the tortoise. We find likewise that, concrete things being actually real, they must therefore be explicable in practice; for, their very becoming is a sort of explication: a thing cannot be at all except as completely definite, and complete definition just is the fruit of some complete formal explication.

For any concrete real, the distance between the zero of its actuality and its concrete reality – between its potential and its actual existence – is infinite. No finite thing could traverse that distance. Yet we find it traversed. Infinite actuality then is the forecondition of finite actuality. Such is Providence; such is Creation.



29 thoughts on “Nature Cannot Explain Anything

  1. Pingback: Nature Cannot Explain Anything | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. The former “Global Warmists” who now refer to themselves as “Climate Changeists,” claim to be able to model “The Climate.” That is, they lay claim to the capacity to step into the perspective of the explanandum as though it were the explanans, and to speak for it. The hubris of the computer-modelers exceeds description. Where does “The Climate” begin; and where does it end? Does it begin at the absolute center of the earth or only at the transition between the ocean-surface and the atmosphere? Does it end at the troposphere or at the sun?

    Seen in one rigorous way, however, Nature, while not precisely an explanans, is a signans: The mediation of an explanans, of which it is the explanandum.

    • Under the Principle of Sufficient Reason, every explanandum is a signification of its explanans. Under the Incompleteness Theorem, every finite explanans is in turn itself an explanandum, likewise signifying a yet more competent explanans. Only infinite explanatory competence – which is to say, omniscience – suffices to the whole infinite system of explanation.

      As for models: yeah.

  3. Pingback: Nature Cannot Explain Anything | Reaction Times

      • Yes, albeit defective.

        … where does the incomplete explanation for Nature factor in?

        What incomplete explanation for Nature? Factor in to what?

      • Kristor…

        When you state,”Nature Cannot Explain Anything,” you are saying that YOU cannot explain Everything.

        Yet, this is NO IMPEDIMENT to your will to Perfection.

        So the question that arises is the motivation behind the title of this post and the essence of the entry?

        What is the TRUE PURPOSE of stating that you cannot explain everything?

        Simple truth?

        False dilemma?

        Or something latently pathological, i.e. anti-objective Supremacy… Anti-Perfection.

        Such that your will to Perfection is THOROUGHLY defected?

      • I did not say that I cannot explain everything. On the contrary. In principle, and thanks to the prior infinite explication of things accessible to his creatures in the mind of God, I can explain any finite thing (explaining God as a whole and exhaustively would be tantamount to explaining everything whatever by a single limitless and utterly comprehensive apprehension – by, i.e., an act of omniscience – such as is possible only to God)(of course, God is not a thing in the first place, properly speaking, so the fact that I cannot comprehend him exhaustively does not mean that I cannot explain everything; for God is not among the set of things that are explicable; he is, rather, of all things the ultimate explication). The human mind is apparently capable of mounting the infinite ladder of logical calculi as far as needs be, in order to arrive at a sufficiently adequate explanation of this or that item of interest.

        All wisdom and knowledge are present eternally in God. Looking to him, then, we may in him discern any finite quantum of wisdom or knowledge. Indeed, the ancients thought that *all* knowledge of Truth is knowledge of the Divine Thought.

        I said, not that I cannot explain everything, but that Nature cannot explain anything. The obvious implication of this statement is that, since under the Principle of Sufficient Reason things must necessarily be exhaustively explicable, at least in principle, and since Nature alone cannot suffice to an adequate explanation, we’ll need to transcend Nature if we hope to explain anything. We’ll need to recur to supernatural factors of things – supernatural factors such as God.

        Now, one of the interesting implications of the recursion to supernatural factors that is necessary to any exhaustive explanation of any mundane thing is that mundane things are not entirely natural. They all have a supernatural component. If I were a strictly mundane being, with no supernatural component, then yes, I would have access only to the natural factors of things, and because natural factors cannot explain anything, I would not be able to explain anything. But I am not a strictly mundane being. I have supernatural components, and so does every mundane thing. So I can explain things.

        What is the motivation behind the post? To demonstrate the inadequacy of Naturalism.

      • Kristor…

        You just wrote that you believe in objective Supremacy, i.e., Perfection. Perfection is your “operating paradigm.” You are, in the most maximum of abstract manner, an objective Supremacist, i.e., a Perfection-ist. Your God is Perfection as revealed by The Perfect Man in the person Jesus Christ. This is white Christianity, secularly-speaking. “It” ASSERTS the will to Perfection without obstacle. This is ORDER. Its nemesis is the anti-white Supremacist, a global phenomenon operating UNDER the pretense of “liberalism” and demanding “universal equality.”

        You can conceive Perfecton just as I have ascertained many times before.

        You are a white Supremacist.

      • No, I didn’t write any of that stuff. I wrote that Nature cannot explain anything, but that in and through God I can in principle explain any thing.

        You are nevertheless correct to say of me that:

        … you believe in objective Supremacy, i.e., Perfection. Perfection is your “operating paradigm.” You are, in the most maximum of abstract manner, an objective Supremacist, i.e., a Perfection-ist. Your God is Perfection as revealed by The Perfect Man in the person Jesus Christ.

        But it is simply not true that, “This is white Christianity, secularly-speaking.” No. It is a gesture in the direction of one aspect of Christianity, period full stop. Whiteness has nothing to do with it. Other than in interpolations to the Table of Nations tracing the Europeans to Japheth, youngest son of Noah, whiteness is not mentioned in Scripture, in the Fathers, by the Councils, or anywhere else in the Magisterium. It’s just not a factor of the Church as it has understood itself from the beginning, at Pentecost. The first convert of whom we have specific notice, recall, was an Ethiopian eunuch – probably originally an Ethiopian Jew from the region of Elephantine Island. The Ethiopian church is one of the oldest in the world. Another is the community of Christians descended from the Hindus whom Saint Thomas evangelized. Then there are the Copts, and all the ancient churches of the Near East. None are white.

        I’m not a white supremacist. I’m a nationalist.

      • Kristor…

        You are putting far too much false emphasis on “white” as it relates to (S)upremacy while obscuring the false relation of “white” to “white (s)upremacy.”

        (w)hite is understood as a social construct encompassing European descended peoples.

        “white supremacy” is the phantom force that necessitates unending dysfunctional relationship to the black collective and “universal equality.”

        A Christian JUST IS NOT more particular than a white Christian.

        Ergo, if you tell me that you are a Christian then you would be telling me LESS OF YOURSELF if you would have said you were a white Christian.

        So a white Supremacist JUST IS a more particularly known objective Supremacist just as a white Christian is more particularly known than just a Christian.

        The fact that Christianity is not inherently “white” is irrelevant to the reality of which race of men interpret Christianity most truthfully? Which white men are racist enough to carry on white Christianity?

        Now, you may argue that, amongst the races of men, that the white race has not interpreted and exercised Christianity in the most faithfully and true manner, but legitimating this very measure goes to the heart of the matter.

        A defective diversity of Christianity (ideologically deracinated) is not better than the race of white man believing in and striving towards objective Supremacy BECAUSE they are white men and care for white Christianity.

      • Thordaddy, Christianity is not a white thing, any more than it is a blonde or short or right-handed or smart thing.

        Which sort of men interpret Christianity most truthfully, the blondes or the gingers? Is the blond Christianity different from the ginger Christianity? In what do the doctrines of the two religions differ?

        Why must everything be about race? Why not focus on hair color instead?

      • One transcends Nature by striving towards Supremacy as a white man. And this is because no mundane thing is equal to another mundane thing although both are equally mundane things. We solve this apparent paradox of “universal equality” by applying Perfection EVERYWHERE. This application of Perfection onto a certain type of mundane thing gives us Saints. And still there is an array of degreed application of Perfection presenting a reality of mankind.

        A white Supremacist is a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards Supremacy, ABSOLUTELY.

        ThIs conception is not only self-evidently true, its deconstruction just is the attempted self-annihilation of the white Christian by any memes necessary.

        Deny being a white Supremacist and one denies being a white Christian.

        Babel wins in a bloodless coup.

      • White men can strive towards Supremacy as white men. Other sorts of men must strive towards Supremacy in other ways. But so what? Short men must strive toward Supremacy as short men; blonde men must strive toward Supremacy as blonde men. How are such statements informative?

      • Come on Kristor…

        NO ONE is against “short man supremacy” or “Trump’s strawberry-blonde hair supremacy.”

        EVERYONE is against WHITE (S)upremacy….

        Everyone is against white man believing in and striving towards Supremacy AS white men.

        Everyone is against the white man, both individually and collectively, seeking out Perfection.

        Even you revealed as much with your obliviously flippant rebuttal. Yet, you are nowhere near oblivious. So your remark is entirely flippant. In other words, you already know that EVERYONE is against white (S)upremacy — even the most highly intelligent and informed white Christians — and yet you still play true to the “liberal” script in not recognizing this fundamental truth of traditional Christians. This truth being their latent anti-white pathology HIDING BENEATH a liberally perverted concept of (S)upremacy as REVEALED by the insistent use of (s)upremacy in spite of. Not to mention further revelation of pathological deracination, there is the consistent attempt to detach race from religion in the context of white man from Christianity as Perfection.

        What purpose does this serve Christianity in whole?

      • I get it that almost everyone is against white men. I really do. But this would be so whether or not those white men happened to be Christian. Almost everyone is against white male Jews, too; and white male atheists.

        Compare the situation of non-white Christians in dar al Islam and India, and to a lesser extent in China. Everyone around them hates and persecutes them, too, but that hatred has nothing to do with their race, and everything to do with their Christianity.

        The factors are simply not intrinsically related. Christians are hated; men are hated; whites are hated; Jews are hated.

        Your analytical categories are too simple to permit the expression of a theory that is adequate to reality.

      • Kristor…

        YOU are hated for being a white Supremacist… For being a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards Supremacy EVEN though not racially inspired to do so.

        So you say, “No… I am no white supremacist.”

        I say, “Yeah… You are hated for being a white Christian.”

        You say, “No… Black Christians in Africa are hated too!”

        I say, “Yeah… But they are not being hated for their black Supremacy.”

        And you say?

      • Look, Thordaddy, just give it up. You can be hated for being a Christian without being white, and you can be hated for being white without being Christian. You can strive for perfection no matter what race you are. Christianity is prior to race. It is prior to *every other thing whatever;* or else, it is not Supreme.

        You are reducing everything to race. You are encountering the problems that always arrive with improper reduction.

      • Kristor…

        It would be absolutely immoral of me to “give it up” and contrary to white Supremacy if I remained silent in the face of self-identified Christians self-damning per submission to a Babelized high jinx and violently enforced deracination.

        The issue of “race” being everything or meaning nothing are the reductionist irrelevancies put to sleep long ago at VFR.

        That Jew and Gentile, black and Arab, short and tall, blue eyes or brown, homosexual or androgynous can strive towards Supremacy and be hated for it IS BESIDE THE POINT.

        No one is targeting ANY OF THOSE “supremacist” movements which do not actually exist even as a manufactured delusion utilized to condition a marked population.

        The zeitgeist is anti-WHITE Supremacy… First, second and third. White Supremacist is the explicit and non-politically correct way of saying “white Christian.” White Supremacy is what is said when all euphemistic pretense is put to rest when speaking about white Christianity. White Supremacy is that phrase magically invoked to mitigate all crimes against white Christians.

        And because a self-identified Christian will not deconvert by denouncing Christianity, Babel “hacks” his language, persuades him to deny white Supremacy and instigates an orderly self-damnation.

        I cannot give up knowing what I see.

      • Thordaddy, you are the only one in the world who thinks that “white Christian” means exactly the same thing as “white Supremacist.” The only one I’ve ever encountered, anyway. Everyone else thinks that “white Supremacist” means someone who thinks that whites ought by rights to reign over the other races, while “white Christian” means a white person who happens to be Christian.

        You are imposing your own private version of certain common English terms on everyone else, and insisting that if they don’t go along with you on that they are somehow deeply defective. It just doesn’t work that way. What if I insisted that you refer to white Christians as chartreuse carburetors? You’d think that was just silly, right? Well, that’s how you look to everyone else.

        I do not quarrel with the assessment that the Occidental zeitgeist has been anti-white and anti-Christian for some time now. I do not disagree that this has made life harder for whites, harder for Christians, and harder still for white Christians. [I note in passing that it is *not unusual* for the world to hate Christians; God told us to expect exactly that.] But “white supremacist” and “white Christian” are simply not equivalent. They just don’t mean the same thing, at all. Nothing you can say will change this fact. Nothing. So, stop trying to change this fact, OK? Find a different, more precise way to express yourself. You’re a smart guy. You can do it.

        Until you do, people who read your words will not take you seriously. They will only think you are a kook. At best, they’ll feel sorry for you. At worst, they’ll find you maddening, and avoid you.

      • Kristor…

        The sheer ridiculousness of a super-duper majority knowing exactly what “white supremacy” is and is not while “we” here at this very domain have debated for over a decade upon the very definition of “liberalism” with contributions from high IQ christians and Atheists alike.

        It’s truly Babel-lite.

      • Thordaddy, you are the only one at the Orthosphere arguing that “white supremacist” = “white Christian.” It’s your definition of “white supremacist” versus that of everyone else in the world.

        Go ahead and use your own private language if you like. But so long as you do, don’t expect to be taken as anything but a kook. And, don’t expect to make your ideas clear to anyone else, either.

        If you want to be taken seriously, and communicate your ideas effectively, use language the way everyone else does.

      • Kristor,

        The late Lawrence Auster would be first to point out that I have NEVER WRITTEN:

        white Christian = “white supremacist”

        And that such was an inexcusable error and a false equivocation that I have, in fact, rejected as such.

        What I have stated is that IN THE MIND of the zeitgeist, a Christian white man who self-identifies as a “white Christian” is conceived and perceived as a “white supremacist.” This is a truth about a false assertion.

        What I have written is:

        white Christian = white (S)upremacist

        As to cohere to an ordered Logos.

        And because there is no equality between “white supremacist” and white Supremacist other than where “white” is concerned, there is no equalty between the white Christian and the “white supremacist” other than where “white” is concerned. Although, the racial debate is not settled either.

        I reject a Christian as a mere (s)upremacist.

        I accept, abstractly, a Christian as (S)upremacist.

        And you are not yet engaged with YOUR absolute conception of the white (S)upremacist.

        What is your conception? You must have one THAT IS NOT EQUAL TO the “white (s)upremacist?” Such a fallacious equivocation cannot hold in your mind as it represents the act of a liberal doing “liberalism?”

      • Thordaddy, I have no idea what you are saying in your last two paragraphs. I don’t have any conception of the white (S)upremacist, one way or another.

        If you are saying simply that a white Christian is a white person who worships God in Christ, and that God is perfect and supreme, and that the Christian seeks to be worthy of that God’s Heaven by aiming at Perfection (which I interpret as holiness), then you are saying something that is not at all controversial, or new, or anywise at odds with what everyone else says. You can call that white Christian a “white Supremacist” if you please. But what you can’t do is expect that everyone else, who understands “white supremacist” differently than you do, will understand what you are talking about. On the contrary, you can expect them to be quite confused by your terminology. Which is, exactly, what has happened to you, again and again and again.

        Which raises the question: since it is so confusing to your readers, why use the term “white Supremacist” in the first place? Why not just use the term “white Christian”? As you say:

        What I have written is:

        white Christian = white (S)upremacist

        OK; but then, why muddy the waters with “white (S)upremacist”? What is gained by so doing? Why not just say, “white Christian” when you mean to indicate a white Christian? Why insist on your own private lingo? To repeat: the only thing you accomplish by insisting on your own private lingo is to make readers think you are a kook. Is that really what you want to accomplish?

      • Why use white Supremacist instead of white Christian?

        The answer is many-fold. First, “God is dead” in the mind of the dull (white) mass. Ergo, objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection, does not exist in the mind of the white collective and this isn’t so readily known by those who only use “God” to help illuminate the stunted nature of the dull mass. Secondly, the zeitgeist is EXPLICITLY “anti-white supremacy” and only implicitly anti-white Christianity. This is why the Mess Madia always accuses a white man who moves things in the right direction (whether self-identified Christian or not) of being a “white supremacist” and not just a Christian. Thirdly, modern “white Christian” is not actually a white Supremacist or a “white supremacist.” Modern “white Christian” is a deracinated anti-white Supremacist, i.e., a raceless anti-white Christian EQUAL TO the leftist. Fourthly, Western Christianity is self-annihilating while white Supremacy renders such degenerate action verboten. Fifthly, God does not self-evidently falsify “universal equality” in the minds of the dull Christian or smart non-Christian alike. Objective Supremacy, and then, subsequently, white Supremacy, quite evidently falsify the claim of “universal equality.” Lastly, the widely held “LIBERAL” relativist conception of “white supremacist” is the mechanism by which the forces of Babel initiate self-damnation in the self-identified white Christian. “It” accuses the self-identified Christian white man of being a “white supremacist” thus provoking a knee-jerk denial only compounded by one’s tolerance for an initially stunted conception and the result is right before our eyes. White Christians denying the charge of “white supremacist” WHILE ACTUALLY denying the truth of white Supremacy only resulting in the purposeful racial annihilation of the white Christian. Babel’s actual aim is achieved by a perversion of the Logos and the modern “Christian’s” supplication to that perversion.

        There is another reason to invoke the white Supremacist in addition to a mere Christian white man and this reason being that the former is more aggressively provocative than the latter for the simple fact that the identity goes harder at the truth of our current affair. No one believes modern Christianity can save the West. Yet, everyone know “white supremacy” to be at least concerned for the survival of the white man. The synthesis is white Supremacy, i.e., a racially-incarnated Christianity.

      • This is the first quasi-clear explanation you have given for your use of “white Supremacist” instead of “white Christian.”

        I still think you would do better to find a different, more precise way of saying what you mean, using terms that are already in wide use and well understood. That way, you would not confuse so many readers. You’ve been commenting here for years, and almost no one can figure out what you are talking about most of the time. And almost nowhere are you likely to find a readership more open to grappling honestly with your arguments. If Orthosphereans can’t make head or tail of what you are writing, then there is a problem with your writing.

        Here’s a handy key, with Thordaddy’s private lingo (including punctuation marks) translated into the common tongue:

        • White Supremacist → white orthodox Christian
        • “White Christian” → white Liberal Christian
        • Supremacy → God
        • “White supremacist” → white supremacist

        You get the drift, I hope.

      • Kristor…

        You are making this far more complex than need be.

        First, get into Dr. Charlton’s mind and ASSUME that the evil global “default elite” seeks to damn souls.

        Second, assume that such effort at damnation is COHERENT. Ergo, Satan expends his effort laboring to damn those who do not want to be damned and doesn’t much bother putting any effort into damning those who do not care about being damned.

        This latter group is the global majority with a super-majority of those who could care less about being damned existing in the West.

        This ^^^ is why “we” are here.

        The above goes to explain the dense loci of Satan while the worldly mechanism in place utilized to damn those who don’t want damnation IS MERELY the phrase “white supremacy” with a Mess Madia simply serving as an amplifier.

        In other words, “I” am part of an evil “default elite” attempting to deconvert, i.e., damn, self-identified white Christians.

        How do I do it AND REMAIN true to an evil “default elite” status?

        Most simply, “I” persuade *you* to deconvert by any memes necessary. Yet, “I” cannot just expect a self-identified Christian white man to outright state that he is no longer a Christian. “I” have to be more cunning and deceptive. If “I” could somehow get the Christian white man to renounce and denounce “white supremacy” then “I” have opened the road to deconversion and self-annihilation, i.e., damnation.

        And this is where “we” are at… The high IQ “white Christians” are in denial of white Supremacy and partaking in their own self-damnation. The high IQ “white Christians” are CLINGING DESPARATELY to the LIBERALLY-stunted conception of “white supremacy” so as to do as much. The high IQ “white Christian” IS REFUSING to conceive white Supremacy, absolutely, for a multitude of reasons not the least of which serves to stunt and pervert lesser intelligent white Christians who cannot rightly sense the babble of Babel.

        Result? An evil “default elite” perpetuates.

      • This comment was not wholly intelligible, Thordaddy, but I can tell you worked hard at trying to make it that way. And I was able to figure out some of what you were saying. So I let it pass the threshold.

        Keep trying. Try even harder.

        If “I” could somehow get the Christian white man to renounce and denounce “white supremacy” then “I” have opened the road to deconversion and self-annihilation, i.e., damnation.

        This *might* follow *if* “white supremacy” denoted “Christianity.” But it doesn’t. This is so even under the terms of your private language, in which “white (S)upremacy” means “Christianity,” but “white supremacy” does not.

        It is possible to denounce white supremacy without implicitly denouncing Christianity. Likewise it is possible to advocate white supremacy without advocating the truth of Christianity.

        “Christianity” and “white supremacy” denote quite different things. Treating them as if this were not so confuses the reader; it seems also to indicate confusion in the writer.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s