"You Can’t Prove A Negative"

[chaz wyman]

Ive been thinking some more and I come to believe, hypothetically, under the following assumptions/premises that if we get to know all of the universe, every other universe, and all of science in its utmost precision, we should be able to say why the laws of nature are this way and not any other way. Thus, even for the most radical "negative", that of proving a negative natural law, there may be this kind by this description. Obviously, it's at the very far end, one, perhaps, equal to Heaven, only, possibly, theoretically achievable.

Cheers!

I is my opinion that you are saddled with a false assumption: that "why the laws of nature are thus" is a meaningful question, or has any answer. Science is concerned with HOW, not why. Any question formulated with a 'why' that cannot be re-stated with a "how" is not a scientific question.

[Aetixintro]

Let me rephrase:
This is the answer to "how is that this law of nature exists while the other laws of nature don't?" Are you satisfied by this? Can I be a scientist now? Cheers!

[chaz wyman]

Let me rephrase:
This is the answer to "how is that this law of nature exists while the other laws of nature don't?" Are you satisfied by this? Can I be a scientist now? Cheers!

Well yes. You can describe the laws of nature, as there is nothing else for men to do. Nature is the final point beyond which there is no explanation. Reality is what reality does.The universe is as it is. There can be nothing beyond this. What science is doing is providing description. There is no underlying deep explanation. Only religions claim this ground, though some scientist think that science is some kind of replacement.
So ask not WHy me; WHy is the sky blue or the grass green if it make more sense to ask how is it that the sky os blue and the grass green. As for "how me"? That is where science departs from religion.