Why is it there must be a whole for water to leave a container? It seems illogical to work any other way as we are used to this way, but why was it not such that things were such as to logically work otherwise?
Because if water can leave, we call that means, “a hole”.
If the water cannot leave, we call that, “not having a hole”.
We label things by how they behave.
Logic is merely maintaining those labels properly.
It’s an interesting question. Why is it this way? We could imagine otherwise. I think that appealing to more fundamental operations might be a typical answer. The more important question would be why is anything the way that it is? To this answer I don’t have an answer because I seems that everything must have a reason but yet we know that this can’t be because infinity would be reached but infinity can’t be reached. It’s a nagging question wisdom lays aside to avoid insanity. The question is troublesome because it seems that there can not be a reason that can be given. If this is the case then everything is based upon irrationality.
If you could make water into a super-fluid then it can leave even if there is no hole ~ the particles at a certain temperature ’cooperate’ and other particles provide no barrier and they just seep through as if frictionless.
Otherwise the question seams to simply be flawed logic.
what i mean is why is it that mass can’t pass through mass. I know you can say some does but really that is a matter of the mass being small enough to pass beyond the atoms of the container.Perhaps I could say why can’t an atom go through another atom without any alterations?
I would disagree that infinity can’t be reached, or at least that infinity cannot exist. i imagine we if we try to walk to the end of an infinite line that won’t work. But it seems there could still be an infinite number of reasons just that we wouldn’t be able to figure them all out. nonetheless the question would then be why is there an infinite number of reasons?
My point is basically asking not what conditions where it could work but why is it that under the conditions which we see things as not working, why do they not work under those conditions? What is it that made or why is it that the universe became, or why is it that things simply are the way things are? Why are the laws the laws as they are. it seems illogical that things would work some other way, but why is that? Different laws may seem not to work but why is the universe not such that all things could work in that different way?
Ah I see what you mean now, this problem bugs me too. 
Perhaps we can forget that there are laws as these are our observations, they only ‘exist’ because it so happens things work like that. All we can assume is that physical things are physical or at least act like they are, but I don’t think there is anything that forces reality to be that way ~ hence you need something that organises things the way they are imho.
This would seem to be a question that can’t actually be answered by any means of anything within the system/reality itself. And may suggest something beyond what is real to us…God, the spiritual, something completely different…who knows… But I might ask what point is there in pursuing something like science if your goal is to understand everything, rather it should be to help things, what ever seems important I guess. Thinking it is the method to proof is wrong, recognizing it is a matter of theories is better…it would seem. This unanswerable question seems to leave everything to question, everything to being possibly wrong…
A child,so innocent, would often bring things down to such a question with their why’s but we assume they mean to irritate us, and so we fail to see the insecurity of all our assumptions. We hit the child or get mad at it, threaten punishment, only then does it realize that we can be irritated by such.
The “laws” exist because it is impossible for them to not exist or to be any different than they are.
Is it really a matter of being able to figure them all out? There isn’t an all that we can point to. If there is an infinite number of reasons for everything already how can there be reasons in the future? If there were wouldn’t this mean that the future was infinity plus those reasons? If such is the case, it is infinity plus something which can’t be because that would be larger than infinity and nothing is larger than infinity.
It can’t be reached because it is defined to be that which cannot be reached. If you could reach it, it wouldn’t be called “infinite”.
Why is it impossible? What makes it such that it is not possible in some other way?
I think that might depend on the infinity, it may be possible to have infnites which are smaller than other infinites.
One way I think of it like this: If you had to experience a constantly alternating feeling of good then bad then good then bad, forever, one would say it was better if they experience a lot of good a little bad then allot of good then a little bad…and so on forever. But if you added up all the good and all the bad they would both be infinite, so while they are the same in numerical amount one can still be quantified over the other.
Or one might think that our universe is infinite, if that was true we would exist in it still, and be a fraction of it, a fraction of infinity is infinite but we would still be less than the greater infinite.
i don’t think it could be reached from a finite state. That’s what I thought I said. But what if you took infinite steps? Or each step was somehow one quarter of the infinite distance…they would each be infinite but less than enough to immediately reach the end of the infinity?
Isn’t this just talking about how fast something is increasing? Obviously, if A increases a certain rate and B increases at a certain rate and given any given time A is going to be twice as far if it is consistently going twice as fast. You can take any given time but you can never take an infinite time. You can never get any closer to infinity.
“Why” can ask many things, and the answer is only relevant in the right context. “Why is the window smashed?” can be answered
- because glass is brittle
- because a stone was thrown through it
- because Dave was furious when he found out you’ve been sleeping with his girlfriend
- to teach you a lesson
- because we didn’t have time to put a grille up outside it
and many more answers, of different explicatory types. There’s no one answer, it depends who is asking and what information they hope to gain from the answer.
So what sort of answer are you looking for?
Because;
Due to that, all things must be exactly as they are at the time they are.
You are so polite, H.–I’m still trying to figure out the first sentence of the OP!
Essentially, what you’re reiterating is the age-old question: Why something rather than nothing? Once this original question is abandoned (for how could we sustain it?), we can turn to your post: Why this thing instead of that? Or, why are things the way they are and not otherwise? James wants to claim that things are the way they are because there is no possible other way for them to be, which is itself a vague reiteration of the Modernist’s proclamation that we live in the best of all possible worlds (see: Leibnez), which is, in turn, a hyperbolic retelling of the theory that life unfolded in the only way it could have. As we come to understand evolution better, we can, however, no longer take such a position seriously.
Thus, I think that your question can be pressed a lot further, and it has been. Nietzsche, for instance, was quite concerned with the principles of logic as falsifications necessary for a certain way of life, falsifications that could have been otherwise. They are a result not of the “true” nature of existence, but rather of the type of life mankind lives. So, why this life and not another? Perhaps no reason at all. Life itself, after all, does seem to have been accidental.
Is this more along the lines of what you were stretching for, or have I too misread you?