"The ultimate triumph of science"

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

The existential "why?".

Now I feel we might accidentally fall into "The Ultimate Question" territory. The joke being that when a race of superbeings build a computer to solve the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything, and wait 7.5m years for its answer, they are immensely frustrated when it comes back with "42." When they dig deeper, they find that neither they or the computer know what question "42" is the answer for. It's always been referred to as "the ultimate question." Nobody ever explained what that actually was.

Can you be more specific about "why," so we don't waste 7.5m years on a two-word answer?

Physics can answer how the universe got here, but spirituality would still exist as a way to answer the more existential questions of existence. Questions about the self, questions about our abstract role in life, etc. Many of the questions that spirituality had always been asking. Science is the realm of the "how," spirituality is the realm of the "why."

I remember someone suggesting that, under certain circumstances, "how" and "why" become synonymous. For instance, "why does 2+2=4?" "Because the axioms say so." vs. "How does 2+2=4?" "[Proof]." Or possibly the other way around.

Is there a risk that that might happen to our idea of "reality?"

In fact, how do you know new forms of spirituality might not emerge in the wake of a ToE?

I don't. Which is why this thread is here.