Why?

@Matias That doesn't sound very "HOW"-ish.

@TheMiddleWay Your example doesn't prove your point because you can't solve for why either. If you backtrack the rolling back to try to figure out why it's rolling, you'll also figure out how it ended up rolling across the floor.

Now if you had an example where you could solve for why and not how, then you can say it won't work.

@TheMiddleWay As the 'Laws' of motion state, An Object in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by an external force, an object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an external force, etc, etc, hence that is the how and why the ball is either rolling or remaining motionless, theoretically.
As to the How and Why of the evolution of Life happened on this planet we may never know the answers or why and how the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West instead of vice versa we may never know as well, BUT those who truly want to know WILL keep searching for that is the nature of the thinking human.

@TheMiddleWay And that's also the how, it was thrown. That's how it ended up rolling across the floor. You don't need to know every other aspect of the throw to know that it was thrown. I can extend your why and ask why it's rolling the way it is, and you'd also need to know how they threw it to know why it's rolling the way it is.

@TheMiddleWay You can break down how they held the ball, the motion of their arm, the neurons firing after seeing the catcher's signal creating the decision. It can all be broken down to tell you how, and in doing so will tell you why.

The only why questions that can't be broken down into how questions are questions that deal with supernatural and metaphysical beliefs.

Human behavior is pretty much your last hope for a why but not how question, but all that could be broken down too if we had the capability to read a person's brain in real time. The only way human behavior can't be broken down into a how question/answer is if you believe in something akin to a soul.

@TheMiddleWay It's far from metaphysical. Like I said, unless you believe in something akin to a soul, all you're left with is physical brain activity. While you are correct that we can't do it now, there's no reason to think it's not possible unless you believe in something more than your brain. We are advanced enough in our technology that we could get a pretty decent idea of what happens with a person's neurons when they think or do something, but not without being strapped to a machine which wouldn't work on a pitcher. So if you deny a how just because you can't currently see every detail, then why not extend it to all hows? I mean, we don't have the technology to know the position of every atom in a fast ball and the air surrounding it to say 100%.

To me, saying that we can't claim that every why can be broken down into a how is like thinking the moon ceases to exist when it sets. Just because you can't see it at the moment doesn't mean it's not there.

Let me ask you this though, if the technology was there to read a person's brain in full and in real time, would you be inclined to say that their why can be turned into a how?

@TheMiddleWay But to try to understand the WHY first you need to find out the How and the WHY as well.
Without knowing/understanding them both together then are you NOT simply wasting your time?

@TheMiddleWay I think you're crisscrossing determinism and cause and effect. I don't believe everything is predetermined, but every effect has a cause. In your example with balls, I'm not talking about predicting where the ball will go based on the past. I'm saying that if you were to know everything that lead up to the present moment, you would know how which will also tell you why.

For your computer and brain examples, if we experience an effect, there are a trail of causes that lead to the effect. Nothing ever happens for absolutely no reason, with no cause. So yes, if you computer accesses a certain bit, that was an effect and there was a cause. Binary is just another language that can be read and if you were to know how to read it, you could backtrack and see how it accessed a bit and you would know why.

With a brain, any thought or emotion you experience is just physical, electrical, and chemical reactions. If a person thinks, feels, says, or does anything, you could trace the chain of causes and know how and it'll answer for why. Like I said, unless you believe that your mind is more than just your brain and its processes, then there's no reason to think that your brain activity is physical and therefore leaves a physical trail.

Like I said, nothing happens without a reason. My outlook on existence is soft determinism with chaos theory. Hypothetically, if you were to know every detail about every atom in the observable universe.. you'd only be able to predict with 99.99% certainty. At anytime anywhere, a subatomic could appear at random due to unseen forces beyond our observable universe. That doesn't mean there was no reason for it happening. You'd have to backtrack the events that lead up to it and it'll show you how it happened, it'll show you why.

PS - there's a reason "why" and "how come" are interchangeable. It's really one in the same.

@TheMiddleWay "I apply a mag field at a certain place and that bit will flip... but that how doesn't tell me why."

It does though.

'How did that bit flip?'
A mag field was applied by me.

'Why did that bit flip?'
Because I applied a mag field.

Same with the light experiments. If you knew the quantum physics behind how it is happening, it would most certainly tell you why. There's no philosophical mystery as to why it is happening if you knew how it was happening.

Once again, if we knew how @Matias neurons were firing, all the neural tracks of thought that lead up to it.. it would show you all the thoughts and experiences that lead up to him asking the question and it would tell you why.

@TheMiddleWay You know we're just going to go round and round in circles.. lol

But, for the hard drive, you've basically highlighted the point I am making. If you knew what the operating was, if you knew the nature of the hard drive, if you knew everything that gives meaning to the raw data, you would know exactly how it did it and that would also tell you why. Yes, without knowing all that information.. you can't answer how and you can't answer why.

'Why did the bit flip like that?'
Because the binary code told it to.

Then you need to know about binary code in order to get an answer for..
'Why did the binary code tell it to do that?'
Because the operating system issued the command.

Then you need to know the details about the operating system to get an answer for..
'Why did the operating system issue the command?'
Because it was programmed this way to operate this hard drive.

Then you need to know the details about the hard drive to get an answer for..
'Why is the hard drive operated this way?'
To store photos.

No matter what opener you use, either how or why, you'll be stuck in a chain of questions if you want to strive to know 100% of the answer.

Now let me ask you this.. can you tell me "why" that sequence is what it is without answering "how" that sequence was created? How would you answer that why?

Earlier you said that there are many equally possible reasons as to why that'll lead to the how.. but as you start to learn how, some possibilities will get knocked out as you learn more information. It's no different than how scientific theories get disqualified from being a possibility. When you're trying to answer why something is that way, you create or gather numerous theories (whys). As you start to research and learn more (hows), some of those theories (whys) will be disproven, eventually leaving you with one that not only explains how something is the way it is, but why.

Knowing why will tell you how. Knowing how tell you why. Like I said in the beginning, they're really just the same thing.. but many people feel the need to feel like there's something more to it, so they don't accept how as the answer to why.

If only nature would conform to our language.

@Matias you could translate to how my mind took the decision and executed the action.
But this would be the same as treating space travel in terms of quantum mechanics, is theoretically possible, but the amount of work and the precision gained in the process makes it a huge waste.