What motivates the smallest, irreducible quantum particle, griefer/nishi…is its motivating force. And what motivates that is what motivates that. Turtles upon turtles.
So unless there is no limit to “physical” reductionism — to little levers operated by yet more little levers — we should agree that science will indeed never explain anything outside of observable properties. And if there is a limit to physical reductionism, below which level stuff simply does inexplicably what it does…science will never prove anything outside of observable properties.
Ergo, at some deep level, stuff simply is what it is, a principle akin to…faith. With its mystical Origin akin to the supernatural, and presumably possessing the properties of the intent and will to set up such order, the force to pull it off, our awe at comprehending it, and perhaps even, the mutual love that comes from observing such properties. From which comes truth, honor, principle, beauty, and a host of other decidedly unscientific properties, all of them existing, ironically, within a cold, godless, random Place that assembled itself.
Because is it not a tenant of detached, isolated, secularized quantum mechanics that it exhibits inherent, self-motivated behaviors and group interactions (at something akin to Einstein’s spooky actions at a distance) but not Newtonian properties? Correct me if I’m mistaken, it’s not my field.
That discussion does indeed belong in a course curriculum at Oral Roberts, as well as in your quantum mechanics class. At MIT.
That it’s typically philosophically explored in neither is an inverse of the observable, philosophical notion that at the end of that detached scientific era, God must be again Infinite and the Universe will be again infinitely mysterious and the two shall become inseparable. Again.
I do believe that having been conflicted against God for so long, and quite understandably so, science will one day discover not your or my God, but the conviction that there is a Singularity, and that for all intents and purposes, It is indistinguishable from “God”. Such as It may be.
After which point (and with the diversion of Science! out of the way) we can accept again that the mind had already deduced and reasoned that “God” and God’s attributes were simply the sheer nature of things (that semantic conflict between the natural and the supernatural crops up here again, as does the observable fact that science cannot be expected to issue answers) and get on again to the abstract evidences of consciousness, not least of which are free will and the essential nature that all consciousnesses possesses a philosophy thereby.
