New Release

Page 4

A question that might seem meaningless within certain domains, yet persisted, nonetheless. And it is as simple as this: why does something exist? Or better put, what is the mechanism through which something starts to exist or goes out of existence?

Why would anyone willingly endure the burden of such a torturous endeavour that takes up almost all one’s cognitive resources? At the level of legal entities, the rationale is clear—science yields tangible benefits, from innovation to profit. But on the personal level, the calculus is far less obvious. Especially when the ratio of gain to sacrifice is weighed, the motivation becomes murky, even paradoxical. I suspect that one reason is that we want to make sense of what we observe around us at a variety of levels. Every single answer we think we get from experimentation or observation functions as a minuscule addition to our understanding and since no single experiment or observation is enough to fully form "the ultimate answer" we might look for in life, we experiment as much as possible. As if the ultimate answer exists and is a story we try to uncover. Every single observation adds a new sentence to this story. Every experiment deletes a few sentences or replaces a few others. The direction of the story we look for changes constantly. The euphoria of the seeker is not in arriving at a final chapter, but in glimpsing fragments of a narrative that may never be complete. The joy lies in the act of rearranging these scattered sentences—of watching meaning flicker into view, however briefly, before it dissolves again back into uncertainty. It is the thrill of decoding nature’s cryptic prose, of sensing coherence in chaos, even if only for a moment.

This adventurous satisfaction is not born of certainty, but of pursuit. The seeker learns to love the process itself: the careful crafting of questions, the elegance of a well-designed setup, the humility required to accept failure, and the quiet exhilaration when nature responds with something unexpected. It is a kind of existential craftsmanship—an ongoing dialogue with reality, in which each experiment is both a question and, inevitably, its own revision.

And perhaps, beneath it all, there is a deeper longing: not just to understand the world, but to belong to it. To feel, through the very act of inquiry, that one’s mind is somehow entangled with the fabric of the universe— that the story being written is not just about nature, but also about the observer who dares to ask and probe.

Page 69

- ‘Why’ is not a meaningful question. We must ask ‘how’. What is the mechanism through which we are what we are?”
- Science can answer that question soon or later. That is why I am more interested in the question of why, rather than the how. How is easy, as science will answer that—if it has not already. The question ‘why’ is more interesting to me, as it seems meaningless, but it is not meaningless; it is just non-answerable. Are non-answerable questions meaningless?