# Explanations Imply Consequences Our best theories embody deep [Explanations](Explanations.md) as well as accurate predictions. For example, the general theory of relativity explains gravity in terms of a new, four dimensional geometry of curved [Spacetime](Spacetime.md). It explains precisely how this geometry affects and is affected by matter. That explanation is the *entire content of the theory*. Predictions about planetary motions are merely some of the consequences that we can [Deduce](Deduction.md) from the explanation. This is worth repeating. A [Logical](Logic.md) [Deduction](Deduction.md) makes *explicit* what is already *implicit* in a set of premises. In other words, it's premises *implies* certain conclusions. We can arrive at those conclusions via [Proof](Proof.md) (remember, [Proof is a Computational Process](Proof%20is%20a%20Computational%20Process.md) and [Proof is a Physical Process](Proof%20is%20a%20Physical%20Process.md)). Executing the proof generally involves just following a set of [Rules](Rules.md), while coming up with the proof often requires [Creativity](Creativity.md). The same sort of behavior occurs with explanations! An explanation *implies* certain consequences. These are present in the explanation even if one has not deduced them yet. One example is predictions! As stated above, predictions about planetary motions are *consequences* that are *implied* via the explanation, and can thus be deduced! But it is not just predictions that are implied from an explanation. For example, quasars — extremely bright sources of radiation at the centre of some galaxies — were for many years one of the mysteries of astrophysics. It was once thought that new physics would be needed to explain them, but now we believe that they are explained by the general theory of relativity and other theories that were already known before quasars were discovered. These theories *implied* quasars. But understanding this took [Creativity](Creativity.md)! Explaining the motion of a particular planet, when one already understands the general explanation of gravity, is a mechanical task, though it may be a very complex one. But using existing theory to account for quasars requires creative thought. Thus, to understand everything that is understood in astrophysics today, you would have to know the theory of quasars explicitly. But you would not have to know the orbit of any specific planet. --- Date: 20250107 Links to: [Description Is Not Explanation](Description%20Is%20Not%20Explanation.md) Tags: References: * []()