# Explanations An **Explanation** is a statement about what is there, what is does, and how and why. It addresses a [Problem](Problem.md). It is part of the [Problem Solving Process](Problem%20Solving%20Process.md). A *good explanation* is one that is *hard to vary*. All parts of the explanation have a *functional role* and it would be a *worse explanation* if they were varied or removed. It provides a set of bold constraints that put themselves at risk of criticism, and if any single one were changed it would yield a worse explanation. A *bad Explanation* is one that is *easy to vary*. In the case of the conjurer placing balls under cups, you may be able to confidently predict "the ball will no longer be under the cup that it started under". And that would be a correct prediction. But that is not what you are asking about! You are not asking about the thing you *saw*. You are asking about the thing you *didn't see*. Another example is that of dinosaurs. The one thing that you *cannot observe* is *invoking and causing* the one that you *do observe* (i.e. you cannot observe living, walking dinosaurs, but our explanation involves them having once existed and now contributing to why we observe *fossils* in the ground). In both of these cases, the *unobserved* is the only thing you are interested in; it is the only reason you are interested in any kind of prediction at all. [The search for hard to vary explanations is the origin of all progress](https://youtu.be/folTvNDL08A?t=903). The truth consists of hard to vary assertions about reality. This is the most important fact of the physical world. Explanations are intimately tied to *understanding*. In continually drawing a distinction between understanding and ‘mere’ knowing, I do not want to understate the importance of recorded, non- explanatory information. This is of course essential to everything from the reproduction of a micro-organism (which has such information in its DNA molecules) to the most abstract human thinking. So what distinguishes understanding from mere knowing? What is an explanation, as opposed to a mere statement of fact such as a correct description or prediction? In practice, we usually recognize the difference easily enough. We know when we do not understand something, even if we can accurately describe and predict it (for instance, the course of a known disease of unknown origin), and we know when an explanation helps us to understand it better. But it is hard to give a precise definition of ‘explanation’ or ‘understanding’. Roughly speaking, they are about: * ‘why’ rather than ‘what’ * the inner workings of things * how things really are, not just how they appear to be * what must be so, rather than what merely happens to be so * laws of nature rather than rules of thumb. They are also about coherence, elegance and simplicity, as opposed to arbitrariness and complexity, though none of those things is easy to define either. But in any case, understanding is one of the higher functions of the human mind and brain, and a unique one. Many other physical systems, such as animals’ brains, computers and other machines, can assimilate facts and act upon them. But at present we know of nothing that is capable of understanding an explanation — or of wanting one in the first place — other than a human mind. Every discovery of a new explanation, and every act of grasping an existing explanation, depends on the uniquely human faculty of creative thought. ### Why Should we seek good explanations? We should seek good explanations because they are the best way to [solve our problems](Problem%20Solving%20Process.md) (as shown in [Chapter 3: Problem Solving](Fabric%20of%20Reality.md#Chapter%203%20Problem%20Solving)). This is why David Deutsch has frequently said that the most important philosophical concept that Popper introduced was that of a [Problem](Problem.md). It the starting point of a problem that provides us a philosophical foundation upon which to stand. [Rational Inquiry Requires Pursuing Good Explanations](Rational%20Inquiry%20Requires%20Pursuing%20Good%20Explanations.md). ## The Physical and Abstract Nature of Explanations [In a great conversations with Sam Harris](https://youtu.be/anRrR0XjFK0?t=2858), David Deutsch highlights that explanations consist of [Knowledge](Knowledge.md), which is a form of [Information](Information.md). Information can only be processed in one way: by [Computation](Computation.md) of the kind invented by Babbage and Turing. There is only one mode of computation available to physical objects, and that is the Turing mode. [Explanations](Explanations.md) are real entities for they satisfy [Dr Johnsons Criteria](Dr%20Johnsons%20Criteria.md), but they are [Abstractions](Abstractions.md). And [Computation is the Window to the Abstract](Computation%20is%20the%20Window%20to%20the%20Abstract.md), thus it is via computation that we can interact with these explanations. --- Date: 20220617 Links to: [Beginning of Infinity](Beginning%20of%20Infinity.md) [Archetype of All Bad Explanations](Archetype%20of%20All%20Bad%20Explanations.md) Tags: #review References: * [David Deutsch: A new way to explain explanation - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A) * [David Deutsch - What is Truth? - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eEffbjzNwE) [^1]: [The Fabric of Reality](The%20Fabric%20of%20Reality.pdf), pg 11 [^2]: TokCast, Episode 71