On the Meaninglessness of Explanations

1. What an Explanation Is

An explanation is a reduction of a real-world phenomenon into symbolic form.
It compresses observations into language, equations, or diagrams that convey a model of reality compact enough to be stored in operative memory and communicated to others.

An explanation does not reproduce reality. It produces a representation of reality that is easier to manipulate mentally.

Any explanation framed as an answer to "why" is inherently incomplete.

Each "why" presupposes a background of axioms: physical laws, logical rules, linguistic conventions, perceptual assumptions.

These axioms are never justified within the explanation itself. Inquiry halts not because understanding is complete, but because further questioning is disallowed. One is permitted to ask why a phenomenon occurs, but not why the axioms enabling the answer are true.

As a result, explanations do not terminate in truth. They terminate in silence.

2. Symbolic Irreducibility

Certain propositions are symbolically final. They cannot be reduced further without leaving the domain of usefulness.

Example:

Magnets attract or repel each other via electromagnetic force.

This statement is operationally complete. Asking "why electromagnetic force exists?" produces no new predictive or functional capability. The proposition is irreducible within the symbolic system being used.

Further inquiry only replaces one symbol with another.

Explanations do not add data. They add social acceptability. Their function is not to increase contact with reality. In fact,

Explanation's sole reason for existence is to persuade other humans that understanding exists or has occurred

An explanation succeeds when it produces agreement, not when it increases verifiable access to the phenomenon. In this sense, explanation is a social and psychological artifact rather than an epistemic one.

Planetary motion illustrates this distinction clearly: the motion of planets can be predicted using formulas. Many such formulas exist. Some perform better under certain conditions than others. None of them require an ontological story about what gravity "really is".

The formulas have no ontological grouding to explain planetary motion. They simply correlate with it. The formulas persist because they work. They survive through inter-formula competition, not because they are metaphysically grounded. There is no deeper "reason" for why a given formula works.

3. Practical Consequence for Epistemologists

1. Engage only with verifiable operational propositions and predictive tools

2. Ignore all and any explanations

Explanations do not uncover reality. They manufacture confidence. Reality does not require assent. Only humans do.

3. Understand the "uselessness of explaining something to oneself"

Self-directed explanation has no epistemic function. It does not add information, increase predictive power, or improve operational control over a phenomenon. Its function is psychological regulation. The mind generates symbolic narratives to convince itself that: 1) the phenomenon has been domesticated, 2) inquiry has reached a legitimate stopping point, 3) no further cognitive effort is required.

This internal dialogue is not aimed at truth. It is aimed at closure. Self-explanation is therefore not a tool for knowing.

4. Go into the world and actually gather data

Data speaks for itself and does not require interpretation.

 

Addendum

Here is a listing of 8 "explanations". Exactly 4 of those are false and were "explained" to me in dreams by generated dream entities (literal brain noise) which I found myself being "persuaded" by. Notice how on the face of it, it's impossible to tell which is which:

• Diseases such as cholera, plague, malaria, and yellow fever are caused by poisonous vapors arising from decomposing organic matter, stagnant water, or other environmental sources
• People feel colder in wind because moving air removes heat faster than still air, increasing convective heat loss from exposed skin.
• Binance's cryptocurrency servers use double virtualization (virtual machines inside virtual machines) to contain damages in case of a hacker penetration attack.
• Jet lag occurs because circadian rhythms are regulated by light exposure, and rapid time-zone changes desynchronize internal biological clocks.
• Plants grow toward sunlight because photons carry directional intent that biases cellular division toward luminous sources.
• If one tears the front page of a Russian passport, they will supposedly be allowed to pass Ukrainian border control because the document is no longer recognized as valid, while Russian border control continues to recognize it even with the page torn out.
• Economic inflation rises when currency velocity increases, meaning money circulates faster relative to available goods, reducing purchasing power.
• When one catches a mockingjay bird, they should keep their middle finger around the bird's neck in a specific grip otherwise the bird's neck tendon composition allows it to bite the holder easily.
• Metal expands when heated because increased thermal energy raises atomic vibration amplitude, increasing average interatomic spacing.

History and contemporary examples alike demonstrate that explanations - no matter how coherent, technically framed, or empirically resonant - can be utterly useless in terms of accessing truth. They provide no guarantee of accuracy, no insight into ultimate causes, and no necessity beyond what is operationally observable.

Yet the human mind is easily persuaded. Coherent language, causal structure, and technical vocabulary create the illusion of understanding. Whether it is phlogiston, miasmas, Martian canals, or the nonsensical statements listed above, explanations function primarily to produce psychological assent, not verifiable knowledge.

Explanations can convince, even when they are meaningless. Their power lies not in truth, but in our willingness to believe.

The utility of explanation is not in what it explains - but in how convincingly it persuades us that we understand.