And a bit like the Why-game (which always in the end leads to “because of physics” or “because somebody wants it”).
I don’t personally have children and don’t know how much they are capable of understanding these things or being interested in it anymore, but I still have to ask—is there any particular reason why you have to stop at that point? Those sound more like semantic stop signs EY has talked about, and not real explanations. For example, you could still try to explain why people generally want these things in certain situations maybe even using cognitive science and psychology as help.
I have thought that if I ever have children and they ask me these “why” questions and I have some spare time, I will continue to answer until the child is not interested in doing it anymore, all the way down to quarks, probability arrows or whatever. Actually I’d love to do it. If I don’t know much about some subject, I could learn more about it myself from books or the internet and it’d be pretty cool even if the kid was asking just for the sake of it.
Oh I didn’t stop at “because people want it” on the first round. I did continue answering that people feel this and that way. But you cannot explain psychology too deeply to a five year old—there is just not enough terminology you can build on (and using to detached words will not do). So you are bound to appeal to empathy (which children have) and the second time around the answer is really “don’t you feel that way too?”.
As for the physics. The answer is not litereally “physics” but physics at a level where you also have no more words you can build on. There is a point where analogy to waves can get you only so far. Sure sometime the correct terminology has to be used. And a why game can be such a point. But then this really leaves the “and why that” chain and goes into story mode or experiment mode or physical phenomenon mode.
There is a difference between saying “because that’s just how it is” (semantic stop sign) and saying “because of reasons that you can’t understand yet, but will when you grow up”. How do you make sure you are saying the second, and do you think your children understand that?
Because I do not really stop at that point. I may stop in the chain of a why game. But the topics will come up again and again in different locations. For example when my sons ask how many is “million times million times million times million” I will not just answer “septillion” (*) but e.g. try to illustrate this with an example like “water particles within a spoonful of water”. Or if we heat sugar in a pan to make caramel I might note that the sugar partical hpentagons break up or form new structures. Or if we speak about respiration I will (building on oxidaition in fire) to explain that the lung equalizes oxygen and CO2 levels of air and blood.
Note that in German this is “Quadrillion” nicely verbalizing exponentiation via ‘quad’=‘four’ times multiplication of million.
Note that in German this is “Quadrillion” nicely verbalizing exponentiation via ‘quad’=‘four’ times multiplication of million.
I didn’t know that. German is my own native language (and AFAIK many others work the same). I’m not very good with large numbers (I usually count them: “million, milliard, billion, billiard...”), so that helps.
It is easy. For example Avogadros number is roughly 10^-24 (for the purpose of estimating numbers of particles in natural phenomena) thus 24=4∙6 thus million^4 thus “Quadrillion” in German. And one googol is 10^100 and 100 = 16∙6+3+1 thus 10 “Sedezilliarden” (from 16=sedecem) albeit all this doesn’t work in English at least not so easily.
I don’t personally have children and don’t know how much they are capable of understanding these things or being interested in it anymore, but I still have to ask—is there any particular reason why you have to stop at that point? Those sound more like semantic stop signs EY has talked about, and not real explanations. For example, you could still try to explain why people generally want these things in certain situations maybe even using cognitive science and psychology as help.
I have thought that if I ever have children and they ask me these “why” questions and I have some spare time, I will continue to answer until the child is not interested in doing it anymore, all the way down to quarks, probability arrows or whatever. Actually I’d love to do it. If I don’t know much about some subject, I could learn more about it myself from books or the internet and it’d be pretty cool even if the kid was asking just for the sake of it.
Oh I didn’t stop at “because people want it” on the first round. I did continue answering that people feel this and that way. But you cannot explain psychology too deeply to a five year old—there is just not enough terminology you can build on (and using to detached words will not do). So you are bound to appeal to empathy (which children have) and the second time around the answer is really “don’t you feel that way too?”.
As for the physics. The answer is not litereally “physics” but physics at a level where you also have no more words you can build on. There is a point where analogy to waves can get you only so far. Sure sometime the correct terminology has to be used. And a why game can be such a point. But then this really leaves the “and why that” chain and goes into story mode or experiment mode or physical phenomenon mode.
There is a difference between saying “because that’s just how it is” (semantic stop sign) and saying “because of reasons that you can’t understand yet, but will when you grow up”. How do you make sure you are saying the second, and do you think your children understand that?
Because I do not really stop at that point. I may stop in the chain of a why game. But the topics will come up again and again in different locations. For example when my sons ask how many is “million times million times million times million” I will not just answer “septillion” (*) but e.g. try to illustrate this with an example like “water particles within a spoonful of water”. Or if we heat sugar in a pan to make caramel I might note that the sugar partical hpentagons break up or form new structures. Or if we speak about respiration I will (building on oxidaition in fire) to explain that the lung equalizes oxygen and CO2 levels of air and blood.
Note that in German this is “Quadrillion” nicely verbalizing exponentiation via ‘quad’=‘four’ times multiplication of million.
Now I’m venturing into off-topic territory, but:
I didn’t know that. German is my own native language (and AFAIK many others work the same). I’m not very good with large numbers (I usually count them: “million, milliard, billion, billiard...”), so that helps.
It is easy. For example Avogadros number is roughly 10^-24 (for the purpose of estimating numbers of particles in natural phenomena) thus 24=4∙6 thus million^4 thus “Quadrillion” in German. And one googol is 10^100 and 100 = 16∙6+3+1 thus 10 “Sedezilliarden” (from 16=sedecem) albeit all this doesn’t work in English at least not so easily.
Eventually you do need to come to a stop sign, because you shouldn’t always ask ‘why’ one more time even though you could.
Once you’ve gotten down to bedrock physics seems like a good time to stop. There are better wordings than the one you provided.