When I was 15 years old (oh, when I was 15 years old !), I dreamt of becoming a great scientist and of making revolutionary discoveries. Popular books taught that Einstein started thinking about the phenomenon of light at the age of 16, well before he discovered special relativity that addressed many paradoxes of light. I would question myself: "What should be the problem that I have to start thinking over now in order to make a great discovery in 10 years down the road?"

It was a futile attempt to find the answer in physics journals or monographs. I lacked the knowledge to understand them. But Einstein found his area when he also could not read scientific papers! Where can I find my area ?

Accidently, I came across the books on philosophy of science. I was elevated by the fact that I could understand them and that they discussed the problems at the cutting edge of science. I became fascinated with reading the philosophical books.

From these books I learned that one of the main problems of science is why the world is such as it is. I liked this problem and started thinking about it.

I noticed that science evolves as follows: initially scientists try to find an explanation to some phenomenon; after that they try to find an explanation to this explanation; after that -- an explanation to (the explanation to (the explanation of a phenomenon)), after that -- an explanation to (the explanation to (the explanation to (the explanation of a phenomenon))), etc.

For example, since long ago people tried to understand why planets move the way they move. Kepler discovered three laws that explained the motion of stellar bodies. But why are the planets governed by the laws of Kepler ? - Newton questioned and found an explanation to Kepler laws. But why is Newton law such as it is ? - Einstein questioned and derived it from his general relativity...

I immediately guessed that this process of iterative generalization of explanations should converge to an explanation for which there cannot be an explanation. The ultimate theory of universe that explains everything has to be such that it would be impossible to ask why this theory is like this and not like that. It should be built of such constructs to which this question is not applicable.

What are these constructs ? - I questioned. Upon some consideration, I found that the fact that there are distinct objects in the world, is one of such constructs. Indeed, it is pointless to ask why there are distinct objects in the world because any explanation to this phenomenon would consist of distinct words.

Similarly, I guessed that the fact that there is albeit partial order in the world also cannot be explained because any explanation would rely on the order of words and thereby would use this phenomenon in itself.

I discovered a few more constructs about which you cannot ask why they exist because any explanation would use these constructs implicitly. I am still looking for one more, after which I will be able to repeat the words of Descartes:" I solved all of the problems !"