We may have to consider the possibility that a tool using primate just doesn't have the right kind of brain to actually understand the deeper secrets of the universe and reality.
A great deal of reality may simply beyond the grasp of any human to comprehend, it is already this way for most people, it's not particularly hard to imagine that our species simply doesn't have the right stuff.
Maybe there's a hyperintelligent jellyfish-squid or something that can understand physics in ways we cannot fathom because their minds and consciousness didn't arise with the same conditions and environmental limitations that our brains did.
A good example is that a great deal of time is spent training people in urban combat to look up. Humans simply do not look up naturally, we have no airborne predators, most of us spend our time scanning the ground near us and the horizon but not actually looking up. An intelligence that evolved with three full axis of motion in an alien ocean, and had radial symmetry of limbs and eyes rather than bilateral symmetry might unironically have a broader perception of reality to build their science and physics upon.
It's all conjecture, but I wouldn't bet on us being anywhere near close to the 'smartest' species on an individual level. I just don't see a universe where most humans are going to be able to comprehend or do Nonlinear partial differential equations regardless of their education and upbringing.
Doesn't Gödel's Incompleteness theorem cover this? I'm only a science fan, not a scientist, so I'm not really sure.I think I saw a Steven Mould video on the subject, and that seems to fit here, but it's been a while.
If you include all true facts about arithmetic within the scope of what OP is referring to, then yes, it is provable that there exist truths we will never prove or understand.
I believe, however, they are talking about empirical facts, to which Gödel's theorems don't really apply.
Alright, I think I understand. So arithmetic is not an observable phenomenon, rather a theoretic device we use to help make sense of our surroundings. And OP's question is about categorizing our surroundings, I guess.
Well, maybe I don't. If we are using maths to understand our surrounding, why wouldn't Gödel's theorem count? Can it only be applied to niche cases in the space of arithmetic? If we are using math as a tool for understanding, and we see that the tool has 'holes' and blindspots, wouldn't that bring us back to missing some crucial observation because our tools are lacking?
I suppose, but the problem is, take for example the halting of a Turing machine which doesn't halt but cannot be proven not to halt. Such a thing exists, and you can instantiate the machine in reality and run it, but the answer to whether it will halt in reality is kinda "yes" because eventually the machine will break down or it'll run out of entropy to increase. Any real instantiation of the Turing machine will only run for a finite number of steps, so you could argue its halting behavior is not really a fact about the universe.
But you can never know that you have discovered everything there is to discover. You can never rule out the possibility that tomorrow you'll make an observation that your understanding of the universe does not account for.
No. Human cognition, linguistics, and mathematics isn't capable of describing everything. I think it's silly to even think that we might. We can't break through the filters/limitations of our own brain and senses.
Mathematically, the space of possible of facts is >> than the space of answers. This isn’t because there has to be some fundamental primitive to science questions. It’s because the space in which one can pose questions is only countably infinite and the space in which explanations can be given is finite while the space of facts is uncountably infinite.
How would that help? Wouldn't uncomputable reality have the exact same consequences? Either way, there would be facts that you cannot comprehend, right?
Being pedantic, OP didn't ask if we could discover and understand everything, but rather if we could discover everything there is to discover, and understand everything there is to understand. The answers to unanswerable questions are by definition not discoverable, so are outside the scope of the question.
Understanding does not function via measurement. Science as a process works the same way that evolution does: through variation and selection. In philosophy of science, it’s called conjecture and refutation. Empiricism functions only as a mode of refutation.
We never had to measure the heat or spectra from long dead stars to know that they were powered by nuclear fusion. Theory extends far past measurement.
Makes sense. I intended to quantify the idea of “knowing” as measurement. The main point I am trying to make is that “we can only ask those questions we are able to conjure, which is based on knowledge”. For instance, Isaac Newton wouldn’t have been able to ask “does space-time have a singularity?”. As the knowledge increases, and so does the questions. But, will these questions eventually cover all that we can ask about universe?
The space of facts is uncountably infinite. While the space of cognizable questions is at most only countably infinite. We can’t ever even express the overwhelming majority of everything there is to understand about this universe.
Consider the uncountably large real number set. There are more questions about numbers in that set than can be diagonalized to a matrix of possible sets of question formed from a combination of letters and punctuation. No Turing machine can process a larger set than the human brain.
A_Thorny_Petal | 12 hours ago
We may have to consider the possibility that a tool using primate just doesn't have the right kind of brain to actually understand the deeper secrets of the universe and reality.
A great deal of reality may simply beyond the grasp of any human to comprehend, it is already this way for most people, it's not particularly hard to imagine that our species simply doesn't have the right stuff.
Maybe there's a hyperintelligent jellyfish-squid or something that can understand physics in ways we cannot fathom because their minds and consciousness didn't arise with the same conditions and environmental limitations that our brains did.
A good example is that a great deal of time is spent training people in urban combat to look up. Humans simply do not look up naturally, we have no airborne predators, most of us spend our time scanning the ground near us and the horizon but not actually looking up. An intelligence that evolved with three full axis of motion in an alien ocean, and had radial symmetry of limbs and eyes rather than bilateral symmetry might unironically have a broader perception of reality to build their science and physics upon.
It's all conjecture, but I wouldn't bet on us being anywhere near close to the 'smartest' species on an individual level. I just don't see a universe where most humans are going to be able to comprehend or do Nonlinear partial differential equations regardless of their education and upbringing.
dzsimbo | 14 hours ago
Doesn't Gödel's Incompleteness theorem cover this? I'm only a science fan, not a scientist, so I'm not really sure.I think I saw a Steven Mould video on the subject, and that seems to fit here, but it's been a while.
HappiestIguana | 3 hours ago
If you include all true facts about arithmetic within the scope of what OP is referring to, then yes, it is provable that there exist truths we will never prove or understand.
I believe, however, they are talking about empirical facts, to which Gödel's theorems don't really apply.
dzsimbo | 2 hours ago
Alright, I think I understand. So arithmetic is not an observable phenomenon, rather a theoretic device we use to help make sense of our surroundings. And OP's question is about categorizing our surroundings, I guess.
Well, maybe I don't. If we are using maths to understand our surrounding, why wouldn't Gödel's theorem count? Can it only be applied to niche cases in the space of arithmetic? If we are using math as a tool for understanding, and we see that the tool has 'holes' and blindspots, wouldn't that bring us back to missing some crucial observation because our tools are lacking?
HappiestIguana | 2 hours ago
I suppose, but the problem is, take for example the halting of a Turing machine which doesn't halt but cannot be proven not to halt. Such a thing exists, and you can instantiate the machine in reality and run it, but the answer to whether it will halt in reality is kinda "yes" because eventually the machine will break down or it'll run out of entropy to increase. Any real instantiation of the Turing machine will only run for a finite number of steps, so you could argue its halting behavior is not really a fact about the universe.
stickmanDave | 6 hours ago
I would say that yes, you could.
But you can never know that you have discovered everything there is to discover. You can never rule out the possibility that tomorrow you'll make an observation that your understanding of the universe does not account for.
lifesaburrito | 5 hours ago
No. Human cognition, linguistics, and mathematics isn't capable of describing everything. I think it's silly to even think that we might. We can't break through the filters/limitations of our own brain and senses.
Appdownyourthroat | an hour ago
No.
SgtSausage | 18 minutes ago
No
Kurt already proved this.
Mono_Clear | 21 hours ago
You can answer almost every question that but some things exist at the fundamental floor and have to be accepted as they are.
There are some questions where the only answer is "because that's how it works."
If you're not prepared to accept that is an answer then there are questions that simply cannot be answered.
It's also entirely possible to ask a question that doesn't have any reasonable or logical answer to it
Skeptium | 18 hours ago
"Because that's how it works" aka we don't know why it is that way.
fox-mcleod | 18 hours ago
Mathematically, the space of possible of facts is >> than the space of answers. This isn’t because there has to be some fundamental primitive to science questions. It’s because the space in which one can pose questions is only countably infinite and the space in which explanations can be given is finite while the space of facts is uncountably infinite.
lifesaburrito | 5 hours ago
But are you not assuming that the entirety of creation is rational and computable. This isn't necessarily the case
fox-mcleod | 41 minutes ago
How would that help? Wouldn't uncomputable reality have the exact same consequences? Either way, there would be facts that you cannot comprehend, right?
stickmanDave | 6 hours ago
Being pedantic, OP didn't ask if we could discover and understand everything, but rather if we could discover everything there is to discover, and understand everything there is to understand. The answers to unanswerable questions are by definition not discoverable, so are outside the scope of the question.
BagsYourMail | 21 hours ago
Parsimony means information loss, so no. You'll get better theory, sure, but it's never going to be omniscience
fox-mcleod | 18 hours ago
Understanding does not function via measurement. Science as a process works the same way that evolution does: through variation and selection. In philosophy of science, it’s called conjecture and refutation. Empiricism functions only as a mode of refutation.
We never had to measure the heat or spectra from long dead stars to know that they were powered by nuclear fusion. Theory extends far past measurement.
[OP] Savings-Brush5595 | 18 hours ago
Makes sense. I intended to quantify the idea of “knowing” as measurement. The main point I am trying to make is that “we can only ask those questions we are able to conjure, which is based on knowledge”. For instance, Isaac Newton wouldn’t have been able to ask “does space-time have a singularity?”. As the knowledge increases, and so does the questions. But, will these questions eventually cover all that we can ask about universe?
fox-mcleod | 17 hours ago
The space of facts is uncountably infinite. While the space of cognizable questions is at most only countably infinite. We can’t ever even express the overwhelming majority of everything there is to understand about this universe.
Consider the uncountably large real number set. There are more questions about numbers in that set than can be diagonalized to a matrix of possible sets of question formed from a combination of letters and punctuation. No Turing machine can process a larger set than the human brain.