How much can we scientifically know?

[Solve]

Is there a limit to what we can scientifically know or will we eventually know everything?

To be specific, will we eventually know everything about the universe or do theorems like heisenbergs put limits on knowledge?

 

Solve :)

[Tormod]

It's a very good question but it's not new (well, is any question new?). :)

 

Knowledge is by definition biased. Scientific knowledge is still biased, and what we know will always be limited by our experiences, ability to understand connections, and see the larger picture. We have not seen much of the universe, and there is so much about it that we don't understand. Our understanding of the universe is extremely limited by our location and inability to move around in it.

 

Whether it is even *possible* to know everything is one question. I don't think so, because "everything" is too large. Does it involve memories, for example? Will future scientists be able to know what we thought? That information will be lost to them. Can we know everything about places we haven't visited? How do we even start to identify the things that we don't know?

[Doctordick]

Hi Tormod, nice to see you posting here.

 

One thing I would like to point out, there is a big difference between knowing things and understanding things. People tend to dump the concepts together as if they are the same thing. Knowing everything is clearly beyond human capability but understanding everything could possibly be achievable. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

One cannot understand anything "a" that is not known, and, if as stated, knowing a thing such as "a" is clearly beyond human capability, yet "a" exists, then logically it is false assumption to claim that understanding everything could possibly be achievable, for the simple reason that "a" exists yet is not known.

 

As to the OP question, perhaps someday humans will know "everything" via science, but, because Science is defined as Uncertain Knowledge, even knowing everything scientifically does not mean that the knowledge is without limits. Just consider the HUP--does anyone claim a way to have precise knowledge of both position and momentum of a quantum entity at a moment in time ? If you want certain knowledge of anything, then you must use a means other than science--by definition such knowledge is impossible via use of scientific thinking.

 

The important distinction for rational discussion of science is between "certain knowledge" and "uncertain knowledge", only the second is possible via science. Understanding is after the fact of knowledge, first must exist a thing "x" that can be known, then enters the question of how much of the knowledge is understood.

[Boerseun]

Is there a limit to what we can scientifically know or will we eventually know everything?

To be specific, will we eventually know everything about the universe or do theorems like heisenbergs put limits on knowledge?

 

Solve :shrug:

The problem is how would we know when we know everything, without knowing everything beforehand in order to be able to say: "Right - this, here, is everything"...?

[arkain101]

Yes, I think there is a limit to what we can know and understand. Because there is a limit, we can then only understand what is in this said boundary. As such, we can come to understand everything, because every thing is contained in this boundary.

 

Things beyond this boundary/limit are what we tend to think of as irrational abstract concepts. Such as, things that are NOTHING, (yet still have a noticeable presence such as empty space) lacking property that can be attributed to what we think and call THINGS/SOMTHINGS,

[freeztar]

Oh jeez, You guys have never experienced Ecology. ;)

Knowledge is at our feet. Those little ants running around are more than a picnic spoiler, they're a society!

 

Will we eventually know everything? No.

It's not in our cards. We are supposed to explore and question.

 

Hence this thread. :shrug:

[lawcat]

I agree with doctordick that understanding is the key; not knowledge. For example, we can not know certain things in the past, yet we can understand them from the circumstantial facts.

Understanding is the key, and I believe that we can eventually understand everything.

[Boerseun]

...I believe that we can eventually understand everything.

How would you know when you've reached that point?

[lawcat]

How would you know when you've reached that point?

 

Oh, I do not claim that one man can understand everything. A civilization with all the tools can reach that point. How would you know? You would get a newsflash informing you of that.

I have no clue about many long existing technologies, yet our civilization utilizes them, and I receive a newsflash.

[arkain101]

How would you know when you've reached that point?

 

We must be specific on the context. We can't just say, "we understand everything" and expect that we are all on the same page in the discussion.

 

 

If we are looking to see how 'everything works', in physics. Then I think we can use the expression we can eventually understand how everything works.

 

Why do I think this is possible? Because physics theory attempts to encapsulate how things work, it strives to find the limits and laws. Therefore the evolution of physics theory seems to be edging closer and closer to the limit of understanding, which is another way of saying the final theory.

 

If there is a limit to understanding, then we can KNOW when we've reached that point.

[Doctordick]

Please explain to me the difference between, "How much can we scientifically know?" and "what can we know?"

 

You guys need to watch the movie "Idiocracy". I think they have you in mind. :lol:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Boerseun]

I think that the totality of understanding and/or possible knowledge is a point on a curve that we can only approach asymptotically. We should and can move closer, but we will never quite reach it.

[jedaisoul]

Is there a limit to what we can scientifically know or will we eventually know everything?

To be specific, will we eventually know everything about the universe or do theorems like heisenbergs put limits on knowledge?

 

Solve :doh:

Science is based on an assumption that the universe exists outside our perception of it. This is known as scientific materialism. The trouble is that all we can ever know of reality is our perceptions of it. We can never ACTUALLY know reality.

 

Also, science explicitly excludes everything that is not physical. Therefore we cannot scientifically know everything, because there are things that exist but are not physical. E.g. Abstract concepts like the numbers 1 ,2 and 3; and abstract relationships like 1 + 1 = 2. The essence of science is that it can only describe what is knowable, and disproveable. If it is not knowable, it cannot be described scientifically, and if it is not disproveable, it is not science. Those are two major limitations.

 

Of course, the nature of science could change to include that which is not knowable, or not disproveable, but then it would not be "science" as we know it today. So, no, we will never scientifically know everything, because we do not, and cannot, know if scientific materialism is true, and science (in the meaning the word has today) does not emcompass everything in the first place.

[Michaelangelica]

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.

We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

and

"I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know."

and

"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."

Donald Rumsfeld A famous Yank philosopher.

Donald Rumsfeld Quotes - Funny Rumsfeld Quotations - Rumsfeldisms

[Doctordick]

"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."

Donald Rumsfeld A famous Yank philosopher.

Donald Rumsfeld Quotes - Funny Rumsfeld Quotations - Rumsfeldisms

Now that reminds me of my granddaughter's birthday. :lol:

 

I have recently returned from Colorado where we were attending our granddaughter's third birthday. (I know that comment has no place here but being a grandfather is an experience not to be wasted). We were there for almost a month and they have quite a nice media room where I tended to spend a lot of time. I happened to stumble upon a movie called “Idiocracy”. It was one of the stupidest films I have ever seen; however, it did have one redeeming feature: it was an excellent parody of what is really rather normal human behavior. Oh sure, it is a rather extreme exaggeration but it nonetheless captures the essence of the illogic that pervades most all human conversations. And it most certainly correlates with a lot of conversations I see on this forum. Particularly in the "Philosophy of Science" area as very few of the posters here seem capable of comprehending the nature of logical analysis.

 

The following is a quote from one of the reviews:

I cannot for the life of me understand why a movie this funny would just be dumped into a few theaters with no advanced screenings, no trailers, no marketing whatsoever. Perhaps the Fox Executives saw themselves in the characters, were confused, and thought it was a documentary?

It's available on http://“http://www.netflix.com” and I would recommend it. I think you all ought to watch it; it could be an educational experience most of you seem to need.

 

Michaelangelica, I think you are one of the few who comprehends what I am talking about. I just wanted to say that so you wouldn't take this as a personal criticism. :eek:

 

Have fun -- Dick