I'm not sure what you mean by 'the workings of natural law'.
IMO There are no 'natural laws' except a limited number asserted by humans such as 'the second law of thermodynamics'. The word 'workings' presents its own problem because it tends to imply the concept of 'causality' which has questionable philosophical status — fresco

Natural Law is just a provincial way of calling the order of the universe. It does not imply that such things as the law of thermodynamics, or causality, actually exist... they do in a limited scope/portion of the universe, just in the same way that if you zoom in on a curve, the closer you get it begins to resemble a straight line, and you can use straight line geometry to approximate things within a very narrow scope, but if you "zoom out" this approach falls apart. These are just concepts formulated by mankind in its quest to understand the order of the universe.
So can we know the actual order? Do we have the capacity to formulate, to model it?

And that is abject bullshit. — Banno

Yes, somebody already pointed that out... bad choice of words on my part, not at all what I meant to say.

What it meant is that for whatever reason some people might choose to believe in #1 and some in #2, but in either case it would be nothing but belief. No truths spoken here.

That just does not follow — Banno

Is based on the assumption that something cannot be more complex than the system which produced it. As in the watch being more complex than the watchmaker. So the evolutionary process would be limited by nature's capability to produce a more complex brain.

Pure conjecture of course. I don't know whether nature has limited capability. If it has infinite capability then of course there are no limits.

The short answer to your question is 'no' for three reasons.
(1) 'Things' are thinged by humans relatively to a continuously evolving 'body of knowledge' which continues to raise further anthropocentric questions.
(2) As already pointed out, 'logic' (in the traditional sense) is merely one aspect of human reasoning. And as far as frontier science is concerned 'reasoning' is more highly dependent on mathematical models more abstract than set theory.
(3) Although abstract models may generate the 'prediction and control' aspects of what we call 'science' the question still remains as to whether that is sufficient to constitute 'explanation'. — fresco

The question is whether we have the capability to come up with such a model. To understand the workings of natural law.

In that case, the OP will have to scrap science, because it uses an entire bureaucracy of correspondence-checking formalisms that keeps scientific patterns in sync with experimental observations.
Pure deduction, i.e. "pure reason", only deals with abstract, Platonic worlds constructed from a basic set of (possibly arbitrary, speculative) beliefs. Pure reason is not about the real, physical world at all — alcontali

Well, yeah. Immanuel Kant already pointed out at length in his "Critique of Pure Reason" that science is not pure reason. On the contrary, science seeks to explicitly systematize experimental observations.
It is not possible to target the real, physical world and still hope to stick to pure reason. It cannot be done. — alcontali

I think the scientific establishment in its present form presents an obstacle to the premise in the sense that the results of any reasoning would need to be proven by experiment before being accepted, but that is just a side show to the ability of mind to comprehend the workings of the universe. In other words, if the "writing" of natural laws was presented to us, do we have the ability to comprehend them.

How does empiricism play a role in the above? IOW one might think you mean via deduction alone. I am guessing that is not what you mean, but then I think it might be helpful to include the empirical side in our choices, because presumably, we would need to be able to somehow do research on everything and experience it via observation of some kind. IOW there are factors I think need to be explained in scenario one that might affect people's choice of one or two. — Coben

Yes, empiricism would be limited to what we can physically experiment with and it would follow deduction as much as it can to "catch up".
#1 means we have the reasoning powers to define an all-encompassing physical model of the universe which eventual empirical results would prove true.

Both reason and logic are nothing more than theoretical a priori processes in the human rational system. They don’t explain anything in and of themselves, but only set the parameters for the methodology from which explanations become possible.

That being granted, it follows necessarily that the question as to whether reason and logic can explain everything, is insusceptible of a rational answer, because the major premise in both propositional constructions are themselves unjustifiable inductive inferences.

Nothing like using reason and logic incorrectly, in order to ask them to do something they’re not equipped to do anyway. — Mww

By "everything in the universe" I meant the set of actual physical laws that govern the universe, so poor wording on my part.

This doesn't make my statement invalid or off-topic. I'm asking clarification of what you mean by "understanding" and "figure it out". — Harry Hindu

For example, if we could come up with a model that can faithfully simulate all natural phenomena, then that would satisfy the premise.

Except "all things possible" beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind, but I don't know why they'd be relevant in whining about. — Swan

In characterizing an interest in understanding things unknown as "whining", one shows contempt about the concept of understanding things unknown.

If one doesn't feel interest in comprehending things unknown then one should leave threads about comprehending things unknown to those who are interested.

What does logic "explain" about logic exactly..?
What is A+B=C 'explaining' about itself? — Swan

As said before, logic by itself is nothing. In the context of existing as an element of human reasoning, merely a tool to aid in the understanding of things.

To believe that that it is possible to explain everything, one already presupposes that it's possible to know everything. — creativesoul

Of course not.
To understand the workings of A doesn't mean you know everything about A.
You can understand how a knife works without having to know everything the knife has ever been used for or will ever be used for.

Agreed.

Abstract, Platonic worlds are different from the real, physical world. Still, the real, physical world is to be considered more complex and more difficult to understand, if only, because unlike in the case of abstract, Platonic worlds, we have no copy of its construction logic.

We cannot fully understand even abstract, Platonic worlds, if their construction logic is sophisticated enough. If it contains a sufficiently large fragment of number theory, it will defeat our ability to fully understand it.

We cannot expect the real, physical world, in its full detail, to be easier to understand than a mere thought exercise. We will hit fundamental limitations in much, much simpler worlds already.


Yes, logic alone is not viable as a tool in an empirical context. Science will demand real-world experimental testing. Merely calculations are not accepted for explaining anything.

Furthermore, logic itself is an abstract, Platonic system based on the 14 basic, speculative, arbitrary beliefs of propositional logic. It is always the core axiomatic module (and language) of any system. However, these basic beliefs say more about us than about the real, physical world. They have helped us to survive on earth. However, they were never used to survive elsewhere in the universe; in which case these beliefs might have ended up shaped differently. Logic itself could easily be just a Platonic-cave shadow of an unknown, real, universal logic, which we don't know. We may not even have the capacity to deal with the remainder of the universe. — alcontali

Nicely worded analysis, thank you.

If "truth" is subjective then it seems logical to say 1. is the case. If there is no such thing as an "objective" truth, - only subjective ones, then your truth is understandable to you. If it's not understandable to you, then how can it be a "truth" for you? — Harry Hindu

I think this thread might be taking an unintended direction. I'm going to reword the premise of the OP:

If the blueprint of the universe was laid in front of humanity, would humanity be able to decipher and understand it.
#1: yes, we can figure it out.
#2: No, we are not evolved enough. maybe we never will be.

Well... I'll just let the scientists answer that one — Artemis

You might be taking my statement out of context. The theory works as a model, it's just that the model doesn't quite fit reality.

But let's assume for a moment that QM is true — Artemis

That is the thing, the Q theory by itself holds water, but it only provides partial answers to the workings of the universe, answers that preclude the causal behavior of the universe in a large scale.

Now on the other hand, if something like Chaos Theory were to hold true, then parts of the universe could not be fully understood with logic or reason, because they defy these. But again, I'm more inclined to agree with those scientists who suggest that we simply have not yet discovered the logical and rational explanation-holes Chaos Theory is trying to fill. — Artemis

I agree in the sense that "Chaos" only means that we are yet to understand the order behind the apparent disarray, I just have doubt that we have the intellectual capacity to achieve that.

A good example is the Riemann hypothesis. Nobody has been able to find a counterexample. At the same time, nobody has been able to prove that it necessarily follows from number theory — alcontali

The Riemann hypothesis is concerned about the construction of an abstract object, and as such it does not necessarily have a resolution.
When writing the OP I was referring to the understanding of the universe and its workings. Abstract tools are useful artifacts and attempts to help model/resolve the workings of the universe, but by themselves do not necessarily represent the workings of the universe, and so far have not been able to provide a faithful likeness.

Logic on its own is nothing. The premise is whether one believes logic and reason are sufficient tools to ultimately provide the means to model the universe as it actually is, and therefore going well beyond the mutually conflicting approximations we have so far been able to come up with.

Can you give an example that would not be cleared up by simply having more information available? Otherwise, it's a lack of info and not a limit of reason per se — Artemis

One fair example would be the wave/particle duality of matter. We can express it with abstract artifices such as quantum theory, but the brain is incapable of visualizing how a particle can be in one place and everywhere at the same time. Also multiple dimensions, our brains are wired to visualize 3 dimensions, but anything above that we have to reach for abstract tools to stumble around it, but we can't think about a 5-dimensional space. I might be able to come up with better ones but I need a little time.

There are limits to reason/logic, so not everything can be proven via a chain of reasoning. — Sam26

I tend to agree with that.
#2.

In sum: we can probably understand the entirety of the universe someday — Artemis

Based on that, would you assume that cognitive evolution has reached its apogee? If we have the capacity to understand the universe, why would natural selection push for further cognitive evolution?

And do you mean that understanding of the universe has to be collective or can it be singular? Let me rephrase: does a single human being have to be able to understand anything and everything about the universe, or can we have (purely hypothetically) Hawking understand 20%, Einstein a different 20% and so on until we have 100%? — Artemis

I think that would be a valid approach, as long as the "pieces" match. For instance you could not count General Relativity, Quantum mechanics, and Buddhism as percentages of the whole, since they all paint a different universe/reality.

And if that human reasoning and logic finds out that to some questions we simply cannot find out solutions even if they exist because of logic? That it would be illogical if we could find the solution.
This actually happens already as we are part of the universe and cannot observe things from outside the universe. — ssu

I assume on your first sentence you are stating that maybe some problems cannot be solved logically. That is fine, you feel that logic and human reason cannot explain everything, therefore you would go with #2.

Would you care to give us an example of such a mind? — Mark Dennis

Not sure if THE greatest, but certainly among them we might find the usual suspects: Einstein, Kant, Godel, Galileo, Newton...

Question: Whose mind are we referring to here? Your average Joes and Janes? Or the greatest minds of our entire species? — Artemis

I would have to go with the greatest minds of course, they represent the upper limit of human cognitive ability.

Consciousness in the strict sense, or consciousness properly speaking, and consciousness of the infinite cannot be separated from each other; a limited consciousness is no consciousness; consciousness is essentially infinite and all-encompassing. The consciousness of the infinite is nothing else than the consciousness of the infinity of consciousness. To put it in other words, in its consciousness of infinity, the conscious being is conscious of the infinity of its own being.
...
Every limitation of reason, or of human nature in general, rests on a delusion, an error. To be sure, the human individual can, even must, feel and know himself to be limited – and this is what distinguishes him from the animal – but he can become conscious of his limits, his finiteness, only because he can make the perfection and infinity of his species the object either of his feeling, conscience, or thought. — Feuerbach

Very nice...

Though we could specify these loaded concepts forever, they are often enough to tuck us in — jellyfish

The super sapiens example was only to illustrate that we don't have the capability, however, theoretically the evolution of intellect can go on indefinitely and still never reach a nirvana of cognition.

I don't think we can get the mathematics of Being that some philosophers have craved — jellyfish

I have noticed a tendency among colleagues (engineers and scientists) to firmly believe that human reason can conquer all, or put in another form, only that which can be grasped by human reason can exist. One in particular who I respect greatly has even stated it.

That was the main reason for my posting. Attempting to debunk the notion in a public forum before I bring it to the lunch table. Practice.

I like your post in general, but maybe it falls into its own trap. 'The truth is only in your mind' is in some sense not virtuously humble at all but just one more 'super theory' put forward as a truth that is not only in your mind or my mind — jellyfish

Yes, definitely worded that one wrong. Meant to say that which we hold as truth, is only a belief.

I am open to possibilities, but possibilities are endless, and without a shred of justification there is no reason to take any particular possibility seriously — SophistiCat

Understood. I as well work towards that which makes sense to me.

You can't have a language without semantics, and you can't have semantics without personal interpretation. There's no way to make personal interpretation universal — Terrapin Station

Correct. That is a limitation of the Homo Sapiens. The reason I lean towards #2.

Neil deGrasse Tyson has somewhat pointedly observed that human and chimp DNA differs only very slightly, and what if we meet beings whose DNA differs from ours...?

And there's the approach from the other side. Can even we craft a question ultimately unanswerable? That is, for any iterated series of "Whys," is there always an answer? — tim wood

Actually our DNA differs very slightly from that of a worm.

And yes, you can craft an absurdity, which would be unanswerable.

If I am to take seriously the attempt at distancing from the traditional divine creation narrative, then I just can't see any attraction in this overcomplicated account — SophistiCat

If your primary goal is to distance yourself from the possibility of a creative process as the origin of the universe, then absolutely, no need to bark at this tree. But if you were sincere about understanding what really is, you would remain open to possibilities.

People almost always talk about explanations without analyzing the idea of explanations. Explanations are not that cut and dried that we can just bypass that step — Terrapin Station

Agreed. Explanations would require a language/system that is coherent and watertight, which can be used universally to communicate a concept or idea without becoming distorted by personal interpretation. Mathematics is our best present attempt to do so in the field of physics, and although progress has been made, there are many aspects of existence that cannot be formulated by mathematics. So I go with #2.

I'm just postulating two possibilities. Not proofs or truths implied.

What would you say determines whether a model resolves a question then — Terrapin Station

If the results of applying the model exactly resemble the real thing.

Science is merely a Platonic-cave shadow of the real explanation for the universe, i.e. the theory of everything (ToE). — alcontali

It is not even sure that "more sophisticated models" are within reach. They could be, but they could also not be.

Based on that I assume you're leaning towards #2: We are not capable of formulating a ToE. Need to wait for a more evolved sapiens.

As far as I am concerned, the link between mathematics and physics is not as simple as Hawking depicts it — alcontali

Agreed, two different animals. Physicists use math like a carpenter would use a monkey wrench to drive a nail.

Logical reasoning doesn't care about personal satisfaction.

The criteria is that we can formulate a model that will resolve any question about the universe's workings.

My list of impossibles: Stillness, Beginning, End, Infinite, Nothing, Free Will, He, and maybe Forever. — PoeticUniverse

Ah, a man of faith

So have some respect for ignorance as well — elucid

You must work for the government

But why set up such a dichotomy: either chaos or human-like agency (aka "intelligent design")? Aren't you missing the simplest, most obvious alternative: structure? "Structure" not as a house or a bridge, but in a more general sense, as a closed system subject to fixed constraints - what is conventionally called "laws of nature." — SophistiCat

By Intelligence I don't imply human-like in any way or form, even though this natural order, or laws of nature, curiously parallel human reasoning to a degree that it allows the use of logic and mathematics to formulate its workings, to an approximate degree anyway. I can't help but wonder whether such properties as beginnings, endings, causality, etc. which apply to cosmological components may also apply to the whole.
And "a closed system subject to fixed constraints" like you refer to, does not preclude the possibility that the universe was formulated through a conscious, deliberate process.

I am not religious yet intuitively perceive the natural order as coherent. The concept that the structure of matter/energy and its affinity for organizing itself into an isomorphic, evolving system which eventually becomes aware of itself, as the result of a random or chaotic process... is absurd.

When I come across and organized system/structure, it is easier to accept the system was constructed under and intelligent process than to believe it to be the result of random and disorderly interactions. So naturally I extend that line of thought over any processes that appear organized in some way, such as the universe I live in and the environment that I evolved from.

It is not a belief that makes me go to church or join a cult, but I admit that believing in a "creator of the order" is not something I can get away from when trying to wrap my mind around the meaning of existence.

Prosperous empires lasting over half a millennium have not been a few. We're only getting started.
I lean towards believing chances are fair-to-good that living conditions favorable for human life on this planet will be decimated before the imperial status quo crumbles.