It seems to me, though, that in order to build technology that might “transform [reality] into 100% of information through cognition, we’d have to already know 100% of reality. How could we know the process was complete if we didn’t already know where it ended? — NOS4A2

The best way to know how close we are to 100% is the scale of action. Civilization would at least be of a transgalactic scale, with the technologies of synthetic life and consciousness.

Science will find a solution to man's habit of destroying the planet (so we don't need to adjust our behavior) — Tzeentch

So the planet won't be destroyed, after all, despite your foreboding prophecy?

"Finding a solution to man's habit of destroying the planet" actually is ambiguous; it does not differentiate between "helps us destroy the planet" and "helps us not to destroy the planet". A person who employs the Principle of Charity may think you wish we won't destroy the planet; but an equally strong lingual/ language force may interpret it that you want to stay consistent to your original point, and that was that science will destroy us and our habitat.

I can't make any go of this, @Tzeentch.

Science could destroy humanity in many ways: moral decadence, power combined with stupidity and Ego, a technological disaster, profiteering, war, technofascism, pretence to control the uncontrolable.

The most important in these are in economy - profiteering, in science - a cataclysmic disaster, in politics - war, technofascism, in society - moral decadence.

The positive side of technological progress would be consumption, abundance, a more comfortable life, however, liberation is only at the cost of enslavement.

Artificial intelligence and robotics would free people, but the economy would be destroyed and the society, given low moral standards, would collapse. What would happen to all 'the useless people', an eyesore to overt and undercover technoaryans?

My foreboding is that decline is inevitable, especially with the progress of neuroscience, genetics, AI, robotics, war and mass destruction technologies.

It seems you are willfully missing my point.

No, I just don't understand what you say: the technology / science will save us from destruction, or the technology/science will save our destruction?