The criteria is that we can formulate a model that will resolve any question about the universe's workings. — staticphoton
There is nothing in the universe that can't be understood by human reasoning and logic. — staticphoton
We will continually formulate more sophisticated models to explain the universe, however if somehow the true universal laws were presented to us, it would be beyond our capability to decypher them. — staticphoton
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.
As far as I am concerned, the link between mathematics and physics is not as simple as Hawking depicts it — alcontali
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. — staticphoton
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
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...?the sapiens being of a far future will look at our mental capacity just like we compare ours to that of a Rhesus monkey. — staticphoton
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
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. — staticphoton
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
Whatever road you choose to walk, realize the truth is only in your mind. — staticphoton
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. — staticphoton
This connection is not "obvious" to me. — alcontali
On the other hand, scenario #2 leaves room for futher evolution of cognitive powers, the sapiens being of a far future will look at our mental capacity just like we compare ours to that of a Rhesus monkey. This future being would be better equipped to grasp the workings of the universe, and yet again, it might still not be enough. — staticphoton
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
I don't think we can get the mathematics of Being that some philosophers have craved — jellyfish
Though we could specify these loaded concepts forever, they are often enough to tuck us in — 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. — staticphoton
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. — staticphoton
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
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.1. There is nothing in the universe that can't be understood by human reasoning and logic. Even those problems for which we have not found solutions, we would be able to grasp and understand these solutions if they were somehow presented to us. Through logical thought and reasoning, there is nothing in the universe beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind. — staticphoton
Why would we assume that? There are many basic questions still open. Like the question in mathematics about what actually is infinity? Taking infinity as an axiom isn't an answer.You might deduce that if scenario #1 holds true, that the reasoning capability of the human mind has reached its evolutionary apogee — staticphoton
2. There are aspects of the universe and its workings that are simply beyond the capability of human reasoning. We will continually formulate more sophisticated models to explain the universe, however if somehow the true universal laws were presented to us, it would be beyond our capability to decypher them. The fundamental workings of the universe will forever remain a mystery that the human mind is not capable of grasping. — staticphoton
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
Question: Whose mind are we referring to here? Your average Joes and Janes? Or the greatest minds of our entire species? — Artemis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.