I would have to go with the greatest minds of course, they represent the upper limit of human cognitive ability. — staticphoton
Would you care to give us an example of such a mind? — Mark Dennis
The first thing we need to clarify when we're answering this is just what is an explanation? Just what are the criteria for an explanation? Just what do explanations do?
And likewise, given what you're actually saying in the post (as opposed to the title), just what is understanding? Just what are the criteria for understanding? — Terrapin Station
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
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
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. — staticphoton
I think that would be a valid approach, as long as the "pieces" match. — staticphoton
Knowledge by inference or proof comes to an end, i.e., not every premise can be shown by inference to be true. — Sam26
In sum: we can probably understand the entirety of the universe someday — Artemis
There are limits to reason/logic, so not everything can be proven via a chain of reasoning. — Sam26
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
I assume on your first sentence you are stating that maybe some problems cannot be solved logically. — staticphoton
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. — staticphoton
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
But let's assume for a moment that QM is true — Artemis
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
That is the thing, the Q theory by itself holds water, — staticphoton
I would like to know how we came to understand anything at all.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.
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
It seems to me that an explanation is a declaration of understanding. What is "understanding"?The first thing we need to clarify when we're answering this is just what is an explanation? Just what are the criteria for an explanation? Just what do explanations do? — Terrapin Station
It seems to me that an explanation is a declaration of understanding. What is "understanding"? — Harry Hindu
If "truth" is subjective — Harry Hindu
Well... I'll just let the scientists answer that one — Artemis
The theory works as a model, it's just that the model doesn't quite fit reality. — staticphoton
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
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. — staticphoton
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. — staticphoton
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
1. There is nothing in the universe that can't be understood by human reasoning and logic. — staticphoton
Through logical thought and reasoning, there is nothing in the universe beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind. — staticphoton
I will leave you with those thoughts as something to consider when thinking through existential items such as god, life, meaning. If you choose to believe in scenario #1, then human reason will guide you in finding definitive solutions. If you choose #2, humility would be a good place to start. — staticphoton
To believe that that it is possible to explain everything, one already presupposes that it's possible to know everything. — creativesoul
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.