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

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%?

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...

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

I could not define an explanation, but I sure recognize one when I see one. Same with understanding.

There is no need, in my opinion, to define these terms. Every definition eventually boils down to either a finite regress that does not make any sene, or else to familiar terms.

I think "Explanation" and "Understanding" are familiar enough for the normal or better human being so these two words need no definition.

I think it was Wittgenstein who first coined this reasoning, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, which actually ended the movement of modernism. It is we, humans, who communicate with other humans, not with some total alien life form, which can't get inside our heads, unless we write a complete guide to language and meaning.

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.

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.

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

Well, then at least two of them are wrong. Or they all are wrong in some ways. Or they're all mostly wrong and something else is true. And "understanding" them would then not really count as understanding the universe.

I think that would be a valid approach, as long as the "pieces" match. — staticphoton

In that case, I think it's entirely possible for the human species to piece together a complete understanding of the universe in the long run.

Kant says pure reason ends at questions like "the beginning of time" and "infinite divisibility." It's possible he's right and we're just not evolved in a way to understand those concepts because we evolved under certain conditions that did not require such an understanding. But on the other hand, I assume we can't know if that is the case until we have enough evidence or knowledge of the universe to get much closer to the answers than we are at the moment.

In sum: we can probably understand the entirety of the universe someday, provided we don't go extinct first.

There are limits to reason/logic, so not everything can be proven via a chain of reasoning. Knowledge by inference or proof comes to an end, i.e., not every premise can be shown by inference to be true. Inference and proof is parasitic; it requires knowledge by some other means so that it can extend what is known, for example, knowledge by experience or linguistic training.

Knowledge by inference or proof comes to an end, i.e., not every premise can be shown by inference to be true. — 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.

Unless you want to say that reason is limited by access to information?

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?

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.

No matter how much information you get there will always be something unprovable within your system.

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.

No matter how much information you get there will always be something unprovable within your system. — Sam26

Are you basing this claim on your personal general intuition or some actual question that can be shown to be unanswerable?

I assume on your first sentence you are stating that maybe some problems cannot be solved logically. — staticphoton

Even logical problems cannot be solved logically. They are pretty much always solved using other, unknown mental faculties.

It is not because you know a particular conclusion/theorem, and that you also know the construction logic of the abstract world in which it applies, that you will therefore be able to demonstrate that the theorem logically follows from the construction logic.

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.

If this problem were objectively solvable, i.e. if it were a logical problem to discover this proof, then we could just give the problem to a machine, and then the machine would figure it out. This is not possible. In other words, the discovery of the evidence that turns a claim into knowledge, is not a rational problem.

Logic would be totally worthless and unusable without these other, unknown, mental faculties that allow us to discover a meaningful use for logic.

The schools and the universities are not training people who will be able to solve problems, because there does not exist an objective procedure for doing that. Of course, that is just one reason why higher education is increasingly becoming worthless.

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

Well, if quantum mechanics works that specific way, then I suppose we have to radically alter logic as we know it. But within the scientific community it's not at all clear that the double slit test really means a particle can be in two places at the same time. I don't have the theoretical knowledge myself to explain their explanations, but the upshot is that QM is far from settled science.

But let's assume for a moment that QM is true. Let's assume that we do have to rethink some of our logical presuppositions. While it may be hard to accept the anti-intuitive notions of QM, I think we so far can still say it's understandable. When I saw particle X was in spots A and B at the same time, I think we all know cognitively what that means, no?

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.

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.

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.

I guess it becomes as epistemological question then in the sense of, how do we know once we've encountered something that is "unknowable" versus "not yet knowable"?

That is the thing, the Q theory by itself holds water, — staticphoton

Well... I'll just let the scientists answer that one: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/why-quantum-mechanics-might-need-overhaul

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

I would like to know how we came to understand anything at all.

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"?




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?

It seems to me that an explanation is a declaration of understanding. What is "understanding"? — Harry Hindu

Yeah, on my view, understanding, and whether something counts as an explanation, are subjective--it depends on whether someone's curiosity, questions/issues, etc. have been satiated, and of course that depends on how they assign meaning, their experiences, their biases, and all sorts of things.

If "truth" is subjective — Harry Hindu

Is it objectively or subjectively true that truth is subjective?

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.

The theory works as a model, it's just that the model doesn't quite fit reality. — staticphoton

Okay, that makes sense.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

1. There is nothing in the universe that can't be understood by human reasoning and logic. — staticphoton

Except "nothing" at all.

Through logical thought and reasoning, there is nothing in the universe beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind. — staticphoton

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.

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

What does logic "explain" about logic exactly..?

What is A+B=C 'explaining' about itself?

Reason is better than logic for explanation. Neither is capable of explaining the unknown aside from being unknown - by definition. It's commonly thought of as an empty concept. However, it's not at all empty. To quite the contrary, it includes everything unknown.

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

See the problem here?

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.