Graihagh Jackson

This conversation is closed.

Will science ever tell us everything there is to know?

Every day on the news, you read of break throughs, discoveries and new findings in science. But I wonder whether one day mankind will ever be able to know everything there is to know - why the universe (or indeed multiverse) exists; why laws themselves exist; and so forth.

As science moves onwards and upwards, are there any barriers that could stop us in having a theory of everything?

Closing Statement from Graihagh Jackson

I think some of the really central points made here is that to be able to know everything, means we have to be able to measure everything. Will we ever be able to measure everything? It seems unlikely. Besides, how would we ever know we knew everything? Absolute truth is unattainable and at any rate, the nature of human curiousity will inevitably mean we will continue to search for 'truths.' It seems that the majority post and comments on this debate was no - science won't tell us everything we need to know.

  • thumb
    Jan 20 2014: I will add to the debate, not sure if my addition will be of any use, but here we go...
    To know, implies to measure. To measure, we need an instrument and an observer. The observer has a direct impact on that which is observed. Moreover, the measuring is always behind, lagging, in relations to the changing nature of things. By the time we measure something, it has already changed. There may be some laws that are immutable, but change will always result in a different measurement. Even the speed of light may not be constant http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/studies-discover-speed-of-light-may-not-be-constant/story-fn5fsgyc-1226608322044
    So, why do we need to know everything in the first place? Or can we marvel at the whole experience of living, know what is basic and functional, and allow the rest to remain veiled in the mystery of it all?
    • Jan 20 2014: So, why do we need to know everything in the first place?
      That's the real question :)
      To think that we put this idea in our mind by themselves , means that we are two with nature , but we are not, though we have this persistent illusion.
      So, from where could we possibly get this idea ?
      As for the rest, i am on board :)

      Thank you !
      • thumb
        Jan 20 2014: Being 'two' with nature - I think it comes from seeing the outside world as "objective" and the inner world as "subjective" - is that an illusion?

        We all have a thirst for knowledge and although we don't 'need' to know everything, curiosity is one of those lingering desires.

        As Friedrich Nietzsche might have argued, maybe a 'theory of everything' is a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power
        • Jan 21 2014: is that an illusion?

          Yes/No
          :)

          "We all have a thirst for knowledge and although we don't need to know everything..."

          May i suggest you to replace ' don't need' with 'can't in order to have more realistic picture ? :) We are thirsty because it's not knowledge we need but knowing.
          ' will to power' is a function of ignorance, and i don't mean 'lack of knowledge' but the absence of knowing.

          Thanks for responding !
      • thumb
        Jan 22 2014: Absolutely, I agree we can't know everything - it's that 'knowing', that essence of 'certainty' that science gives. What I mean to say is that our curiosity about the unknown and our will to illuminate it is not something wholly rational. It's embedded within us and it precedes the scientific method.

        To quote Hans-Georg Gadamer: "My real concern is philosophic: not what we do or what we ought to do, but what happens to us over and above our wanting and doing" - parallels the free will vs. determinism debate.

        I don't think science will tell us everything there is to know because not everything can be observed, analysed and reduced to it's underlying laws as tangible objects/phenomena can.

        There are domains of human experience (interpretation, intuition, emotion etc.) that are highly subjective and value-based - that's why psychology and sociology are such "impure" sciences.

        Another relevant quote: "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." - Max Planck
        • Jan 22 2014: Hi Lachlan

          I have never read anything that allies so much with my own thoughts, and which serves to provide some degree of reassurance, in the face of this iniquitous world.

          Extremely well put/written

          Cheers Carl
        • Jan 23 2014: "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." -
          To put it simply, what Max Planck meant is that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination.
          And here :
          "My real concern is philosophic: not what we do or what we ought to do, but what happens to us over and above our wanting and doing" -
          And here :
          Natural science, does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves.
          Werner Heisenberg

          Probably it's time to start to question the doctrine of objectivity.
          Good luck ! :)
          And thank you for sharing !
    • thumb
      Jan 21 2014: You speak very clearly and right to the point. Very Rare Treat.
    • Jan 21 2014: Hi Johnney Atman

      The Speed of light is not constant

      The A to B straight linear speed of light as measured within Earth's gravitational field, is the energy of the photons speed, subject to the force/weight (energy) of gravity; and the traction of the density of the medium it is traveling through.

      Which is why light travels faster through a vacuum than air, and faster through air than water, and faster through water than glass. And therefore it follows, that light will travel faster through interstellar space than as measured here on Earth.

      What is more, the speed of light is not 300 000 km's per second, as measured in a straight linear direction between two A-B fixed points.

      The speed of light is the speed that a photon travels, over the curvatures/"distance length" of its wavelength (IMO spiraling length) curvatures, as measured between two A-B fixed points; in interstellar space free of any nearby gravitational fields/traction.

      Cheers Carl
  • Jan 19 2014: I'd like to examine your question to reflect my sense of how science is misperceived by the vast majority of the public and why that is significant.

    Why many of us find science so appealing is that it doesn't TELL us anything.

    We were TOLD how thing are as we were raised into our teens by grownups. What we learned as we grew up is a matter of being directed on how to behave and think as a matter of practicality and tradition. Let's face it, raising kids takes considreable time, effort and authority. This transfered indoctrinating behavior can be stifling and self perpetuating on the basis that it works so well.

    In order to LEARN from scientific evidence, it is necessary to be personally receptive by being open to what this evidence can REVEAL about physical reality. The independent nature of curiosity is why so many of us are and were attracted to science and find it nourishing despite the obvious conflicts that can arise from how we were brought up.

    The modern era influence of science and the application of that new knowledge is beyond mind-boggling - it has changed almost every aspect of our lives and with the benifits come the costs. Despite that fact there are significant mysteries associated the the physical world's makeup and much of this knowledge continues to be allusive, it will be pursued by the idealists as well as those seeking fame, and fortune.

    My personal concern has less to do with learning more about these mysteries than our actual and potential growing application of existing and blooming scientific knowledge.

    Our natural history confines and defines what we are as organic beings as illuminated by the science of biology, conversely our more free floating cultural evolution has allowed us to expand our existence and to some extent escape this reality, at least in our perception of how we "see" the "real" world via our incredible human ability to be so creative, but ultimately we are subject to our own deceit and enterprise.
    • thumb
      Jan 20 2014: "Our natural history confines and defines what we are as organic beings as illuminated by the science of biology, conversely our more free floating cultural evolution has allowed us to expand our existence and to some extent escape this reality, at least in our perception of how we 'see' the 'real' world via our incredible human ability to be so creative, but ultimately we are subject to our own deceit and enterprise."

      Thank you for experessing your original view, Dan.
      • Jan 20 2014: Thanks for the honor of the quote of my view.
        • thumb
          Jan 20 2014: True pleasure. The most wonderful treat for me is to find independent thoughts, like yours.
          I will read your post again. Please write more…
    • Jan 20 2014: It's what QM says and defines as a measurement problem;
      The observed,
      The tools that are used in observation
      The observer itself
      are ONE.
      The main argument for the scientific doctrine of objectivity is the sophisticated useful toys it has created and the capacity to make predictions that do work.
      But if we think about the reality we currently inhabit as being created with our active mind participation, not a big surprise that we have beams on our vehicles.:)
      Thanks for sharing your thoughts !
      • thumb
        Jan 20 2014: Werner Heisenberg was the most outstanding philosopher of our postmodern time. However, he is still scarcely recognized as a philosopher. In my science college neither students nor teachers paid any attention to his grand lesson: no observer is able to see anything objectively - every observer unavoidably effects/changes whatever he observes.

        This timeless Heisenberg's wisdom, if somehow comprehended, will wonderfully benefit our recycling mentality in sciences, ethics, and social structures. Thank you for your very thoughtful comment, Natasha.
         
        • Jan 21 2014: “The reality we can put into words is never reality itself.”

          If Heisenberg was/is not a philosopher, i don't know what philosophy is :)

          Thank you for responding, Vera !
        • thumb
          Jan 23 2014: Good point,

          It still perturbs me how many people believe that their is this massive gulf between philosophy and science. It's almost impossible to have one without the other.
      • thumb
        Jan 22 2014: Natasha, you wrote "If Heisenberg was/is not a philosopher, i don't know what philosophy is "

        I wished I could have said this myself!

        Hope to talk to you soon.

        (Regarding our human-made language - you might know this rare book by Bruce Gregory, astrophysicist, "Inventing Reality", Physics as Language. So refreshing to read what this scientist himself thinks…)
  • thumb
    Jan 18 2014: Sciences can only prove its own observations by artificially conditioned, repetitive setups in labs. Sciences are not able to prove any sort of reality as it is for great many reasons. I'm not saying that some other fields of knowledge and religion might prove anything Beyond our own human impressions of our experience.

    Our perceptions are not at all "designed" to reflect or prove objective reality - this is a new field of knowledge we have been missing.

    Our consciousness has no slightest progress for millennia, but it becomes more obese gulping information we cannot digest. No matter how well we may augment our sight, Scientific information is forever relying on this old extremely limited and ephemeral sense-perception of sight.

    We shall revise and reevaluate our mindless trust in "scientific information" and figure out where it comes from.

    When Saadiq suggests a common explanation "The answer to this question lies in the analysis of the Scientific Method." we shall be aware of this "simple" commonness. It is very important to analyze what this "Scientific Method" really means. So far the best answer describing this "Method" is this

    "All right," said Deep Thought. "The Answer to the Great Question..."
"Yes..!"
"Of Life, the Universe and Everything..." said Deep Thought.
"Yes...!"
"Is..." said Deep Thought, and paused.
"Yes...!"
"Is..."
"Yes...!!!...?"
"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.”
    Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    Sciences along with postmodern philosophy are recycling around a math Logic, full of crude mistakes and ridiculous conclusions

    Some day our postmodern arrogance will become a pitiful sight for the next generation if it (the latter) would not be as arrogant as us to ask such a question "Can sciences give us the world ?"

    One crucial fact shall be considered here - the most grand discoveries have been made by the minds driven by Intuition and highly emotional curiosity.
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2014: There is no method in which we will know everything. In fact we might not know anything. We dig deep, but deep is never deep enough. If we did know everything the world would be boring, because there would be no curiosity, or experimentation.
    • thumb
      Jan 18 2014: In order to truly know "everything" we must Become Everything.
      • thumb
        Jan 20 2014: we are connected to everything, but will not become it.
        If we become everything we will not be anything
        If we are not anything, we know not one thing
        If we know not one thing we think not one thing
        But at the same time we think everything
        If we were able to turn into everything, we would no longer have the desire to know it
        On the other hand even if we were everything, we would not know it, because some do not know themselves
        Who are we?
        What are we?
        How do we play an important role in the universe?
        Do we?
        Why are we here?
        Questions, that are mighty hard to answer. If not impossible,
        but if impossible isn't possible, then anything is possible.
        What makes impossible possible?
        Trying!
        A mixture of play on words, and true curiosity.
        • thumb
          Jan 20 2014: Hello Hannah. I do like what you've said

          "If we were able to turn into everything, we would no longer have the desire to know it
          On the other hand even if we were everything, we would not know it.."

          Sounds like poetry.

          My thought on Why we Have to be Limited. If we are not LIMITED in every way we would not be able to exist as individual living forms. Absolutely unlimited, we would melt down into everything else, instantly. We would not be able to exist as original, different from others, Selves.
  • Feb 5 2014: It depends on what your definition of is is.
    • Feb 5 2014: It depends on what you definition of is isn't as well.
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2014: There are always new theories over the horizon, and science rushes towards them. Its a race to infinity, as long as people think about new things.
  • Jan 11 2014: Why/how the Universe exists

    In order for some-thing to exist, no-thing must exist; in order for both to exist, as an Infinite (Physical Energy Cycle) and Eternal (Nothingness and Metaphysical Energy = Space) Co Existence.

    Fundamental law of the Universe is "Energy may be converted but it cannot be destroyed": Therefore the energy of the Universe “is” Infinite & Eternal; and therefore “it is” an infinite and eternal, cyclic continuum, of energy conversions.

    Given a drawn Circle: The 360 and 0 point (Alpha & Omega) are one and the same, and can be positioned anywhere on the circle: Therefore a circle has no beginning, nor ending, as its beginning is its ending, and it’s ending is its beginning.

    Now imagine that the 360 represents the Sun and the 0 represents a photon; The Sun goes Nova and is converted into EMS particles; the EMS particles re - coalesce, and eventually become a Sun again. Thus there is no state of zero energy (numbers), as there is no disconnection between 360 and 0, because they are one and the same energy cycle.

    Imagine the same scenario; but this time the circle is in the form of a Mobius Strip; which is made by fixing the two ends of a strip of paper together, after giving one end a half twist: And what you now have is, no state of zero energy (numbers), no state of direction (numbers), and a permanent state of infinite energy.

    And just to make matters more complex; imagine making the Mobius strip not from a strip of paper; but a solid round rubber ring; cut through at 360 & 0, and the half twist turned 1 degree at a time. And what you now have is, no state of zero, no directions, and a permanent and simultaneous state, of multiple energy dimensions, travelling into, and away from, infinity holistically.

    The sciences will not tell us everything, as their Euclidean linear thinking, and their assumption based hypothesis only serve to confuse, and lead us astray. Empirical" science + Personal Philosophizing, is the way to go

    Cheers Carl
  • Feb 9 2014: No.
  • thumb
    Feb 9 2014: The more we come to know, the more we realise how much more there is to know.

    I don't believe science can tell us everything simply due to scientific tendency to dismiss that which science cannot explain.
  • Feb 9 2014: From "The Science of Discworld" - "Science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good."
  • Feb 8 2014: Science has not been able to prove without a doubt that communication with the dead is not possible. Tesla said "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." What do you think about those that claim to communicate with the dead?
  • Feb 6 2014: Context of a Degree

    A degree is a designated fractional measurement unit applied to;

    The ratio of;

    Direction
    Dimension
    1. Length Horizontal = Lateral Flat Baseline
    2. Height Perpendicular = Vertical to Flat Baseline
    3. Diagonal Angular to a Right Angle e.g. a Hypotenuse
    4. Curvature Terminal Result of Three Angles
    5. Circumference Three Diameters
    6. Plane Depth Graduation

    The ratio of

    Intensity
    Interval
    Oscillation
    Scale
    Sequence
    Scope
    Range
    Relative amount
    Table
    Temperature
  • Feb 1 2014: Entropy Driven.

    It was the Sumerians who first defined that a circle is 3 x its diameter; "1500 years before Archimedes stuffed it up" ref to Enc -Britannica "Geometry; Estimating the Wealth".

    The simple arithmetic; to finding the exact length, and square area of a circle; I define as follows.

    A 120cm diameter x 3 = a Circle 360cm long, with each degree measuring 1cm in length

    A 120cm diameter x 4 = a square 480cm long, with each right angle measuring 120cm in length

    A 120cm diameter x 120cm diameter = 14, 400 square centimeters to the square of the diameter

    A 14, 400 sq centimeter square divide by 4 = 3, 600 square centimeters

    3, 600 square cm x 3 = 10, 800 square centimeters to the area of the Circle

    Check

    60 cm radius to the Circle squared = 60 square centimeters x 60 square centimeter = 3, 600 square centimeters

    3, 600 square centimeters x 3 = 10, 800 square centimeters to the Circle

    Ergo: The Area of A Circle

    Is 3 x that of the area of the radius of a Circle, Squared

    Tri x r2

    Elementary enough? as using just elementary arithmetic, I can also calculate the exact areas of ovals; and the surface area and volumes of a cylinder and sphere; which Archimedes could only approximate, as he failed to take into account and deduct the thickness, of his drawn lines.

    Diameter length of his cylinder 7 units x 3 = 21 units; + 1/7th (Of 1 diameter 1/21)= 22/7 due to the thickness of his drawn lines

    Pi is approximate, as he failed to recognize the symmetry of the Circle; can be divided by any "whole' number into that number of identical parts.

    Perhaps you would also like to try Pythagorus Theorem" which has 367 proofs as to its exactitude; however

    Given a right angle with a base line of 12 squares, and a vertical of 12 squares, the hypotenuse measures 17 squares, and the area of the square on the hypotenuse is 289 squares

    And the sum of the 2 squares on the other 2 sides, is 288 squares = 1 square less.

    And I challenge anyone to disprove, this arithmetic
    • Feb 1 2014: There's nothing to disprove.

      Maybe it was the Sumerians and the Bible guys stole it from them. Whatever, it is still wrong. Again, elementarily wrong. The circumference is diameter times pi, not diameter times 3.

      In case you did not know, pi is not exactly 3. Consult your elementary school books if you don't believe me.

      I would think that with all the convoluted thoughts you are able to put into your mind you would have understood that simple problem with your arithmetics.

      Edit: I wrote this below, but in case you missed it:

      As per 1 to 3 in circles. False. I measured many circles and diameters myself. Three diameters never cover the whole circle. Elementary geometry can show this unambiguously. If you grab the radius with a drafting compass, and then put the foot of the compass anywhere in the perimeter and draw a line where the painting side touches the same circumference, then use that line for the foot and draw one further, etc, when you reach your way back you have exactly six lines. Each line would be at the same distance from each other. In a straight line this distance is the radius. Since this would draw an hexamer INSIDE the circle, touching the perimeter exactly six times, and since the radius is half the diameter, we have an inscribed hexamer that has a total perimeter of three times the diameter. Since it is INSIDE the circle, the perimeter of the circle cannot but be more than three times the diameter. Pi is not a mistake. It's elementary.

      See: http://mathonthemckenzie.blogspot.ca/2012/02/regular-hexagon-inscribed-in-circle.html

      and

      http://counton.org/xplusyfiles/home/issue_1/running_round_in_circles/index.htm
  • Jan 31 2014: Once again I say no

    And it really baffles me, how people continue to confuse knowledge, with intelligence, and confuse science with being some kind of god, genius, or mastermind.

    The question being asked IS:

    "Will science ever tell us everything there is to know" and the answer to this question lies in the source, of who it is, or what it is, that is asking the question.

    Is it science that is asking, or seeking an answer to this question? "NO" it is not:

    It is the combination of the overall interactions of the metaphysical thought processes of all of us, who are involved in a question and answer deductive process (conversation) of analysis, aimed at seeking, and providing an answer to the question.

    And the empirical realm of the sciences, of themselves or combined; have nothing whatsoever to do with the answering of the question; because they "the sciences" are the "subject" of the question;

    And the subject of the question, is subjective to each of our individual metaphysical thoughts/reasoning processes; and all of our metaphysical thoughts/reasoning processes combined = our conversation.

    In sum: Science is a word we use to encompass various branches of human investigation, and ..."Discovery"...; but any and all discoveries remain "meaningless and useless" without the metaphysical thought processes of the discoverer, observer, scientist, or others, being applied to interpret and give meaning to the discovery; however as has been witnessed in many court rooms, the interpretations of one scientist may conflict with those of another; because all discoveries, are subjective to our metaphysical reasoning, educational bent, assumptions, and beliefs, not vis-a-vis.

    Therefore it follows, that the scope of everything that there is to know = understand, resides within the metaphysical realms of our philosophies; not within the realm of the empirical/physical sciences of themselves;

    Intelligence - imagination - philosophy, are not rocket science, full stop.
  • Comment deleted

    • Jan 31 2014: Hi Brendon

      I will remain polite, and say IMO;

      Large brain, left brain, right brain, mid brain, brain stem, medulla oblongata, whatever; it ain’t me, no more so than the hard drive files/memory of my computer, are the computer.

      Because the hard drive is of no use whatsoever, without its Ram/Sensory input of data; which requires the intelligence of me, who sat in front of the computer and put the memory files onto the hard drive; which is of no use whatsoever, without an intelligence accessing it, in order to make use of its memory files.

      Quote: The left brain itself is the main barrier to developing/comprehending a Theory of Everything, which can only be understood via our holistic, synthesizing right brains. Problem: Our right brain is non-verbal and depends on our verbal, two-dimensional left brain to communicate its deep wisdom.

      Is this empirical science? Your Theory? – Regardless: I wonder if;

      Parrots – Monkeys – Dolphins – Octopi (All very intelligent creatures) are like us, in having synthesizing right brains; which are non-verbal; and which depend on their verbal, two-dimensional left brain, to communicate their deep perceptions of wisdom.

      Slight problem; the first three do have an audial non-verbal communication, the fourth does not. However all four do have wisdom, because based upon experience in the face of a large predator; they are wise enough to skedaddle.

      The brain is comprised of neurone transmitters of thoughts, and memory storage areas/facilities; that trigger reflexive actions in relation to stimuli from the external environment = RAM: And there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that serves to demonstrate, that the brain of itself, is responsible for a single original thought.

      And to the contrary, both my brain and my body could be kept alive, and happily ticking over on a life support machine (CNS - Autonomic System - Stand in), despite my having previously met with an accident; and as a result “nobody” “me” “I am”; is not home

      Carl.
  • thumb
    Jan 27 2014: NO !!!!
    this is because we are used to think with aspects of BEGIN and END
    science can suggest what happened in the beginning and what will happen in the end
    but the question of what happened before and what will happen after will remain unanswered for ever
  • Jan 24 2014: This question seems to imply that science is the only way to gain "true" knowledge of the universe. This also implies that all other forms used by mankind to gain knowledge must be defunct and yet how is it possible to deny that the outstanding works of art in music, sculpture, philosophy, painting, fiction, etc etc. All of these accomplishments not only mean that there are other and varied ways of understanding the universe but that science, because of its inability to encompass and comprehend these aspects of the universe lacks something that is needed to be the one way to understand the world.
  • thumb
    Jan 24 2014: I don't think it's possible for humans to know everything there is to know because the universe is too vast, time is infinite, and we are too short lived and small by comparison.
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2014: Hello Graihagh,
    I LOVE your profile pic....I LOVE flowers:>)

    I believe the only "barrier" that could stop scientific exploration from continuing, is if all humans were no longer curious, which does not seem like a probability. Curiosity is one of the underlying factors which motivates exploration, and I believe humans will continue to explore on deeper and deeper levels, so science will provide information at different times and different levels, and there will always be more to explore:>)
    • thumb
      Jan 23 2014: Thank you - bluebells remind me the woods near my home.

      Your sentiments remind me of a brilliant (and rather surprising) quote from a theoretical physicist called Laura Mersini Houghton.

      At about 2.30 minutes into this video, she something quite poetic. Something along the lines of " the moment we understand everything, it will be the end of humanity"
      http://iai.tv/video/why-the-world-exists

      In a way, very true.
      • thumb
        Jan 23 2014: I have them in my gardens Graihagh, many varieties grow wild and cultivated, and are all very lovely:>)

        Thanks for the link to the debate. My perception for myself, is that the human adventure is for the purpose of learning, growing and evolving as an individual, while contributing to the whole. So, I agree with Laura, that if we understand everything, there probably is not much purpose for the human life experience.

        When people think they "know", they often stop exploring, and get "stuck" in what they think they "know". For me personally, to stop exploring with curiosity, means that I have stopped truly living.
        • thumb
          Jan 23 2014: do you believe in god, colleen? If god understands everything, is there any purpose for god's existence?
        • Jan 24 2014: Hi Colleen

          Re your post quote: Thanks for the link to the debate. My perception for myself, is that the human adventure is for the purpose of learning, growing and evolving as an individual, while contributing to the whole. So, I agree with Laura, that if we understand everything, there probably is not much purpose for the human life experience.

          A little over 2000 years ago, it was called "The Way" however it could equally have been called "The Why"; or for that matter "The Quest".

          Cheers Carl
  • Jan 22 2014: "everything there is to know" is poorly identified and therefore a significant discussion concerning it is not possible. There is something faintly paradoxical about suggesting an 'everything to know' when we don't know it.

    If there was an 'everything to know' it would necessarily be inexplicable because we explain A in terms of B where B is not A. In science we explain the real world in terms of quantum mechanics and we explain quantum mechanics in terms of the real world. And when we try to explain quantum mechanics as itself realistic we produce self referential nonsense. (cf. We don't see light - our seeing is mediated by light!)

    The question asks whether SCIENCE will tell us everything there is to know. This could be an invitation to discuss the means and methods of acquiring knowledge.

    Supposing we did know this nebulous "everything there is to know" - what is the questioner suggesting this would mean? The point of asking is to draw attention to the issue of what knowledge actually is and what it does.

    Biology makes it clear that language consists of real tokens that are shared between a group of communicators. If enough criteria are met the communicators will apply the emotion of understanding to those tokens. Language/communication is a biological instrument, so to speak. So what could it possibly mean to suggest that these communicators know everything???? We can't know everything because to communicate everything about everything in the universe would require more material than the universe possesses.

    An interesting question to ask, by contrast, is: To what extent is the universe summarisable in language?

    Other interesting questions include:
    What can language achieve in the universe?

    To what extent can the real as we know it support language that is useful beyond the limits of our perception?

    Can we abstract/generalise perception and communication to produce systems of knowledge beyond our own physical abilities?
  • thumb
    Jan 21 2014: The key of science is suspicion, and suspicions brings curiosity. Suspicions will exist forever, and it will move people forward to discover things that are attractive in the moment.

    And,as Decartes said so, while you are thinking you are existing (Cogito ergo sum)-while you are thinking, you are suspicious, curious, and ready to find out something new. So while the man kind exists, we will have theory for everything.

    You can see it in the early theories of what is the fire, thunder, all the natural phenomena that was unexplainable, all of them were explained someway by people.
    • thumb
      Jan 22 2014: Interesting point about how in the history of science we have explained things away - we still do - dark energy and dark matter which make up 80% of the universe and we know next to nothign about them. But surely if people will always be supicious and therefore curious, we will never have a theory of everything - constantly challenging what we 'know'.
      • thumb
        Jan 22 2014: Theory is the theory because it represents one of possible meanings for phenomenon. The difference between those theories is level of your knowledge about it. ( compare ancient theories of universe and modern theories, that are formed on the different level of knowledge). That's why there is a plenty of theories about universe, but neither of them are surely proved . And, as you said so,it's challenging, but on that challenging, scientists find out a lot of irrefutable science facts.
        • thumb
          Feb 3 2014: I'm not sure you could say that any facts are refuteable. Science will never be able to prove anything to be true, only falsified, until a new piece of data eventually shows it to be wrong. Some might even go as far to argue that the 'truth' depends on who you are. i.e. A religious person may say God exists and that's a fact, but an atheist may say God does not exist and that's a fact...
  • Jan 21 2014: Interesting question...

    I think that, logically speaking, the answer is no...
    even if the human kind will find out everything there is to know, it wouldn't know it.
    It won't be able to know if this is the limit of knowledge or that there are more things to know.
    • Jan 21 2014: Hi Meidan

      Logically speaking, I know you are absolutely correct

      For every answer (not theoretical none-senses) that science accomplishes; an unknown multitude! of questions will always remain unanswered.

      Cheers Carl
  • Jan 21 2014: The Meaning of Life

    Please tell me; did you know prior to your birth what colour you would be; did you know to what tribe, race, culture, or family you were to be born into: A baby is a document waiting to be written, a story to unfold, a black and white negative to be developed (nurtured) and each is unique unto itself.

    Each life is an adventure, within a vast and wonderful Universe, both infinite and eternal. Each unfolding story is of each individual’s decision making and choosing.

    All of lives stories, adventures, myths, legends, religions, all spring from one original source, the life source. All must finally return to the source, for that is the source of all things, and its name is Love.

    You as much as any other child sprang from that same source, so you and all humankind are of the same origin. You and many like you, instead of looking for the greater number of similarities between humankind. You look for the dissimilarities, and you look upon these with arrogance, disdain, and worse hatred.

    Know you, that the life source is equal in both peace and anger (Balanced). So be aware that you may be promoted in one, but destroyed by the other.

    Look you, to the beauty of an autumn’s fallen golden leaf, the perfection and perfume of a bright red rose. Look to the strangeness and age of those ancient gnarled huge trees. Look to the stars and see and feel the all-encompassing glory of the heavens above. Then you will know tranquillity and have peace profound within your soul.
  • Jan 19 2014: We are fortunate to live in a time when science is still needed and relevant. We know enough to have curiosity and the drive to learn but not enough to make us satisfied or overly arrogant. Science at this time is truly enjoyable for most people. Will we ever know everything? I think one chap I met at a well-to-do University thinks he will in his lifetime. In reality, however, I prefer to enjoy the adventure of this time. The gift of living only 80 years in a Universe so old is accepting the truth of only being able to contribute small tangible elements of knowledge.
    • thumb
      Jan 19 2014: Please explain, dear Veko, How " elements of knowledge" can be ever "tangible"? Do you mean knowledge is tangible? Can one physically touch knowledge?

      Thank you.
  • thumb
    Jan 17 2014: Ask any question that you know the answer for (or you think you know the answer for), then answer it. Then follow up with the question "Why?". Repeat the process of asking "why". Can you reach the end? i.e is it possible to reach an answer, for which question "why" does not apply. If youw answer is yes, then science can tell everything eventually, if your answer is no, then do you know why?
    • Jan 20 2014: I woul say yes/no.
      Why No ?
      As you correctly stated an answer is the device for generating more questions.
      Why Yes ?
      Because science has hit the event horizon. Question, at least some of them become meaningless.

      iow. science, as we know it, is about to reach its end.
      Probably :)
  • thumb
    Jan 17 2014: No! We are question generating animals, always seeking answers. As soon as we feel we know it all, our horizons will expand and more questions will need to be answered. If we ever feel we know it all - we'll die of boredom!
  • thumb
    Jan 17 2014: “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”
    ― Heraclitus

    Knowledge is the river in which no one can step twice. So is our experience. The world is not going to stop its transformation for us. It is entirely new in every instant !! so are we in it. We are not just tremedously limited, but we also must deal with new realities in every moment.

    Siences never learn about this nature's law. WHAT ARE SCIENCES, anyway? How do we perceive what we think we Know, the universe, stars, trees, cells, microbes, birds or fish?

    If we try to think as logically as we possibly can, I believe we have to say- in order to truly know everything we must BECOME Everything.

    Our observations, especially in our sciences, we are not only greatly limited, but mainly base our human experience on the "evidence" and "proof" brought to us through the most illusive and deceiving sense perception of all we might possess - our sight.

    In any case lets remember:

    Ignorant men raise questions that wise men
    answered a thousand years ago.

    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    Thank you for reading.
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2014: Before I address the question head on, I would like to first note that I don't think we "know" anything about the world around us. While we might observe that certain things act in certain ways and may attribute certain equations to describe how these things act (force equals mass times acceleration for instance), we do not *know* if this is how it actually works. We are simply assigning numbers to reality in the hopes of understanding reality better. I don't think we will ever actually know something, as their is no absolute authority (like a creator) that we can contact (now if we could contact this hypothetical being that would be interesting (looks for an upcoming post :))).

    With that said, I can still address the heart of the question. I think there is a point (whether we reach it or not doesn't matter) in which everything about our world (world being a much broader sense than Earth) will be somehow observed and explained in someway. I think one of the things this question is really asking is if there is a finite or an infinite amount of knowledge in our world (ignoring the tools to getting to this point (science being the tool mentioned in the question)). I think there is a finite amount of things to learn about the world (sort of related to if our world (or universe) is infinite or not). While we may be having a trend of "infinite divisibility", like the positivist nullifidian mentioned below, I think that our finite potential knowledge is integer-like. In that while we may be reaching an 'asymptote', once we reach that asymptote it will just take learning about the one thing left to finally 'know' everything about our world.

    Okay that metaphor might not have been well communicated, but hopefully the idea was sort of expressed, if not please reply. Also, if you have any thoughts about this^ you are encouraged share. Thanks for the question!
    • thumb
      Jan 18 2014: I believe that nothing can we perfectly known or experienced in this world of instant changes and transformations. Our environemnt with ouselves in it, is very new and different in every moment of our life.

      Beside that fact our sense-perceptions on which we so depend in scientific observations and "proves" are crucially limited and unstable for a number of very important "reasons" which we may reveal within our own nature.

      It is very sad how many people still believe that we Can Know what is " out there" or "deeply inside something". This is the problem we have in education - the most profound answers to the Topic-question above have been provided millennia ago.
  • Jan 15 2014: Good subject Graihagh, but I think we'll always find something to investigate. Our last question will probably be, 'what the hell is that?!'

    Ciao :)
  • thumb
    Jan 15 2014: Honestly, I think that humanity as a whole will never "know everything there is to know." Heck, I don't even know what I had for breakfast yesterday.

    All humor aside, science provides a collective framework for understanding the universe. This framework is constantly expanding or being torn down to accommodate for new theories and breakthroughs, with the biggest limitations being the human mind and technology. Perhaps there will be a day where the "singularity" occurs, and artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence. Yet it is likely that even with the aid of artificial intelligence, we would still be limited by our own capabilities of understanding the universe.
  • Jan 15 2014: Science is the study of what there is to know,right? So I think what you are asking is whether there is a limit to what we can know? Or whether we can ever tell us everything there is to know.

    My answer is that the world around us is still really limitless in every direction. We do not know how gigantic everything around us is, or how incredibly intricate and detailed. We are still learning in every field. We may grow exponentially faster in our understanding as we continue to learn and grow insight upon insight, but I do not see any end in sight. Not with regards to anything. These days even more than ever too, with the distrust of one generation looking back on another, everything we know is in question by someone.

    Personally, I do, however, believe in ultimate truth. I believe there is a functional reality behind everything. We are just too small to be able to see it clearly. Too big to see it too. Too emotional, too unstable in our knowledge... We are all at least somewhat disillusioned. We will see a lot more as we learn, but with no end in sight I would say, we've got a lot to learn. What are we really even looking for? Maybe it's Jesus. Maybe humanity misses the point and drowns in our own need to stabilize our individualized sense of reality. Maybe faith keeps us from that and one day all questioning is turned into unmistakable awe and joy?

    Scientifically, wisdom is knowing how much we don't know, right? Meanwhile, we use what we believe...
  • thumb
    Jan 15 2014: If one assumes the following:

    A. Per Moore’s law, or similar, computing / processing capacity will continue to improve exponentially, leading at some point in the future, to artificial intelligence (or intelligences) capable of “learning,” and surpassing the capabilities of the human brain.

    B. The “rule” of “infinite divisibility,” when applied to our understanding of the universe, would suggest that, while we may continually add to our knowledge and appear to be reducing the amount of “unknowns,” there will always be “the remaining half” of facts to be learned.

    Then:

    Aided, if not administered, by the vast resources and problem solving capacity of artificial intelligence, our knowledge of the universe will, in the not too distant future, expand logarithmically, leading to a “more nearly complete” understanding of the universe, approximating, but never fully reaching “everything there is to know.” We may someday arrive at a point when it may “feel” as though we, in a very practical sense, know “all there is,” but there is always one more decimal point or exponent. The universe is, it seems to me, in a very real sense, boundless—the horizon continues to “move in advance” of our understanding.
    • thumb
      Jan 15 2014: Great post. As a computer science major with a background in philosophy, I've always been fascinated with Moore's law and Zeno's paradox of infinite divisibility (Achilles and the Tortoise). What I have been wondering recently is if there will come a point in time where Moore's law no longer applies. In other words, will there come a point in time where we can no longer exponentially improve computing/processing capacity?

      While I believe that a "technological singularity" is inevitable if Moore's law continues to hold true, to what extent will this "singularity" impact our lives? Will humanity become obsolete?
      • thumb
        Jan 16 2014: Thanks for the reply Michael … I've read Asimov and Kurzweill and a singularity is what I was implying. So when our machines will eventually surpass us in intelligence, will we become obsolete? Not unless playing second fiddle is your definition for it … we may no longer be top dog in terms of brain power, but still the top of the organic world.

        Another likely scenario involves cybernetic (Borg-like) integration, which has already begun with limbs, hearts and other implants. As a computer science guy, you may agree with me in saying that we really need to have airtight rules (Asimov's laws) in place before the singularity arrives
  • thumb
    Jan 15 2014: Science is not intended to be omniscient.

    is the concept of knowing every thing meaningful.
    • Jan 16 2014: But thinks it is, and is trying to be

      Cheers Carl
  • Jan 14 2014: Science can reveal only the one aspect or the one dimension of the truth.

    What is Science ?
    Is science the Invention of modern day ?
    What is the boundary and limitation of science ?
    Where does science begins and where does science ends ?
    Did science existed during the formation of this universe and all the life forms ? If yes , then what is Nature ? Is Nature and Science Same ?
    Is there any difference between science and nature ?
    Is electrical energy science or nature ?
    Is atom the function of science or function of nature?
    Does time really exist ?
    • thumb
      Jan 15 2014: Ah, but what is "truth?" A dictionary I use defines truth as "fact" or "that which is in accordance with reality." May I assume you are implying there are "truths" that are outside of the purview of "science" which may also be described as the volume of human knowledge, or facts--i.e., our "shared" reality?
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2014: Most scientific questions (at least the one's that your asking) will eventually turn into philosophical questions so unless you don't see a clear boarder between science and philosophy id say the answer is no.
  • Jan 13 2014: Hi?
    I don't mean to ruffle any feathers but here goes.
    I don't believe in a God but that doesn't preclude me from learning from whatever
    sources I may encounter as I push this huge ball of twine in front of me through my
    lifetime.
    I used to read the Bible when I was young and I was struck by something that I have used
    since I first read it. I found it very interesting. This is what it was:

    In Genesis it is stated that, "man (kind) had knowledge of all things, except one."
    By eating the forbidden fruit, man (kind) then gained the only one piece of knowledge they
    didn't have or were lacking.
    It did not say that man (kind) then lost all knowledge of all things so I assumed that
    we still have that knowledge and it is complete regarding all things. It is only a matter
    of remembering and I have experienced many times in my life, specifically about things
    I have not studied, knowing about something because I simply took the time to remember
    and trusted that process.
    Therefore, before humans existed, before this universe itself, we were all one, connected,
    undivided, and what happened is what life is:
    "Experiencing everything we (mankind) once knew, but never had to go through."

    I think even quantum mechanics, theory or physics is also saying this along with the many Indian sages,
    Greek geniuses and others throughout the millennium. Everything is connected, everything is there,
    So, yes, it might be possible to gain remembrance of all things.

    It's just a thought.
    • Jan 20 2014: In Genesis it is stated that, "man (kind) had knowledge of all things, except one."
      What is it " One" piece of knowledge ?
      Probably, it's the capacity to gain knowledge, knowledge about knowing. Knowledge is always about. Knowing is all inclusive. In a sense, we have become ' lacking '
      And don't forget that this 'piece' brought death into the picture.
      So, what happened there ?
      I would appreciate your thoughts :)
      Thank you !
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2014: Science, as in, a theoretical understanding of the natural world, I feel has already answered many plausible physical (things we see, hear, touch, etc...) aspects of human life interactions and other aspects like our behavioral or "spiritual" relation to the universe through mediums as astronomy. Though I feel that a vast amount of knowledge and history has been deliberately disposed from certain societal spheres for many reasons - some beyond you and me - all intended to curve our perception of our universe, hence we rely on laws which have been selectively passed down through generations. Without doubt, one day we all will know ourselves and everything that needs to be known.

    As science moves on the only barriers will be, if for people like us to stop and give up the interest and the pursuit for life's truths, or for innovating ways that will shed greater light on a better future for everyone through discovery and understanding. Everyone can make a theory of everything...not everyone proves them to be true, however.

    To know one's self is both difficult and inconvenient...
    • thumb
      Jan 13 2014: I read your post after writing and posting mine and find the synchronicity of ideas expressed quite amazing. We tuned onto the same wavelength concurrently it seems.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jan 15 2014: The scientific way takes away the 'magic' of such phenomena. It will be a bitter-sweet loss of that 'something' the day science is able to explain, reliably repeat, and manipulate such phenomena. I am sure wireless technology, AV surveillance via telescopic lenses remotely, as well as fMRI imaging of thought pathways and eventual 'abberrant' pathway ablation therapy (a seriously scary byproduct of neuroscientific advancement) would have seemed as utopian yet unobtainable a goal a few hundred years ago.
          I am certain science will solve the puzzle of 'wavelength matching' and synchronous thoughts, or possibly all PSI phenomena, but I don't think WE will radically change.
          As I mentioned before, our true hurdle lies not in discovering the hows and whys but in finding ways to efficiently become what we have learnt we must be.
  • thumb
    Jan 12 2014: No; because science restricts itself to the 5 physical senses when there is so much more going on out there in the higher senses that is not measurable even with new instruments 1000s of years from now.
    Also "no" because science does not follow its own rules; it has become the religion of "scientism". However, one day it may get back to doing true science - but even that will not be enough.
    • Jan 12 2014: It's a myth that there are 5 senses. Also, we do not limit ourselves to these 5 physical senses when conducting science. One uses technology to perceive things that we cannot perceive with the 5 commonly stated senses. We use abstract ideas such as maths to understand what we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell. Machines sense what we cannot. We may not ever understand everything, but not for the reasons you state.

      Science is not a religion, just a principle. You don't actually give any reason for stating that science is a religion, what rules it has broken, or what it has to do to go back to "doing real science". 'Science' might be due criticism for a fair number of things, but with no examples or evidence, how seriously should we take your comments? Maybe we should get back to 'real' science and ask you for some evidence?
      • thumb
        Jan 13 2014: Two bits of evidence are:

        1). TED talk by Stuart Firestein: http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_firestein_the_pursuit_of_ignorance.html
        2). Rupert Sheldrake's book: "The Science Delusion", published in 2013.

        Of course, both are just opinions (as is mine). But so is Science.

        I have no problem with science itself, nor with the scientific method if genuinely conducted. I have a problem with the way science is portrayed as the only method for achieving "hard facts" (or real knowledge). For example the phrase "that's unscientific!" is often rolled as an unfair put-down for anyone putting a point of view that is not within the current realm of science; in that way it is operating in a manner similar to religion.

        The history of science is the history of failed theories. Current theories will also be superseded. So why should any current theory be hailed as a "fact", let alone knowledge (which I assume is eternally correct)?

        Concerning "doing real science", as an example, Science could start by investigating seriously The Placebo Effect (see: a talk by Dr Lissa Rankin "Mind over Medicine" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcai0i2tJt0 )
        • Jan 13 2014: I'm not sure it's helpful to just post links and suggest we try to debate a whole book, even if I did have the time and desire to read it. It's also written by someone who researches parapsychology. Debating pseudoscience is in contravention of the membership rules of TED, so I'm also not sure how wise it would be!

          Science might be opinion, but hardly the same as all other opinion. Most scientific 'theories' have gone through weeks or months of peer review before publishing. After publishing they have then been open to review and scrutiny by anyone and everyone. Many people would be more than happy to shoot down any theory that is not their own. After quite a long time, maybe years, or even decades, theories sometimes become accepted as fact, or as good as (though they are usually still described as theories, which might be slightly confusing for some.)

          Science often raises more questions than it answers. Some try to ridicule science for this, but personally I think that it's good to continually be learning more. It's also good to revise theories when we have more and better information.

          Knowledge is opinion. It is often based on science, and is no more fact than scientific theory. Maybe there is some confusion about the terms used, and what constitutes a scientific theory?

          I'm not sure why science/scientists should 'start' by investigating the placebo effect. You say it as if scientists aren't actually doing any good science right now! Much work has been done on 'the placebo effect' and we know much about the positive effects it can sometimes achieve. I'm not sure why there should be more effort put into that than any other area of science. I'm almost tempted to say that it would be 'unscientific'! Why would it be better to research placebos rather than cancer treatments, etc, etc, etc?
      • thumb
        Jan 15 2014: If it's a "myth" that we have 5 senses, what is the reality? We use technology to allow us to "sense" what we cannot, but these data are collected and categorized into the relevant spectra. As far as I am concerned, if we (or our tools) cannot taste, touch, smell, see our hear a phenomena, event or object, there's not much point in discussing it. Why quarrel over the undetectable?
        • Jan 15 2014: Does the Large Hadron Collider see, hear, taste, smell or feel?

          It cost billions, so according to you, I guess it was a waste of good money and has no use or point at all. I suppose there's no point in discussing it.
      • thumb
        Jan 16 2014: Responding here to "Does the Large Hadron Collider see, hear, taste, smell or feel?"

        I apologize for not making myself better understood. The LHC, Chandra X-Ray Telescope, and so many other important tools, detect phenomena and provide the measurements of these observations into relevant (5-sense) data (images, numbers, etc.) that we analyze.
        • Jan 16 2014: I understand your point that scientific instruments convert all sorts of different information into information that we can sense, but found your original words a little acerbic/strident, so maybe tackled what you said in quite a forthright manner.

          As for the senses, we have many, not just 5. If we ignore the sense of fear, trepidation, joy, happiness, etc. then we still have sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell... but there's more.

          If we had a telescope that detected infrared and ultraviolet light, we'd probably not simply describe it as 'sight', but describe it using two separate, differing terms. In our own eyes we detect light in two distinct ways, with 'rods' and 'cones'. I'm sure that some people, including you, may consider this 'cheating' on my part, so I won't use this example to prove my point.

          Touch it an interesting sense. When we have something come into physical contact with our bodies/nerves, and a signal is sent to our brains, we 'sense' touch. However, we also 'sense' heat, which is non-physical. So, we 'sense' infra red radiation, which as I understand it is non-physical. We also sense the passage of time, however inaccurately.

          If we look at the wider animal kingdom, we see creatures that sense the geomagnetic field of the earth and the electrical impulses in other creatures as they move their muscles. I'm reasonably confident that there are other examples. Even without using examples from the wider animal kingdom, we have, as humans, more than 5 senses.
  • thumb
    Jan 12 2014: My Opinion on this is: No.
    Remember "everything" includes the thoughts you can NOT think and
    the ability to have superpowers ^^ (It is just as much part of "everything"
    as quantum mechanics is). "Everything" is way beyond what the human
    can have as knowledge.
    Scientists have rather been trying to restrict "everything" in the last ~3000 years,
    than proving it.
    • Jan 12 2014: Yes, ' Theory of everything ' is a paradox by itself, since 'theory' needs a neutral observer who 'looks at' ; 'everything' includes the observer, hence make observation impossible as such.
  • thumb
    Jan 11 2014: Will science ever tell us EVERYTHING there is to know? I doubt if science will tell us everything there is to know. But, it will help us understand a lot of things. It will help us solve many difficult problems. Hard science is not for everybody. It is for those who are willing to think hard, study hard, and work hard.

    Experience tells us that the more we study, the more we learn. The more things we learn, the more we realize we don't know a lot. A wise man once said, "Ignorance is bliss". That's the irony of life.
    • Jan 12 2014: Hi Rodrigo

      Regarding "the more we study" and the;

      Attainment of Wisdom:

      To be highly educated is to become steeped in the opinions, beliefs and theorems of others: To become highly learned, is to never add or lend ones weight. to any object, situation, enterprise or philosophy; without first having tried, tested, and analyzed its potential, for harm or for growth.

      While I agree with what you say in regard to hard science, which I consider to be empirical science, and not the hypothetical scientific theories, that are presented to us as if they were fact; rather than in reality, being based upon a series of assumptions, which are given the name axioms (which they are not, ref to OED), in order to give them a credibility, that they do no actually possess.

      This series of assumptions, is then given a further air of credibility, by being called an hypothesis; and then if this hypothesis is then supported by another person/mate; with a second series of assumptions based upon the first series of assumptions; the first series of assumptions, is then considered to be proven; and called a theorem.

      Therefore I do not give any credibility to anything called scientific, that is not based either on empirical proof; or founded in a progressive logic, that can be followed step by step

      E.g. I give no credibility the BB theory whatsoever; please refer to my post to Henry Neu in regard to Entropy.

      However apart from this, and as to your statement;

      "Experience tells us that the more we study, the more we learn. The more things we learn, the more we realize we don't know a lot. A wise man once said, "Ignorance is bliss". That's the irony of life."

      Absolutely agree, answer one question, and another dozen appear to replace it, rather like trying to cut a head off a hydra.

      Cheers Carl
  • Jan 11 2014: wait, science is a tool for gaining knowledge.
    We happen to rely on it for it gives us valid grounds for proving..things.
    It's not science that tells us everything there is to know, but us using science to find out the things we want to know as many as possible.
    Consider what the subject is.
  • Jan 11 2014: I would be happy if they would just stop lying to us for corporate gains!
  • Jan 10 2014: If such a point exists, we're still a long way away from it, if not in science then at least in its equally important practical supplement, engineering.

    Assuming such a point exists at all, we'll of course never know with absolute certainty we've hit it. Science is after all based on empirical evidence, and until the entire universe is fully monitored and measured (read, probably never), there will always be more evidence to be found.
    A more realistic situation is that we have a fully satisfactory model to explain every single piece of data we've ever collected. Again though, we're nowhere near there, and may never be.
    • thumb
      Jan 10 2014: If we can't currently explain all the data we've already collected, then it seems unlikely, by comparison of how much more we'd need to collect and explain, that we'll ever be able to explain why the world exists.

      I think if we did get to this stage, I think humanity would lose all meaning.
      • Jan 10 2014: Its less of an issue then you think.
        Your average person goes about their day just fine without contemplating the meaning of life, after all. Atheists get by without a belief in any higher power or purpose derived from it (purpose requires intelligence, after all), and certain brands of nihilist get by with even less.

        Though I expect that if we ever come close to fully understanding the universe around us, we probably won't be what you'd recognize as human today. Some rather extensive cybernetics and genetic engineering may be required to get the proper amount of number crunching done--the human mind is currently as incapable of truly grasping the scope of the universe as a dog is capable of grasping quantum physics.
        There's a reason scientists are almost all specialists these days. Even one full field is often too much for one person to grasp.
  • Feb 8 2014: It doesn't work like that. All individual human beings are unique, born at different times, have ranges of differences in brain chemistry that shape emotions, and so forth. Even if every thing we think we could catalog in one computer were done so, there are limits to language and interpretation. How many peple do you think could converta ll that to exact working knowledge? On another front there are things we can't answer because of scale. What if there were an element so heavy that it creates a planet of sun around it. Can we rip open a planet and bring some back to a lab on Earth? No, it would be so powerful on the Earth that it could upset the planet we live on. Much of what is "known" of the universe is mathematical relationships which imply realities we assume to be realities even though we can't possibly study the real thing. We should continue to try but never assume like the 1899 US Patent Commissioner that everything than can be invented officially has been. There is always more. And we are not static ourselves. There are things unknown about ourselves that are still as vast and mysterious as far-flung cosmic phenomena.
  • thumb
    Feb 8 2014: well the possibility of /science will tell us everything/ is a scientifically based theory but there is also a religious aspect of this question. Such as Christians or Muslims will not always believe this true as they think god has hidden many things from the human mind .But to confirm this religious aspect is not fully possible and to confirm this scientifically possible aspect is also not 100% possible.so this is a very debatable question in consideration to this specific reason. I do not think that it will ever be fully known to us as science is deemed revolutionary by scientific believers but cannot be proven therefore people will start to go deeper into this specific subject but will never find out .Sometimes there is a complexity a human mind can tackle but when a complexity goes too far away from a humans barrier of possibility ;questions become something which is no longer a question but a desire which will never be found. But when looking at the phrase ultimate question this is what an ultimate question is or will be for the rest of time unless your belief is something religiously different.
  • Feb 8 2014: The key is in the definition of "everything"; How do we know what we have yet to discover or even better, define? The possibilities are endless. What we do have is a quest for knowledge. Coupled with understanding, this could take us very far. Understanding being that simply knowing is not enough. For it is only in the application of said knowledge and in the most intelligent way, as it pertains to life, that will guide us to answers or to further exploration. The knowledge and understanding of interconnectedness is key here, where humanity and nature live in balance. One final note: there is wisdom to be found in simply being in awe. The sheer simplicity and wonder over that which is incomprehensible shares a wisdom all its own.
  • Feb 8 2014: YES !!!
    Science will one day tell us everything there is to know !
    BUT, by then, there will be an exponential amount more!!!
    I copied this text from www.businesscognizance.com :

    "An Irony of Learning :

    Information is never-ending. In FACT, more happens in a day than we could learn in a lifetime and it gets more complex, interesting and amazing – with all the new gadgets, movies, books, music and countless other arts, crafts, hobbies, sports, games, activities and entertainment… Not to mention all the brain-melting discoveries in Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Geography, Geology, Physics… The Social Sciences, the Formal Sciences, All of Philosophy, evolution…..

    We can either be overwhelmed by the limitless knowledge or bask in the grand vastness that makes it possible to gasp in awe or tingle with excitement or marvel in wonder.

    If the amount of information was not colossal, beyond imagination, then it just wouldn’t be enough for this tornado-like mind of ours – relentlessly processing information every second of every day! The infinite nature of the universe is what saves our sanity by making sure that NOBODY can EVER get to the end of knowledge."

    Have some 'o that !
  • Feb 7 2014: hey... nothing is called everyhting.. because after everything there is also a new thing to come... knowing everything is not possible... science by itself is a still a thing from the everything you are seeking for. you wish that we could reach to such thing but it is not possible... as long as their is life on earth u will be subjected to new thing everyday.. Also imagine you nothing new to discover, many firms will close, many will be without jobs and thus mess will be spread... to a point that one will not be able to live!!!

    law rules etc exists because man kind creates them to control.. imagine youself living in an open community where no rules or laws are found... the community will kil itself by itself... thus these rules came to create limits and boundaries for living...
  • Feb 7 2014: For others following this conversation

    The reference I made in regard 1 Human brain cell being 1 unit of the brain, and the math, was not meant as a personal remark; rather It was I think, a good example in relation to exemplifying imperial accuracy, as opposed to decimal approximation. I did not realize until shortly afterwards, that it could and probably would be taken personally, which on receiving the post, it obviously was; no matter, and no apology extended.

    The point being, in regard to the decimal system, is that e.g. 99 cents does not equate with 1 whole Unit of $1.00, and this is the basis of capitalistic profit, relative to imperial measurements in regard to goods, and e.g. the British pound being changed from 240 pennyweights of gold to 100 "etc."
  • Feb 7 2014: Likewise
  • Feb 6 2014: Will science ever tell us everything there is to know?

    I don't think so. But nothing else will.
  • Feb 6 2014: PS

    I Human Brain Cell = 1 Unit of the Brain

    1 unit divide by 3 = 1/3rd: !/3rd x 3 = 1 Brain Cell

    Calculator

    1 unit divide by 3 = •33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
    1 unit x 3 = •9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

    = No Brain Cell
  • Feb 6 2014: EINSTEIN

    Hint try IMPERIAL INCHES = base 3 = +n- = The entire Energy of the Universe does not have Ten/10 +-/01 digital yes/no; on/off; black/white etc. stamped on each, and every single energy unit of its existence; I you we, are not based on 10, and we are not approximates (Which Pi "IS"!), or robots.

    However I have faith in you; you still wont get it.

    ADIOS

    Addendum 10th of Feb: Fact Pi is an approximation/not quite right/exact; therefore relative to the number of diameters, that go into the circles length; what number is it approximate to?
    • Feb 6 2014: Whatever you try Carl, lengths are lengths, lengths are not areas, equal perimeters with different shapes cover different areas, sides are not angular degrees, six radians will not cover a complete circumference, etc. No matter the mathematical system, make it binary, imperial, decimal, whatever, all of this will still be true. Sorry man. You are mathematically illiterate enough to be a living example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

      Have a nice life.
  • thumb
    Feb 6 2014: We are limited only by our understanding. Science is only a tool, how we use it is everything. One needs to keep tampering and experimenting in areas where understanding is non existent or limited, but only where a random outcome is beneficial.. Most breakthroughs came from activities unrelated to the discovery.
  • Feb 6 2014: who should define that "this is everything", as we can approach directly the knower of all. Hence its logically impossible to know everything.

    why the universe (or indeed multiverse) exists; why laws themselves exist; and so forth.
    ===
    There are chances that the universe does not exist at all (Because, we know, we exist, because we can feel our body, we know that we exist on a planet, as we can feel the earth and prove its existence., but this earth and other planets, stars, exists on what?. We can feel/sense our body, our earth, but not that on which the earth exist, ).
    ==
    The universe is only an object created (imagined) by the mind and has it's being in the mind. - http://www.theself.com/sri_ramana.cfm
    ==
    Then why does the universe appear?
    Ramana: Appear to whom? The universe does not say "I am." Is there any evidence to say that the universe appears? To whom does the universe appear? - http://www.inner-quest.org/Ramana_Abide.htm
    ===
    There are also chances that multiverse actually exisit, because, if one exist then more than one can possibly exist.
    Multiverse:
    Every universe is covered by seven layers — earth, water, fire, air, sky, the total energy and false ego — each ten times greater than the previous one. There are innumerable universes besides this one, and although they are unlimitedly large, they move about like ATOMS in You. Therefore You are called unlimited (Bhagavata Purana 6.16.37) -

    Even though over a period of time I might count all the atoms of the universe, I could not count all of My opulences which I manifest within innumerable universes (Bhagavata Purana 11.16.39)
    source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology
    ==
    But, after all, who knows, and who can say
    Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
    so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
    Whence all creation had its origin,
    he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
    he knows - or maybe even he does not know
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasadiya_Sukta
  • Feb 6 2014: Congratulations!

    Your Are An Einstein

    Well Done
  • thumb
    Feb 6 2014: Even if it did how would you know.
  • Feb 6 2014: Entropy Driven

    Very last time and I am done with your mental block, which only you can overcome, not I.

    A line can be “called” a line of diameter, line of right angle, line of hypotenuse whatever.

    BUT: There is no such thing as a line in "Natural Geometry”; merely a “Distance” between point A and point B

    A “Radial” distance extending between A & B e.g. 60cm multiplied by 2 = 120, multiplied by 3, = a Radiated/Circulated “AREA” of 360 sq cm

    Why have mathematicians not recognized this? I am sure “many" have! And shied away from the discovery, not because of the questions it raises; but for fear of its unacceptability to the multitude; and hence ridicule, and its consequences (Given human history "barbarity", very sensible).

    We all see the shortest distance between any two A to B points, is a straight line; and the curved line of the arc of that line, is obviously longer.

    Therefore it is an inexplicable dilemma; that the number applied to the straight line, equates with the mathematically obtained number of the longer curved line
    .
    It is also an inexplicable; that if we draw an oblong with a base line 12cm and a height of 10.5cm, then draw an "equilateral triangle", with each angle measuring 12 cm

    The area of the oblong will be 126 square centimetres; and the area of the triangle will be 63 square cm or 72 diamonds of the triangle.

    If we then take a length of wire 36cm long to form the triangle; and then reshape it to form a circle, the two physically contained areas will be the same:

    However when we do the math, using 12cm for a diameter length, and using “EITHER” Pi 22/7 as a fraction or 3.14 as a decimal (113.04 sq cm), or 3 times the diameter length (108 sq cm) to do the working; the mathematical area of the circle, is greater than the physically measured and contained triangulated equilateral area of 63 sq cm.

    So Entropy Driven, as you extol you are smarter than me: then “You Explain” (To others not me) how this can be so "Differential"?

    Goodbye
    • Feb 6 2014: My mental block Carl?

      Let's see. It is you who said:
      "A “Radial” distance extending between A & B e.g. 60cm multiplied by 2 = 120, multiplied by 3, = a Radiated/Circulated “AREA” of 360 sq cm"

      Let's translate. By "radial" you seem to mean a "radian", which is a distance measured in radiuses. If so, you are talking about a circle with a radius of 60cm. If so, sure, if you go two radians around that circle, you have traveled 120 cm (linear cm, not sq, linear). Now, if you go that much three times you have traveled 360cm, and six radians. Why on Earth do you think that you have covered 360 sq cm is beyond me. Why you think that you have traveled the whole circumference? Because you think that 360cm are magically transformed into 360 degrees just because that is the total number of degrees in a circle? because you think that degrees and cm and sq cm are magically the same? But, alas, no, the coincidence in the naked numbers (360cm, 360 degrees), does not make them both one The coincidence does not make them also into an area of your liking. Six radians never cover the whole circumference Carl. To get back to your point of departure in the circle you need 3.1416 times 2 radians, not 3 times 2.

      Check this page for better understanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian the animation to the right shows nicely that three radians don't cover half the circle.
  • Feb 6 2014: Entropy Driven

    Very last time and I am done with your mental block, which only you can overcome, not I.

    A line can be “called” a line of diameter, line of right angle, line of hypotenuse whatever.

    BUT: There is no such thing as a line in "Natural Geometry”; merely a “Distance” between point A and point B

    A “Radial” distance extending between A & B e.g. 60cm multiplied by 2 = 120, multiplied by 3, = a Radiated/Circulated “AREA” of 360

    Why have mathematicians not recognized this? I am sure “many" have! And shied away from the discovery, not because of the questions it raises; but for fear of its unacceptability to the multitude; and hence ridicule, and its consequences (Given human history "barbarity", very sensible).

    We all see the shortest distance between any two A to B points, is a straight line; and the curved line of the arc of that line, is obviously longer.

    Therefore it is an inexplicable dilemma; that the number applied to the straight line, equates with the mathematically obtained number of the longer curved line
    .
    It is also an inexplicable; that if we draw an oblong with a base line 12cm, and a height of 10.5cm, then draw an equilateral triangle, with each angle measuring 12 cm, the area of the oblong will be 126 square centimetres; and the area of the triangle will be 63 square cm or 72 diamonds of the triangle.

    If we then take a length of wire 36cm long to form the triangle; and then reshape it to form a circle, the two physically contained areas will be the same:

    However when we do the math, using 12cm for a diameter length, and using “EITHER” Pi 22/7 as a fraction or 3.14 as a decimal (113.04 sq cm), or 3 times the diameter length (108 sq cm) to do the working; the mathematical area of the circle, is greater than the physically measured and contained triangulated area of 63 sq cm.

    So Entropy Driven, as you extol you are smarter than me: then “You Explain” (To others not me) how this can be so?

    Goodbye
    • Feb 6 2014: I'm not smarter than you Carl. I understand geometry better because I had to use it all the time. I had to solve many real-life problems involving it.

      You have very basic problems with your math here. So, open a forum and we discuss it. You have nothing to lose and everything to win with that forum since you're so obviously right, right? Call it "PI is overestimated because greeks did not check their line widths!" I am sure that the TED community will find very interesting and devastating ways to showing you wrong. I have many already in store. But, again, this is not the forum for it. (I would open the forum myself, but then I would surely not present your case in the best possible light, since, according to you, I'm brainwashed.)

      (As a hint, whatever you call an oblong does not change the fact that an equilateral triangle with sides measuring 12cm each does not reach a height of 10.5 cm, but rather a bit more than 10.39cm. So its area would be a bit more than 62.35 cm^2, not 63 cm^2. The wire you talk about actually takes different areas of you shape it as that equilateral triangle or as a circle. Therefore your math is wrong from the very beginning. You have some pretty wrong assumptions about shapes, perimeters and areas, that an elementary course in geometry would fix.)
  • Feb 5 2014: One huge thing that could stop us from becoming omnipotent, is our own extinction. If we don't become interstellar civilization soon, we are destined to die off as ignorant life form.
    But there could also be physical limitation. As 3 dimensional being we cannot see into higher dimensions (if they exist) as 2D painting can't reach out of canvas. And there could be some laws, that would prohibit travel between dimensions.
    And if universe is infinite and there is infinite number of universes, we would need infinite^infinite time to explore or know them all and that isn't really possible.
  • Feb 5 2014: I would like to take the negative stand.
    Because some where down the line we are not capable of understand everything that is to be understood.
    By "capability" I mean ,there is a point up to which our reason can take us.
    Because real world may not necessarily follow reason and make sense.
    An analogy : A monkey would never understand complex arithmetic because its brain is incapable of doing so.
  • Feb 5 2014: Entropy Driven for the last time

    ? 120 multiplied by 3, is ......

    ? Number of degrees to a circle is ......

    Its not a forum you need, its a calculator

    And more seeds of truth have been growing for some time, and will continue to grow in cyber space, regardless of the closed minded.

    Goodbye!
    • Feb 6 2014: Question Carl,

      What makes you think that because 120 times 3 is 360, and because there's 360 degrees in a circle, both things are the very same?

      In your misguided example, a circle with a radius of 60cm does not magically transform each cm in the perimeter into a degree. You are missing close to 4.7% of the size of what each degree covers in this circumference, and in the end you miss close to 17cm of the circle. 360cm do not cover the whole circumference Carl. You have been fooled by the number 360.

      Also: sides are not the same as angles. Lengths are not areas, etc, etc, etc.

      As per your wire: a 36cm wire shaped in the form of an equilateral triangle would cover an area of 62.35 sq cm. Shaped as a square it would cover: 9*9=81 sq cm. Clearly different areas with the same perimeter. So, shape changes the area covered. So what makes you think that if you shape it as a circle it will cover the same area as the equilateral triangle?

      You are so basically wrong, that maybe you will never understand it. No matter how clearly explained, you will find a convoluted way of dismissing this basic math. But it does not work Carl. Math remains the same regardless of your preferences.

      Adios
  • Feb 5 2014: Entropy Driven

    As I said thank you for your disbelief, in the face, of arithmetic so simple that even a numerate six year old would get it, but not you; and hundreds of millions of victims, of two millennia of Greco Roman brainwashing, like you.

    Thanks again and goodbye

    Cheers Carl
  • Feb 5 2014: Entropy Driven

    As I said thank you for your disbelief, in the face, of arithmetic so simple that even a numerate six year old would get it, but not you; and hundreds of millions of victims, of two millennia of Greco Roman brainwashing, like you.

    Thanks again and goodbye

    Cheers Carl
    • Feb 5 2014: It doesn't matter if the arithmetic is simple or hard If your basic assumptions are wrong, the results are wrong. PI is not 3, it is an irrational number whose first digits are: 3.14159..... therefore, presuming that diameter times 3 gives you the circumference is wrong. Presuming that PI is really three because of a problem of measurement is nonsense. I am not brainwashed, I understand that geometry implied in calculating PI, and it is not mere physical measurements with very thick lines.

      Again, it's quite simple: do you really think that no mathematician would check if PI is just a mistake in measurement? Do you really think that mathematicians would have PI solved to whatever number of digits after the dot if it was just a matter of measuring? Seriously? Then why do they use computers to get further and further in these digits? Computers don't draw circles with thick lines, so what do they do that they are still so wrong according to you?
  • thumb
    Feb 4 2014: I'm now wise enough to know not to commit my entire life to the hands of science. There are things that are beyond the bonds of science.
    But it does has its strength.
  • thumb
    Feb 4 2014: I'm now wise enough to know not to commit my entire life to the hands of science. There are things that are beyond the bonds of science.
    But it does has its strength.
  • thumb

    . .

    • 0
    Feb 3 2014: No -----> we still need art :-)
    ….and it is really fun to study and important to apply science to the betterment of lives.
    ❤ ❤


    "Equipped with his five (5) senses, man explores the Universe around him and calls the adventure: Science.”

    --Edwin Powell Hubble
  • Feb 3 2014: At least, it won´t tell us, if we have really discovered everything.
  • Feb 3 2014: Oxford English Dictionary

    Matter, physics: Physical “Substance”, in general as distinct from mind and spirit

    Energy, physics: The capacity of “Matter” or radiation to do "Work"

    Force: Power, exerted strength or impetus; intense effort

    (= Work)

    Therefore, Substance is Matter and Matter is Substance; and “it” is Energy = Force = Work

    1 Unit of Energy = 1 Particle of Energy
    1 Particle x 2 = 2 Particles of energy
    2 Particles x 2 = 4 Particles of energy (and so on)

    I Unit of Energy = 1 Particle of Energy
    1 Particle of energy ÷ by 2 = 2 smaller particles of energy
    2 smaller particles of energy ÷ divide by 2 = 4 smaller particles of energy (and so on)

    Therefore Energy does not have a Zero State (As it is cyclic)

    And as we apply Numbers to (substance – matter – energy - units - particles) Numbers do not have a Zero State either (As per a Circle).
  • thumb

    B Ross

    • 0
    Feb 2 2014: Answer 2: Probably not
    Man's activities are outpacing man's awarenesses.
  • thumb

    B Ross

    • 0
    Feb 2 2014: If there is an answer to "Why?", by logical consequence, there is a designer. I appreciate my life and surroundings so I choose to believe there is a "Why?" and designer. I do this in the same way you could find some beautifully crafted device and only know what the designer intended by observing the device"s interaction over its lifetime.
  • thumb

    B Ross

    • 0
    Feb 2 2014: Answer 1: Probably not
    The prevailing laws of computation and set theory suggest that information about a system will have to include one idea referencing something external to that system. In this context, the system is our universe and we are in it. At least one idea of all those within the set of ideas required to have a whole understanding of our universe will likely reference something external this system that bounds us.

    Search "Godel's Incompleteness Theorem" & "Cognitive-Throretic Model of the Universe"
  • Feb 2 2014: 3.
    Entropy Driven Continued

    However the natural geometric rules that governs their straight linear formations, though they cannot be seen, nor are they in anyway apparent; can be discerned as being existent within the structure of a solid sphere.

    If we take a solid sphere e.g. an orange will suffice; and cut a cross downward into it stopping at its equator, and then cut out one quadrant of the cross at the equator; what we see is that the three straight linear dimensions of the cut out of quadrant, “in effect” form a Euclidean three-dimensional corner of a box.

    So what! One may say, however what this demonstrates relative to the non-linear aspects of the Macrocosm and Microcosm; is that the rules pertaining to so called three-dimensional Euclidean linear geometry/mathematics; are existent "within" the fourth dimension of the curvature of the sphere.

    And therefore it follows that three-dimensional linear geometry/mathematics, is subjective/subservient to the overall differential geometric/mathematical curved rules; that over govern all the curvaceous aspects and interactions of the spheres of the Universe; inclusive of all of those spheres that go into the makeup of a solid sphere, and any straight line..

    And therefore it also follows; that Euclidean straight linear geometry does not rule the Universe, but rather it is the differential cyclic geometric/mathematical rules/nature, of the Universe; that rules over its lesser straight linear geometric aspects.

    Pi π

    Values: 22/7 or 3 & 1/7 or 3•14285714 or 3 & a bit left over

    Finding the diameter length, from a 22 unit circumferential length

    22 unit’s ÷ by 3 = 7 unit’s with 1 unit left over

    1 unit ÷ by 3 = 1/3;

    Diameter = 7 & 1/3 units

    Check

    7 & 1/3 units x 3 = 22 units

    Decimals

    22 unit’s ÷ by 3 = 7 unit’s with 1 unit left over

    1 unit ÷ by 3 = 0•3333333

    Diameter = 7 & 0•3333333 unit’s

    Check 7 & 0•3333333 unit’s x 3 = 21 units & •9999999 of a unit

    "Not 22 Complete Unit's = Not a Complete Circle
    • Feb 4 2014: Carl,

      There's many ways to show that your "little left over" problem is your problem, and not a problem of mathematicians who have come to learn about pi proper. But we would be hijacking a forum that's about whether science will tell us all there is to know. What about you open a question or idea about how to know whether pi is 3 and that the 3.14159............... super irrational number is just a mistake because some mathematician of old times didn't take into account the thickness of their lines (as if mathematicians just followed that blindly. Really? Do you really think that is so? That we all bought into pi irrational number because some greeks said so?)
      • Feb 4 2014: Entropy Driven

        Exactly; Greco Roman Sheep, who have been educated/trained in the Old Boy Greek and Latin Traditional, Universities and Churches, ever since the building and the burning of the Alexandrian Museum/Library; and Constantine's phony vision.

        As to the Ancient Greeks (Beware Greeks Bearing Gifts); they held the absolute belief, that it was impossible to find the length of a circle, because it has no beginning or ending. And the face of belief is a brick wall, that does not allow for any alternate.

        However, while it can succeed in blocking the truth for a duration, new more open minded generations are born, and the truth which has not, and cannot be destroyed, is released as the wall of belief crumbles.

        Fact;

        A line/right angle/diameter of 120 cm x 3 = 360 degrees = 360 cm

        A line/right angle/diameter of 120 cm x 4 = a 480 cm square perimeter

        This math is actual - factual - exact; and no one has been able to "mathematically" challenge/disprove its veracity in 16 years (Nor ever will be able to).

        And thank you for your disbelief; because it has allowed me to promote this scientific truth (Seed) further in cyber space; where it will find more fertile minds, and it will continue to grow, regardless of Greco Roman Old Boy, Academia opposition, or yours.

        And all things are mathematical; including the sciences, which did not invent the mathematics that created them.

        Cheers Carl
        • Feb 5 2014: Meh, your math is wrong from the beginning. That nobody has been able to explain to you how and in how many ways you're wrong, does not mean that your math is correct. As I said, create a forum for this and I will show you just a few ways.

          Also, come on, it's absolutely nonsensical to think that pi comes from a few mis-measurements. That no single mathematician would ever check that little detail is preposterous. That you seriously think that's the case is beyond nonsensical. You can't be serious. Truly, you can't be serious. Why if that was so it would have been quite easy for you to win every kind of prize in mathematics. Showing a mistake in measurements is straight-forward. Go for it!

          EDIT: Please create that forum. More of your "scientific truth" will grow as seeds in cyberspace.
  • Feb 2 2014: 2.
    Entropy Driven post continued

    And regardless as to whether you use Pi (3 and a small bit) or three times the diameter length;

    The apparent “excess of curved length” to the composite of the 3 straight linear diameter lengths combined within the circles circumferential length;

    Is far greater than can be accounted for, by either combining 3 straight diameter lengths, or by combining 3 straight diameter lengths + a small bit of diameter length, as per the formulae Pi; into the circumference.

    So what does this tell us and where does it leave us? Personally as the simple arithmetic I have used serves to define; that a circles “curved – mathematical - length” is 3 times that of the diameters “measured - straight linear - length”;

    I can only surmise/guess/assume/theorize at best (Because it is baffling); that straight linear mathematics, and curved differential mathematics are interrelated; but each of themselves are dimensionally (for want of another word) and proportionally differentiated/baffling.

    What is of note, in regard to straight linear and differential geometry, relative to the nature of the Universe; is that if we look up and out into the surrounding Macrocosmic Universe, what we observe are the spheres of celestial bodies, rotating in orbital motion, and their galaxies in rotating circular and spiraling motion. If we then look down and into the surrounding Microcosmic universe, we see very much the same picture, of the sub atomic particles, rotating and orbiting around the nucleus of the atomic sphere.

    And what is apparent in relation to both; is that straight lines do not exist anywhere within the volume (for want of a better word) of space, surrounding the Macrocosmic and Microcosmic spheres of Universal interactivity.

    The straight lines of physical geometry only exist upon, and within the solid celestial spheres of matter, in the form of geometric straight linear shaped crystals, and geometric straight linear shaped objects.

    Continued
  • Feb 2 2014: 1.
    Entropy Driven

    I apologise; in respect of the fact that I find myself guilty in my annoyance, of having committed the same delinquency that I find others doing, and find more deplorable in regard to myself: Which is having scanned, rather than read carefully your notes in regard to the hexagon and circle; however I do not apologise, in regard to my response to your attitude.

    As you fully well know; when you carry out the process of using a radius length, and a compass to obtain the six points of a hexagon, on the circumference of a circle; it is impossible to obtain the exact shape of a hexagon, because there is always a bit of space left over lying between the 6th and 1st point, of the hexagon.

    The reason is that when you use the sharp tip of the compass to produce a fixed radiant point, the tip indents/pierces the surface below, therefore shortening the surface drawn radius length. And this error occurs once when radiating the circle, and a further 5 times when fixing the 6 points on its circumference: Therefore the length of the 6 lines combined, is less than 6 radii or 3 diameter lengths.

    This is where Archimedes went wrong, because it is impossible to draw the “exact area” of a circle by any physical means; because of the latter, and the fact that the 6 errors are compounded by the thickness of the pencil tip, and hence thickness of lines.

    And what has to be recognized, is that the actual and factual size and area of the circle, is not defined by the circumferential line; but rather by the extent/limits, of the actual and factual “area covered”.

    What is extremely confusing, is that if you draw a circle and hexagon as you describe, or for that matter and more obviously apparent, a circle and equilateral triangle; what is visually apparent, is that the straight lines are shorter in length, than the curved lengths of their arcs.

    Entropy Driven post to be continued
  • Feb 1 2014: Theory of everything...? No problem. BC's theory of everything: "There is only spin."
  • Feb 1 2014: OK, well then you are surrounded by 4s & 8s because they add up to 12. The significance of 12 goes back thousands of years. Personally I'm more 5 & 7.
  • Feb 1 2014: You clearly are unwilling or incapable of following simple arithmetic, and your mind is as closed as a clam; and I therefore will close before I really state my mind, as to what I think of yours.

    Goodbye
  • thumb
    Feb 1 2014: No.
  • Jan 31 2014: True, energy can not be created or destroyed but it can exist in a number or forms the most familiar being matter , heat and fields. Matter as we know it now is not forever but is slowly losing its existence as matter and I would guess returning to the field form. When all forms of energy are distributed equally throughout the Universe we will have what I call the great quietus and the universe will require a restart.
    • Jan 31 2014: Energy is substance, and energy density = quanta of matter; quanta of matter = density of energy; and all matter/substance = energy, converts (multiplies downwards into smaller quanta) from e.g. the larger exploding particle of a star going super nova; down to its most infinitesimal particulate extreme = energy's smallest extent.

      The infinitesimal particulate substance of energy, of the exploded super nova; then "re-coalesce" (multiply upwards) to become the dust of the interstellar dust clouds of the Nurseries of the Stars e.g. The Pillars of Creation: And thus the holism (actually infinity and eternity of energy) of energy, can be converted from greater to the smaller, and smaller to the greater, but cannot be created or destroyed; because the process is cyclic in nature.

      Which is why when we look at the 0 degree and 360 degree point of a circular protractor; they are both one and the same, Alpha and Omega point of the Circle.

      And in reality the single 0/360 degree point we mark on a circle, does not exist relative to a circle; because a circle is infinite, as it has no beginning or ending.

      Therefore as the Alpha Point is the Omega Point, and the Omega Point is the Alpha Point; and both are "one and the same beginning and ending of a Circle"; and "IT" can exist "ANY - WHERE & ANY - TIME" on the Circle.

      So: Alpha and Omega, represent the Universal Circle/Cycles; of "All of the Energies That Have Been - All of the Energies That Are - All of the Energies that Are To Come, ad infinitum.

      Entropy:

      And just because heat energy has dissipated into the infinitesimal, and thus has become non-detectible thus "Not Apparently" available; does not mean it no longer exists.

      And its existence is demonstrated; in that its input, "fuels" the spins and orbits of the sub atomic particles of an atom; and via the means of the atoms of a permanent magnet within a conductive coil; we are able convert/coalesce it back into an electrical stream/current = heat & fire.

      Carl
  • Jan 31 2014: I don't think so. But nothing else will.
    • Jan 31 2014: As I said people continue to baffle me; so question for you, do you actually read what is written and then think about it?

      Or as is so common these days in life's rat race and rush; simply scan it quickly, and think you have understood and absorbed what was written.

      Because what was written, answered the question.

      Carl
      • Jan 31 2014: Indeed I read what is written and think about it. What makes you think that I don't? (Or that I didn't?)

        You think that the answer is in the question. Good for you. I see a question that actually does not answer itself. Then, if I read through the description, I see parts that confirm that the question is the same as the one in the title, then a grand finale that asks quite a different question, unless the writer mistakes a theory of everything with everything there is to know (these are not one and the same), but unless this person comes and clarifies I won't start guessing. Therefore I answered the main title question.

        What's the big problem here?

        EDIT: if what you meant is that you already answered the question, well, I wanted to give my own answer. After all, even if both our short answers would be "no", we differ deeply in philosophy and understanding. Therefore my answer is different to yours. My "no" is a direct and unadulterated "no." Yours has so many crevices, convolutions, and turnarounds, that in the end I don't know if you're answering the title question as such, or something else. Happy now?
        • Feb 1 2014: Unadulterated No = unsupported by logic or reasoning

          Quote

          Matter as we know it now is not forever but is slowly losing its existence as matter and I would guess returning to the field form. When all forms of energy are distributed equally throughout the Universe we will have what I call the great quietus and the universe will require a restart.

          Are you saying that matter and energy are not the same thing?

          What is your field form made up from, if not matter/energy = something?

          I am not going to argue with you; because quite simply when people believe in something it becomes unshakable, and they will read things in or out of anything written, in order to maintain their belief or theory.

          Example I first realized back in 1995 that Pi was wrong, when measuring a tube with a micrometer, and it hit me that a circle was a perfectly symmetrical and complete unit of itself; and therefore it could only be equally divided by the use of whole numbers/units or an equal number of sub units/fractions.

          However 2-3 years later when showing diagrams explaining the 3 to 1 ratio to a friend, he could/would not be convinced that is was possible to find the length of a circle; despite the diagrams only involving elementary arithmetic, relative to the circle.

          So not giving up I drew up other diagrams equally with no luck; then I drew up another set using different colors for the diameter and four right angles of the square: And Lo and behold, I saw the expression change on his face and realized he had finally got it at last.

          So I said do you see it now, the circle is three times its diameter length? Astoundingly he replied "oh yes we learnt this in school", and nothing I could say, or reference given could convince him otherwise.

          Therefore regardless of the undeniable accuracy of the elementary arithmetic, applied to the circle, as provided in my latest post; only the open minds of the "Euclidean Unimpressed/Non-Euclidean", are going to be able to accept its legitimacy.
      • Feb 1 2014: When did I say anything about matter and energy? Who are you mistaking me for?

        Unadulterated no = a no that goes directly into what was asked: will science ever tell us everything there is to know? My answer: no, but nothing else will.

        Completely reasoned and logical. Going into convolutions is your preference and you are free to do so. I prefer to assume that the person asking the question does so directly. If not, it's up to the person to clarify. Not up to you and your preferences.

        As per 1 to 3 in circles. False. I measured many circles and diameters myself. Three diameters never cover the whole circle. Elementary geometry can show this unambiguously. If you grab the radius with a drafting compass, and then put the foot of the compass anywhere in the perimeter and draw a line where the painting side touches the same circumference, then use that line for the foot and draw one further, etc, when you reach your way back you have exactly six lines. Each line would be at the same distance from each other. In a straight line this distance is the radius. Since this would draw an hexamer INSIDE the circle, touching the perimeter exactly six times, and since the radius is half the diameter, we have an inscribed hexamer that has a total perimeter of three times the diameter. Since it is INSIDE the circle, the perimeter of the circle cannot but be more than three times the diameter.

        Actually, one way in which geometers/mathematicians tried to solve how many times is the diameter in the circumference (the number pi) used the inside hexamer as a starting point.

        Try it yourself.

        EDIT: I found these web pages that might help interested readers understand my geometrical demonstration:

        http://mathonthemckenzie.blogspot.ca/2012/02/regular-hexagon-inscribed-in-circle.html

        http://counton.org/xplusyfiles/home/issue_1/running_round_in_circles/index.htm
  • Comment deleted

    • Jan 28 2014: With some investigation I believe most of your questions could be answered. As to the brain acting as a receiver, there is evidence of resonance at a distance but, nothing concrete yet. I should warn you that science, rather than answering our questions directly, usually tells us we're asking the wrong question.
  • Jan 27 2014: A majority of us already know the answer to this question - one God, one Truth, elaborately described and preached.

    Conversely, Albert Einstein candidly deducted from his observations that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. This expanding idea that the physical world is subject to being better understood by empirical evidence explains how the modern era has redefined our lives via this kind of scientific investigation and knowledge.

    Richard Dawkins, expertly describes how our natural history precludes any evidence of a creative designer (supernatural power), with incredibly diverse and consistent standing evidence.

    The value in what science can reveal to us is not a matter of quantity or even absolutes, but the quality, or significance of what is being illuminated to a given individual or student who in turn find the information hard to ignore. A situation subject to a meaningful inward journey which can redefine one's personal sense of integrity and conviction.
  • thumb
    Jan 26 2014: I think everything evolves or has a cycle, for humanity to understand everything their is to know. I think this is almost physically impossible and for us to learn everything there is to know we would practically have to outlive the universe and by the time we would know everything I doubt we would even be the same species.
  • thumb
    Jan 25 2014: "Will science ever tell us everything there is to know?"

    Simple answer: No!

    Complex answer: Heck No!

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

    Final Answer: No Way!
  • thumb
    Jan 24 2014: Graihagh,

    The known unknowns-& the unknown unknowns will most likely always be there(or get pushed further out). Plato told that Atlantis was beyond the Pillars of Hercules (Strait of Gibraltar) and in those days that place that realm into the known unknown, Traditionalists claim that the pillars bore a warning-Non plus ultra, or "nothing further beyond". Serving as a warning to the unaware no to go any further beyond was the realm of dragons, the end of a flat Earth and many other metaphysical tales of awe & wonder. In "La Divina Comedia" Dante mentions Ulysses in the pit of the fraudulent counselors and his voyage past the Pillars of Hercules. Ulysses justifies endangering his sailors by the fact that his goal is to gain knowledge of the unknown.

    Then it became "plus ultra"-further beyond.

    We've come a long ways from the days of Plato and there still more to discover, I think is the mystery of not knowing that keeps us in the race.
    Why there is something rather than nothing, why this set of laws and not another, and why we exist at all? Well M-theory could help you answer that but is far from completeness. Take life. We are lucky to be alive. Imagine all the ways physics might have precluded life: gravity could have been stronger, electrons could have been as big as basketballs(& no Higgs field) and so on.
    Does this intuitive "luck" warrant the postulation of God? No // Does it warrant the postulation of an infinity of universes? Probably. In the absence of theory, though, this is nothing more than a hunch doomed - until we start watching universes come into being - to remain untested.
    And:
    There is a silent eloquence
    In every wild bluebell
    That fills my softened heart with bliss
    That words could never tell.--Anne Bronte-1820

    I'm OK with the awe and the enigma & no the chariots full of gods.

    Cheers!
  • thumb
    Jan 24 2014: Wow ... what a truly boring thought to know everything .

    How about just to remember to take the trash out on the right day .
    • Jan 25 2014: Wow...what a truly boring thought to know nothing;

      And only having to remember, to take the trash out on the right day.

      Carl
      • thumb
        Jan 25 2014: Of course there are wise guys in this world that think they know everything .
        • Jan 25 2014: Which is why they find TED conversation's so boring, they prefer to comment on taking the trash out, rather than enter the conversation with a constructive comment, pertinent to the ongoing conversation.
  • Jan 24 2014: Hi Greg Dahlen

    In regard to your question to Colleen Seen

    "do you believe in god, colleen? If god understands everything, is there any purpose for god's existence?"

    Is the god you refer to, one of the many human concepts relating to the nature of the Universe/Creator; because if indeed the Universe/Creator believed itself to be a god, it would be megalomaniacal in nature; which IMO I do not accept.

    As to the purpose of the Universe/Creator; regardless of all theories, it is a simple fundamental fact; that all forms of both physical and metaphysical energy stem from one source, which is the surrounding, and ever Creative/Converting/Evolving Universe; and that is its purpose.

    Therefore it must understand all things, in order to be able to carry out those functions; however IMO such an all knowing and immortal existence would be sheer hell; and so its only recourse would be to live in synchrony with and through, the ever changing and ever evolving lives, quests, and adventures of its living creations.

    And as to how this is possible; consider how it is that although we are consciously aware of the life force, that is running the autonomic central nervous system of our bodies; we do not possess any awareness of what the life force actually is, or how it is doing it. Nor are we aware, of how our subconscious mind interacts with our conscious mind, relative to the surrounding physical reality.

    And it is trying to figure all these things out, that serves to give each of us purpose. and makes life interesting.

    And it totally blows me away: That a scientist/technologist can look at a robot and say "look we have created an artificial intelligence "isn't it clever! and aren't we so clever and smart!".

    While at the same time; both dismissing and forgetting the fact, that it was the Universe that created their intelligence, and thus through their intelligence, that subsequent artificial intelligence.

    Thats what I call smart.

    Carl
  • Jan 24 2014: Hi my name is shaoliangYe.I am from China and i am a student from Btbu university.nice to meet you in TED.can you became my friend?
  • Jan 24 2014: There is an old saying “Too many cooks (scientists) spoil the broth (truth)”, so how can the sciences ever tell us everything there is to know, given the fact that;

    For more than two millennia; the sciences have been unable to carry out the “simple arithmetic” of finding the exact length, and the exact square area of a circle; defined as follows.

    A 120cm diameter x 3 = a Circle 360cm long, with each degree measuring 1cm in length

    A 120cm diameter x 4 = a square 480cm long, with each right angle measuring 120cm in length

    A 120cm diameter x 120cm diameter = 14, 400 square centimeters to the square of the diameter

    A 14, 400 square centimeter square ÷ by 4 = 3, 600 square centimeters

    3, 600 square cm x 3 = 10, 800 square centimeters to the area of the Circle

    Check

    60 cm radius to the Circle squared = 60 square centimetree x 60 square centimeter = 3, 600 square centimeters

    3, 600 square centimeters x 3 = 10, 800 square centimeters to the Circle

    Ergo: The Area of A Circle

    Is Three Times the Radius of the Circle, Squared

    Tri x r2

    And quite simply: How can science ever tell us everything there is to know in respect to; the differential dynamics of the geometric realms, of the infinite and eternal analogue Universe; while it continues to promote the flat, and the straight linear theories of the Greek-Roman alliance; that have prevailed since the times of the ancient Sumerians, and the fall of Babylon.

    And in regard to the fundamental nature of differential geometry; I challenge any mathematician, geometer, scientist, or genius out there;

    To disprove the "simple/elementary arithmetic"; pertaining to finding the exact length, and the exact square area of a circle, as it has been outlined/defined above.

    And note: This truth/simple arithmetic is now out in cyber space, for anyone and everyone to read; and it cannot be buried as it was in the past; and sooner or later, the Greek-Roman approximations of Pi, are going to have to be, re-visited

    Carl
    • Feb 1 2014: Your math is elementarily wrong Carl. Are you in elementary school? (Not making fun of you, just wondering how someone would not know that a circle is diameter times pi, not diameter times 3.) Or maybe you took the bible literally on that account?
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2014: Science can not tell us everything we need to know. It can tell t where are emotions are come from, what part of the brain is triggered. But unless we are all robots, with no choice, science can not come up with a theory to tell us everything there is to know.
    • thumb
      Jan 23 2014: I think we are aware of where our emotions come from. I would say its a matter of saying that science cannot tell us how we are feeling in the moment when we are struck with a certain emotion. You can't measure the experience of anxiety scientifically. That is a subjective experience. Science may be able to tell us what is going on with within our brain and body when we are experiencing anxiety but it can't tell us why we feel that way (perhaps to a certain degree), let alone what we are feeling.
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2014: I agree with the point you are making; theoretically speaking, we do need an end or at least a less hasty progress at the moment, at least in some fields other then medicine. But in reality, it's not gonna happen.
    We can consider science for public use, and science for the sake of science. I believe in none of the senses the hasty rush to reach more, and to find out more, and to discover more is gonna come to an end or even slower down; I see it as an accelerating movement with an increasing acceleration.
    Stephen Hawking has a short article on a similar topic, which I find very helpful.
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2014: very nice point to raise; but let's look at what science has done for us over the past 200 years.
    Sure it has been so enlightening, yet its blinding role is undeniable. So, I believe the same is still true and will continue in the future.
    At the same time, I believe we human beings are so so tiny in comparison with the whole universe- an endless existence and endlessly growing. So, what is the whole or the end to be discovered or uncovered?!
    I think enjoying the whole journey is much more fun the reaching and end, if there's one
    • thumb
      Jan 22 2014: I agree - enjoying the journey is definately an interesting component. However, I don't think you could justify science on this basis. Science needs to be seen to make progress - to have an ultimate goal. Of course, there have been benefits of the journey (medicine, the internet, to name a couple) but I'm sure a curiousity and enjoyment of knowing more ever could justify spending the billions of taxpayers on research. What do you think?
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2014: Science is rapidly progressing & advancing day by day. In the coming few years a revolution in the field of technology is going to come especially in the field of telecommunication!!
  • Jan 22 2014: Hi Vera

    Agree; and perhaps given this age of computerization, perhaps an international iconic language could be developed, via the means of computer analysis and projection.

    Not a great poet, and re the meaning of life which I posted earlier, and wrote so many years ago; I am not so sure that my ever questing mind/soul, could be termed as being as peaceful, and profound any more.

    Cheers Carl
  • Jan 22 2014: Hi Vera

    I agree with you generally speaking, people these days are not interested in what others have to say, but rather only using conversations to promote what they “believe to be” their own opinions; rather than in truth the opinions promoted within their education, relative to both their religious and cultural backgrounds. And it is such early indoctrinations within a culture or society, that instill beliefs which serve to close off young fertile and open minds, against learning/thoughtful examination.

    However over centuries since the time of Newton, and even more so over the more recent decades of the sciences, relative to this commercially driven digital age; it has become apparent, that young minds have been and are being faced with an ever increasing bombardment, of incoming and overwhelming information, to the point that they have been/are forced to scan, rather than examine and read anything properly, and this is why so many nonsensical so called scientific theories have come to the fore; because as you say from your academic perspective;

    “Major classical knowledge has been missed in postmodern thinking. Laymen, and professionals involved in experimental physics or chemistry, or biology do not commonly read classical writing on human mind (not brains)”

    However from my non-scientific and non-academic (“taught-indoctrinated”) perspective; I would add to this, that what is apparent to me in regard to academia and the sciences, is that there is a propensity to soar off into the lofty realms of the imagination; without due regard to observing the basic laws of physics, and in the face of an excess of literary reading, at the expense of physical/empirical learning.

    For (IMO) I believe that in order to understand anything, the mind must serve to meld the observable with the acquired knowledge of the physical/empirical; which are the pre requisites for both creativeness and invention.

    Cheers Carl

    Ps; Will look up Maurice Merleau-Ponty
  • Jan 22 2014: Basic Law of Physics: Energy may be converted, but energy cannot be created nor destroyed; ergo, the energy of the Universe is infinite and eternal (And BB theory non-science)

    The Universe is the "sum" of all of the forms of energy, and all of the forms of metaphysical energy that have existed (still exist) do exist, and will exist, ad infinitum.

    The human "empirical sciences" are the sum all of the scientific discoveries, and scientific knowledge garnered over a "few centuries"; on an infinitesimal grain of sand.

    And given their (corporate driven) technologically organized, parasitic, and unrelenting chemical, biological, and physically destructive attacks, on the limited natural resources of the planet, and thus the sustainability of humanity, relative to the natural world.

    No the sciences will never be able to tell us everything there is to know, because humanity as a whole will not be around much longer; because it refused to refer to, and defer to, the lessons of the histories of the ages, and so develop the essential wisdom, that is necessary for its survival.

    Carl
  • thumb
    Jan 21 2014: Natasha, you wrote "If Heisenberg was/is not a philosopher, i don't know what philosophy is "

    I wished I could have said this myself!

    Hope to talk to you soon.

    (Regarding our human-made language - you might know this rare book by Bruce Gregory, astrophysicist, "Inventing Reality", Physics as Language. So refreshing to read what this scientist himself thinks…)
  • Jan 21 2014: Questions

    How can the Universe be infinite and eternal?

    How could the Universe not exist, and the nothingness remaining (BB theory) not be infinite and eternal?

    Answer

    The Universe exists; because it is impossible, that it could not exist.
  • Jan 21 2014: Continued

    Look to a child its face filled with rapture and joy, as its fascination becomes an understanding of what is. Look to its cries as it wonders and stumbles on its journey to that understanding, and as it picks it’s little self up and blames no one, and proceeds on its clumsy little way.

    For this is life, we stumble and we fall for we are only human after all. You in the arrogance and folly of your youth would challenge that which you can not even vaguely comprehend. First there must be bio-diversity (expansion), before there can be bio-integration (contraction), and so oneness of the whole, yet each individual and unique unto itself.

    Carl
  • Jan 20 2014: Hi Vera

    Thank you for your reply, and the time you took in composing it; I am not replying to it immediately as it deserves a thoughtful response; before I do, and will respond.

    Thanks again

    Cheers Carl
    • thumb
      Jan 20 2014: Dear Carl. You've started a very engaging conversation, and one who reads your posts has to take some time for comprehending what you're saying. It's a pleasure to talk to you. Thank you for giving me a spark for my own thinking!
      • Jan 20 2014: Hi Vera

        Am still thinking and considering (Never stops) before replying; I am pleased you took time to read my posts thank you for that.

        I do understand when you say it takes some time comprehending what I am saying, as a friend said it was impossible to read what I had written, without thinking about it, at the same time: The greatest problem I find is that of converting my thoughts into the written word, whereas it is much easier to do so verbally, due to the fact that written words, do not contain the intonations and nuances of the spoken word.

        Also the subject matter is often so complex, that the subsequent and resultant thought processes involved are also complex, and cannot be, or are too elongated to explained on paper. Also I suffer from the same fault that I see in others work, that of assuming that others will quite obviously be able to see where I am going, or understand what I am saying, without need of further simplification.

        Cheers Carl.
        • thumb
          Jan 20 2014: "The greatest problem I find is that of converting my thoughts into the written word, whereas it is much easier to do so verbally, due to the fact that written words, do not contain the intonations and nuances of the spoken word."

          Our human language is very conventional, and there is no communication such as our human language ever possible in the ultimately vital intuitive wilderness. Written, or pronounced words are not reproducing reality. In order to understand at least some portion of what has been said or written, we have to translate these dry symbols into out own living sensations, images and thoughts. Manmade languages are about flat symbolic images on flat surfaces, or symbolic sounds which no animals or foreigners take as something truly meaningful.

          One of the most important characteristic of our language (just my opinion) is that after processing, that takes time, it can express only our past experience, behind the present time, even when we express our recent experience. It works only "afterwords" so to speak. Unlike our half-dead symbolic language all communications in wilderness are about present moments. However, I trust this gives us some opportunity to look "back" and "examine " our previous experience using our consciousness - producing and directing the most bizarre theatrical scenarios of our realities. But this subject is overwhelming and needs another special conversation.

          Back to your comment - I was born in Belgium, travel throughout Europe since I was a very young teen, but I still cannot speak any language well, feeling - I'm a perpetual foreigner on this planet.

          Love your comment on how difficult to "cast" our vivid thoughts into human-made language. Perhaps, only a great poet can somehow manage to create some magical expressions through his unique combinations of words, but this magic may live only between the words.

          I'll be replying to the rest of your wonderful post sometime later.
  • Jan 19 2014: Interesting how my question;

    How can science tell us everything; when it continuously promotes fictions, rather than empirical facts;

    Was simply ignored; as were the empirical facts attendant within my post.

    And this really is the nature of Academia, if you cant actually answer a question, either ignore it, or dream up a theorem.

    Or as Einstein put; "If the facts do not fit the theorem, change the facts" which translates to

    "If the truth interferes with your fiction, change it = lie".

    And indeed the sciences are riddled with assumptions, and such fictions which have no place in science, which is supposed to be empirically based/factual.

    And as long as the sciences allow theoretical fictions, and approximations, to be their guide, rather than facts; the sciences will never even vaguely get close, to understanding the nature of the Universe = Everything there is to know.

    Cheers Carl

    PS:

    Pity Einstein is no longer alive; as I would dearly love to have asked him, in regard to his theory of acceleration and gravity;

    How it could be; given that he asserted that nothing can travel faster than light; that the atom based structures of a man and a lift; could out accelerate the speed of light , of a torch beam photons, traveling across the width of the lift;

    Especially given that the man, and the lift, and the torch body and beam, are all accelerating, and traveling upwards/forwards, at exactly the same speed.

    And as for science being enjoyable for most people;

    Yes indeed, no doubt for the scientists involved, and thus gaining their grants at the tax payers expense; but I doubt that the hundreds of millions of homeless, and malnourished people, and starving people in the third world; could give a damn about scientists satisfying their curiosity, at their/our expense.
    • thumb
      Jan 19 2014: Carl, I think that most of the participants of this conversation, except a couple of independently thinking individuals, are not particularly interested to understand what others are saying. It is a fashion of our age - just Express your opinion, do not learn!

      The question itself is old and answered - scientists debated it in the beginning of the 20th century. But people do not read or learn much since, they WRITE !

      I see some members passionately believe in possible completeness of sciences to the extreme in which some scientists believed in the 20th century

      Others, like you, or myself, hopefully agree that the world is changing rapidly and our challenges will never be "exhausted"..

      Major classical knowledge has been missed in postmodern thinking. Laymen, and professionals involved in experimental physics or chemistry, or biology do not commonly read classical writing on human mind (not brains)

      Maurice Merleau-Ponty, outstanding French researcher and philosopher, writes about how our impressions of reality in mundane life and sciences create our illusions in which we so believe. This work should be studied Before we do any scientific research, or jump to some conclusions regarding our knowledge.

      /While we so carefully design instruments with which we "penetrate" into matter, we need to examine our own mental ability in digesting what we may see/perceive. /

      Thank you for your posts - I read them and respect your thoughts!
  • thumb
    Jan 19 2014: i think Science will only guide and tell us what to know on what we want to know;relative questioning and knowledge, but not everything,
    but first what we need to define by 'everything' what do you (we) mean by 'everything', because this is relative as per generation or civilization that is doing the questioning. but the only questions that has been asked and still hovering on the mindset of humankind from now to the future is about Life and death, out of these the most 'ask(ed) question is where are we going from here after death. that's i can think of at present.
    Interesting and mind engaging debate, Jackson.
  • Jan 19 2014: No!!!

    How can science tell us everything; when it continuously promotes fictions, rather than empirical facts; e.g. the Universe is just 15 billion years old.

    Reference; The Age Newspaper, Saturday 19th of December “1999”

    Quote: Today astronomers announced that they had observed the oldest supernova to date; this exploding “Star” called Albinoni being some “18 billion light years away”. A light year being the distance light travels in a year “about” 9.5 Trillion Kilometres.

    Therefore Albinoni is “RADIALLY” 18 billion light years away from us; therefore the DIAMETER of the known Universe is 36 billion light years; and the CIRCUMFERENCE is 108 billion x 9•5 trillion kilometres (A light year) long.

    "Newtons First Law":

    An object will continue in a direct line, unless an external force acts upon it.

    Reality the centre of gravity of an object (e.g. Snooker Ball) will move directly forward in line with/from the point of impact, and cease, when the energy of its impetus runs down.

    The direct straight forward motion of an object can only be achieved; if a constant external force is applied to maintain its straight forward motion. E.g. a rolling ball needs a perfectly flat surface; a projectile curves with gravity, unless aerodynamically shaped, or other external forces are applied; nothing can progress in a straight line, over the Earth's surface, as it is curved; a straight line cannot be drawn, without force being applied to the pencil, and a straight ruler used to guide the pencil.

    "Archimedes Pi"

    Given a Diameter 120cm long x 3; the Circle will be exactly 360 cm long; and each Degree will measure exactly 1cm long.

    Ergo the ratio of a Circles Circumferential length to its Diameter length “IS” 3 to 1 full stop.

    "Einstein"

    E does not = m x c squared

    Because mass = E + Gravity

    Gravity = E (As force = Energy)

    Therefore as mass = E + E

    E cannot = mass

    Cheers Carl
  • thumb
    Jan 19 2014: We will always only play a role in the universe. Nothing can be everything, however everything can be a part, that makes up the units for one more vast, and more complex thing, and to that thing, that we are a part of, we make up one thing. Just like everything gets smaller and smaller, it also gets larger and larger. There are no limits to the size of the cosmos. There is no edge. I think that one of the main reasons that we invented rockets was to fuel our curiosity of weather or not heaven exists, but what we found fueled our imaginations, and we began to become more curious about what is really out there, so we built things like the Hubble telescope, and it has sent us remarkable images of an unending world, that is beyond our world. I am glad to be a part of it. :)
  • thumb
    Jan 18 2014: Well i want to put it in a very practical and short way.

    Till now humans have lived 50,000-60,000 years on the earth and still they didn't understand earth properly and
    you know there are billions of galaxies trillions of planets which they are not even sure what total amount is, which is even made of different gases or things we don't even know yet so its most likely impossible for humans to give the answer to everything.

    Thank you
  • Jan 18 2014: The question remains: “Is Science really capable of answering the ultimate questions (about “man”, “the universe”, “God”) on the basis of sure knowledge?” The answer to this question lies in the analysis of the Scientific Method.

    The scientific method of obtaining knowledge consists in observation and experiment. Its important to examine the validity of observation in order to find out as to how far it can help us in solving with any certainty the ultimate problems.

    Scientifically viewed, every observation is made up of three factors, namely: (1) the Observer; (2) the Object which is observed; (3) Conditions under which the observation is made.

    All the three factors which constitute a scientific observation, are variable. In other words, any and every scientific observation liable to vary in its accuracy according to any one or two or all of these factors. The margin of this possibility of error in scientific observation becomes wider and wider as the objects observed become more subtle and more distant.

    This means that physical science can be a good guide and source of knowledge only in our immediate, and mostly physical, problems— although even there it is not immune from error.

    Indeed, it has been making lot of mistakes, as is well known to every person of the history of science. As regards the ultimate problems, which comprehend within themselves the entire universe and all aspects of existence, it should be very plain, even to a person of ordinary intelligence, that it would be extremely unscientific and even foolish to expect sure and accurate solutions from physical science.

    We may sight an instance concerning the ever-changing character of scientific conclusions as regards the ultimate problems. Leave out the pre-Newtonian era to be more charitable. Newton affirmed and proclaimed to the world that the universe was three-dimensional. But then came Einstein who proved, again scientifically, that Newtonian physics was all wrong in its foundations.
    • thumb
      Jan 18 2014: Hello Saadiq, Sciences can only prove its own observations by artificially conditioned, repetitive setups in labs. Sciences are not able to prove any sort of reality as it is for great many reasons. I'm not saying that some other fields of knowledge and religion might prove anything Beyond our own human impressions of our experience.

      Our perceptions are not at all "designed" to reflect objective reality - but this is a new field of knowledge we have been missing.

      Our consciousness has no slightest progress for millennia, but it becomes more obese gulping information we cannot digest. No matter how well we may augment our sight, Scientific information is forever relying on the old, extremely limited and ephemeral sense-perception of sight.

      We shall revise and revaluate our misleading "knowledge" in order to make a good progress.

      When you suggest "The answer to this question lies in the analysis of the Scientific Method." It is crucially importantl to analyze what this "Scientific Method" really means. So far, the best answer describing this method is this:

      "All right," said Deep Thought. "The Answer to the Great Question..."
"Yes..!"
"Of Life, the Universe and Everything..." said Deep Thought.
"Yes...!"
"Is..." said Deep Thought, and paused.
"Yes...!"
"Is..."
"Yes...!!!...?"
"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.”
      Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

      Thank you for reading :)
  • Jan 18 2014: Why? The eternal question. I personally think it will always be there. Because every science discovery leads to another question. Like, look at the discovery of cells, (Robert Hooke 1665), that lead to finding out what was in the cells, and much of what is today's biology.
  • Jan 17 2014: Wat might be more important than "knowing everything" is what we do with what we do know.

    However little that is.
  • Jan 16 2014: Science may look different from philosophy, but it's not, actually. Philosophers are just more aware of the fact that searching is the key, although they are prompted by their greed of truth. It is supposed that a good scientist should have a similar approach, owing to their greed of explanation. As matter of fact, they strive to make the world understandable, but without getting to know each single thing. Irrespective of the idea of being wielder of a complete knowledge and the dangers which could possibly derive from that, science must devote itself to comprehend HOW not WHAT. By that I mean, everything is not the aim but only the context. To be more precise, I should say "the whole". Researchers are required to have that light in their eyes which let people recognise their faith. Science is alwaiys compared to religion and they are considered contrasting matters, but the trustworthyness in our limits is the powerful tool of science. You may believe in God or not ( and, believe me, I am so far away from feeling a religious person), but we perceive immediately that if we dare to know, we love our barriers becauese we don't feel unchained. The whole is God and what is relavant is the fact that we merely tend to him or it. Probably there is no God and no Whole, but it's not our business, if we want to employ all our energy in science.
  • thumb
    Jan 15 2014: On a universal scale, humans are tiny, insignificant, ignorant creatures. We can't even go to our own moon or our nearest star neighbor. Our knowledge is relatively vast compared to early man in the African rift valley. A billionth of an apple is a very small bit of apple, but it is vastly more than a trillionth of an apple. If our multiverse is the apple, we are still missing a view of the tree. If we find the tree, can we comprehend the orchard, then the farm and so on.?

    Though it would be fun to see it all....
  • thumb
    Jan 15 2014: I think yes. But if we don't forget that science are us, we, humans, shape, ask and answer science's questions. So, the matter could be presented somewhat like "Will be humans one day able to answer questions in science? I firmly think yes Wait and see!
  • Jan 15 2014: I don't think so! If we suppose that one day, science will explain and prove everything, that human beings can no longer discover new things because they already did, well, life will on earth will end : we won't need the science, the philosophy and the art of thinking anymore. Our daily lives will loose their vitality and their sense of the undiscovered and unexplained unkown. Life won't be worth living.
  • Jan 15 2014: If we know everything, does science exist?
  • thumb
    Jan 15 2014: Graihagh,

    No.


    Cheers!
  • Jan 14 2014: I think no, mostly because human nature is always to be curious and much just depends on oppinion.
  • Jan 14 2014: I'm not sure in much of anything....but I feel that science can't make you feel loved. It can only make you feel educated. I love science. I love the way I get fascinated with new discovery. I love that its always changing. No matter how much we learn, it turns out, in time, to be wrong. We and probably everything that exists is going to end someday.
    I have lived in a Christian home for over 20yrs but having a science mind. I don't think I'm a Christian or a believer of any other faith and I'm not good at making that choice. However, for some strange reason I would rather be loved than right..so

    Science: everything ends...
    God: ever lasting life.
    Humm.......:)
  • thumb
    Jan 14 2014: Yes, Certainly it will tell about each and everything you wish to know now. But being there in future when you will have each and every answered queries of yours, There will be much and more queries of you, which will automatically be generated and this process will never come to an end. And if it will stop then human curiosity will die, Which in itself is Impossible.
  • thumb
    Jan 14 2014: Science does not mean knowing the truth but being conscientious in what you do. And the truth is something very personal and individual.
    What I mean is: if something does not fit into your personal paradigma you will not research it. So, first, you have to change the minds of the scientists for being more open-minded. Only after that it makes sense to look for a theory of everything (even the things you don't want to know ;)).

    In nearly all physical standard models, there is no evidence for conciousness. But if you can not explain conciousness, how can you be sure of yourself?
    An exception to the rule comes from a former German physicist, Burkhard Heim, a pupil of Heisenberg, who developed a 12 dimensional universe where thought and consciousness are part of the theory, where ideas may become reality (or realities) and where 'souls' (as carrier of information) may exist outside a 4-dimensional space. He based his calculations not on fields but on metrical aspects. He was not very religious, this was all just a result of his calculations as he asked himself "what are states of postmortality?".

    This is quite groundbreaking stuff, I think, and another step towards "the truth".

    Cheers
  • Jan 14 2014: As optimistic and enthusiastic I am about science, I really don't think we will ever come to the point of knowing everything. I read somewhere that we currently know less than 1% of all the science there is to uncover.

    Science also isn't completely accurate. They are most likely educated guesses (to put it in weak terms) and when answering one question, it always leads to a few more.

    And also, science can only explain the who, what, where, when and how but never the why. Scientists say that the universe was created by the big bang theory. But do we know why?
    • Jan 14 2014: Yes , science can only explain who,what,where,when and how but not Why ? Why an atom has neutron , proton and electrons ? Why did atom existed at the first place .
      • thumb
        Jan 15 2014: "Why" is an irrelevant question, as it implies "intention" or "purpose" or perhaps even "design." The real question we should be asking is, "why ask why?"
  • thumb
    Jan 14 2014: I don't think so we can unravel all the questions. Well we can answer most of them but some questions are so hard to answer like "Do god exist?", "Is there a limit to the universe?" so on related to astronomical science which can't be answered. Many scientists guess the answers but no physical interpretation of the answer is given which can't lock down the answer. I think so the Universe don't want to let it's heir know the answers to some of the questions and the moment we get the answer about how this world works the universe will stop itself. Leaving a huge silence!
  • Jan 14 2014: No because there will always be questions, some not in the realm of Science but even in science there always be questions.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2014: To know all things we would essentially need to be able to contain the whole universe in our minds, from the beginning of infinite space and time to the end within our thought processes. All truths, lies and nuances will be contained within this. We are very far from this. We would need to to be omnipresent in every subatomic particle having an understanding of the macro and micro implications of each flow of electrons, neutronians, and other discovered and undiscovered subatomic particles. We would need to know the history of each planet, species, constellation and still to be discovered bodies and substances in extreme detail.

    At present our minds are heuristic and filled with contradictions on a macro and micro scale. Science at present is a minute observation of a minute world in a minute existence in a macrocosm of time space and whatever else there is that we don't see or grasp. Besides that our lives are but a breath, and chances are we may not survive to the point of attaining immortality and indestructibility, never mind, time travel, light travel and omnipresence.

    For us to reach complete understanding we would need to become God.
  • Jan 13 2014: This is very nice scinece for all.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2014: It may be possible to know all the generic rules of the universe but for knowing all the various executions of those rules would be too vast to know—so no!

    The reasoning goes if it takes the whole universe to hold all those variations’ information then it would take a storage device of equivalent capacity.

    So my point is there will always be another cool thing to know around the corner.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2014: as human beings we have come far in the world of science, but as big and vast as this world is and with it being filled full of surprises I really doubt that science will answer all are questions, that being said over time the human race has only gotten smarter and with the future ahead I can only guess that the generations to come will be beyond expectation unless for some strange reason we all start getting dumber....
  • Jan 13 2014: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
  • Jan 13 2014: There are lots of thing existing in the world, earlier we were not aware of many things and now we are. So, we had explored many thing and in future the process will go on. Lots of discoveries done and many need to discover. It doesn't matter whether we discovered all or just bit of it but all the discoveries should go on......
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2014: I think science will one day provide us with the tools to answer all the questions we face. The questions we ask are always tied to a desire for an answer that impacts on our:
    (1)-ongoing existence in time and space individually and collectively (survival) and,
    (2)-need to qualify and quantify a purpose for our finite experience of consciousness and self-awareness (we are here because...).

    I do believe that science is sadly given an unquestioned regency over other avenues of inquiry relating to the above 2.
    This is not to say that science (the evolving rule based, algorithmic, and reliably repeatable practice of appreciating natural phenomena) is not a good 'policeman' in maintaining an objective control in standardization of beliefs independent of religion, cultural bias, and past subjective experience. However there are times when past avenues (like meditation, theism, humanism, and good old fashioned luck, etc.) brought more clarity for individual minds than the constant addictive quest for the 'holy grail' of inquiry...the answer to:
    "Why are we here?"
    'Everything we need to know' is only the beginning. What we will then be faced with is agreeing on the avenues and practices that will have us functioning coherently when we are plugging away at 'Everything we need to be'.
    It begs the question...is religion way ahead of it's time??
  • thumb

    K H

    • 0
    Jan 13 2014: No, we'll never discover the theory of everything, even if it exists. First of all, we only perceive our world in three dimensions. That already restricts how much of the universe we can perceive.

    We also have short lifespans and are too easily impacted by our direct environment to judge without bias.Though science is meant to be a field free of bias, we are far from perfect as living things, therefore there is no way for our reasoning to be perfect. If the scientific community worked together more than it does, then of course we would be farther ahead than we are right now, but we still won't get far enough. Watson and Crick ripped a majority of their research off of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, whereas if they had all been working together the structure of DNA may have been discovered earlier. And that's only one example.

    Due to our limited range of senses, we are confined within a certain way of perceiving the universe. Why are we thinking about a theory of everything, when many people around the world don't have enough food to eat or a place to live? Why are we thinking about how the universe works when we can't even understand how our own brains work? Do we really have time to think about a theory of everything? Stephen Hawking himself is adopting a pessimistic stance on this issue. He doesn't think we will be around in 50 years.
  • Jan 13 2014: Surely there are break throughs but what I hear more than anything is "a new study indicates" this and then "a new study indicates" that, often enough the exact opposite conclusion. We have come a long ways in the last 100 years, but (no offense) we would be foolish to even start thinking about knowing everything. As impressive as our growth has been we are just scratching the surfac e of almost every field currently being studied. We have a LONG way to go. Is there any where or anything that we feel we know absolutely everything about?
  • Jan 12 2014: I think the science never stop heading forward, the discoveries never ends, and simply looking at it, I may say thats because the world an the planets never stop changing, every second the world is about to change and about to become bigger (as Stephen Hawking found it). So even the realities on earth changes every second. This is not about the past, what is the past?! Every second that passes becomes the past. So there is always something to find out. Beside discovering planet earth, the whole universe is waiting for us to be found out. :)
    Thanks for your question anyway:)
  • thumb
    Jan 11 2014: at best, it's an organised guess.

    my belief is that we are integral in constructing reality around us. science always finds what it's looking for because we do not exist separately from the rest of existence.

    science provides a lot of description and careful observation and measurement but very little in the way of "why?".
  • Jan 11 2014: Don't, know.
    Don't care.
    In the here and now, there's a lot that "science" can still do, and that's what matters.
  • Jan 11 2014: Science is already telling us everything we know. :-)
    • Jan 12 2014: Hi Gord

      Science has not told me everything I know: It is tool of discovery that serves to provide information for our psyches to work with; and to the contrary, the sciences have and do promote things, that I know to be wrong, and therefore it was not science; but rather the reasoning of my psyche, that informed me these things were wrong.

      And as Keith W Henline said:

      22 hours ago: I would be happy if they would just stop lying to us for corporate gains!

      Cheers Carl
  • Jan 11 2014: Carl What about Entropy?
    • Jan 11 2014: Hi Henry

      Ref, OED: 1. Measure of the unavailability of a systems thermal energy for conversion into work. 2. A measure of the disorganization or degradation of the Universe.

      1. Not applicable; e.g. when an atomic explosion is triggered by splitting the atom, during the "expansion" of the "released" super speed energy, which is termed the explosion; all of the thermodynamic energy is released, and the work is the force of the explosion (Or Nova).

      2. Sheer Human Arrogance: There is no disorganization to the Universe; because all of the laws that apply to the order/ratio/mathematics/geometry/engineering/construction/formation = blueprints of all matter; are also inherent, within all states that we term as being chaotic; if this were not so, order/uniformity could not emerge out of a state, we term as being chaos.

      It is hard to get ones head around; but relative to the holism (actually and rather infinity and eternity) of the energy of the Universe/All energy; there is no such thing as a disconnection of or between energy.

      E.g. Atom A on one side of a cube of metal, is connected to atom B, on the opposite side of the cube of metal by all of the atomic energy interactions, that are taking place in the distance of metal that exists, between the two atoms.

      The Universe did not start or begin; it is a cyclic continuum;

      As defined by the laws of physics

      Energy May be converted but cannot be created or destroyed; Ergo the energy of the Universe is infinite and eternal, full stop.

      There must be an input of energy, for there to be an output of energy; Ergo Lemaitre's; "Nothing" + "Abracadabra" = "God Particle" theory; not only flies in the face of the laws of physics; it has the same value as;

      E = mc2: States that energy (E) is equivalent to a unit of mass (m) multiplied by the constant speed of light (c) squared (2)

      But, E does not = mass: As mass = E + Gravity (G = E)

      Therefore E + G = E + E

      And what unit/value of mass? e.g. lithium or uranium

      Cheers Carl
  • Jan 10 2014: Will we know everything? If knowing means we understand everything and have a feel for its truth the answer has to be no. The human mind was formed for survival not for for understanding.
    The time will come when we do have a complete theory of the material universe but it may reside in the intelligence of a machine rather than the human mind. And an understanding of the material universe does not include some philosophical questions such as how did it all start, when did it all start, why did it all start and who started it if such an entity exists.
  • Jan 10 2014: At what point does an asymptote reach its defining line?
  • thumb
    Jan 10 2014: A "Theory of Everything" will not be an exclusive product of reductionist science.

    If anything, it will come about through a unification of all that the mind is capable.

    Consciousness is a barrier to reductionist science, yet it is enmeshed and legitimised in quantum physics to the point where particles can exist - or they do not - depending on the presence of a conscious observer. If consciousness has that kind of power, what else is reductionist science missing out on?

    I have to say that reductionist science has become something of an orthodoxy - a kind of indoctrinated secular version of religion, that has become blind to the human condition as a holistic state.
    • Jan 10 2014: That is not how the badly-named "observer effect" works. The "observer effect" is not a statement of fundamental "reality". Instead, it is a combination of recognizing the limits of models and the simple fact that it is actually not at all possible to observe anything without interacting with it in some way, no matter how small. However, the existence of any "particle" does not depend upon whether or not a "conscious observer" is present, since thoroughly non-conscious interactions can just as easily take the place of that "conscious observer".
      • thumb
        Jan 11 2014: By "non-conscious interactions", do you mean camera recordings?

        At some point, the product of a recording has to be observed somewhere along the line of experimental procedure, even if it is via a CCD image, photographic print or video footage.

        Are you saying that observational interactions no longer count if a consciousness sees only a virtual second or third generation image of an experiment? A virtual interaction is still a conscious interaction.

        How do you (or anybody else) know that the direct observations of an observer are any different from indirect ones in the weird arena of quantum mechanics? Wouldn't waveform collapse occur anyway?
        • Jan 11 2014: No, I mean particles happening to "hit" other particles, or any other purely physical interaction that never involves an "observer" as we normally use the term. Interactions have NEVER "counted" if some "consciousness sees" anything at all. The way you present the "observer effect" is just mystical mumbo-jumbo claptrap. Observation by a "consciousness" is not necessary for reality to exist or even to occupy any specific state, never has been.
  • Jan 10 2014: Thus far, it seems, Science, in discovering truth about the Universe, generates many MORE questions than it does answers. It's a vicious, lovely cycle.
  • thumb
    Jan 10 2014: How would you ever know?
  • Jan 10 2014: it might tell us all we think there is to know, but if there is something left that we don't know, how will we know that we don't know?
    • thumb
      Jan 10 2014: The unknown unknowns - the ones we don’t know we don’t know...

      http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_firestein_the_pursuit_of_ignorance.html

      I like Firestein's quote about the magic well - no matter how many buckets of water you take out, there's always another bucket to be had. If you think of scientific knowledge as this magic well - there's always more to be known and with every bucket of water is a a realisation of how much more ignorant we are.

      How do you think we can therefore justify science & funding, etc on this basis? That science can never progress.
      • Jan 11 2014: i think you're misunderstanding. learning that there is more to learn isn't the same as going backwards, but a double positive - not only are you increasing your knowledge but you're increasing your view of what other knowledge lies ahead. that's a fantastic justification for science funding.

        an analogy to help you understand:
        you climb a mountain, and from the top you see 2 more even higher mountains beyond. what have you learned? far from a pointless exercise, you learned about the mountain you climbed, as well as about mountain climbing in general, and more than that you learned more than you ever knew before about the world you live in. there are 2 mountains you don't know about where before there was only 1, but that's knowing more, not less.