The limits of human understanding

[CELS]

I do apologize for asking a question that in all likelihood is addressed in any philosophy 101 class, and perhaps most high school science curricula as well.

I have one question, which I suppose can be divided into two questions for sake of simplicty.

1. Can we possibly understand the origin of the universe through scientific discovery? Many people argue that science can only explain how things work, without really answering why. I’m not well-read when it comes to natural sciences. I seem to remember that Stephen Hawking argued in a recent book that there was no need to believe in a god to explain creation, because new discoveries concerning gravitational force might explain how our universe was created. Which, of course, leads to the question of why gravitation works as it does. So, can science actually discover the cause of all things, if there is such a thing?

2. Is it reasonable to assume that humans are capable of understanding how the universe works? I’m not arguing that some things are impossible to understand, I’m just raising a question about the stupidity of mankind. It just seems presumptuous to assume that most humans are able, given enough time and scientific advances, to understand the structure of our universe. Imagine a race of creatures with an IQ between 50 and 60. To such a race, it might be hard to imagine humans having an IQ of 100, or even upwards of 200. Problems that seem impossible to solve for the low IQ race, could be fairly easy for intelligent humans. In other words, intelligence (and by the way, I do realize IQ is not the ultimate way of measuring intelligence) does not appear to be something you either possess or do not possess. Instead, it seems to be a gradient. Assuming that a race of creatures with an IQ between 50 and 60 would probably never achieve the same understanding of the universe as humans possess, isn’t it presumptuous to assume that everything is entirely comprehensible to humans? Just off the top of my head, I’m guessing there are some aspects of the way that multiple dimensions relate to each other that are simply impossible for humans to comprehend. Also, there are aspects of quantum mechanics that seem paradoxical to humans, while they may not seem that way if one has a sufficiently high intelligence.

Again, I do apologize for asking such fundamental question. If you can’t be bothered answering, by all means point me to the appropriate “Ask Jeeves” video or Yahoo! Answers page.

[James_S_Saint]

@CELS

1. Can we possibly understand the origin of the universe through scientific discovery? Many people argue that science can only explain how things work, without really answering why. I’m not well-read when it comes to natural sciences. I seem to remember that Stephen Hawking argued in a recent book that there was no need to believe in a god to explain creation, because new discoveries concerning gravitational force might explain how our universe was created. Which, of course, leads to the question of why gravitation works as it does. So, can science actually discover the cause of all things, if there is such a thing?

No, because it requires logical thought not merely empirical observation. And with logical thought, empirical observations are unnecessary concerning such origins.

@CELS

2. Is it reasonable to assume that humans are capable of understanding how the universe works? I’m not arguing that some things are impossible to understand, I’m just raising a question about the stupidity of mankind. It just seems presumptuous to assume that most humans are able, given enough time and scientific advances, to understand the structure of our universe. Imagine a race of creatures with an IQ between 50 and 60. To such a race, it might be hard to imagine humans having an IQ of 100, or even upwards of 200. Problems that seem impossible to solve for the low IQ race, could be fairly easy for intelligent humans. In other words, intelligence (and by the way, I do realize IQ is not the ultimate way of measuring intelligence) does not appear to be something you either possess or do not possess. Instead, it seems to be a gradient. Assuming that a race of creatures with an IQ between 50 and 60 would probably never achieve the same understanding of the universe as humans possess, isn’t it presumptuous to assume that everything is entirely comprehensible to humans? Just off the top of my head, I’m guessing there are some aspects of the way that multiple dimensions relate to each other that are simply impossible for humans to comprehend. Also, there are aspects of quantum mechanics that seem paradoxical to humans, while they may not seem that way if one has a sufficiently high intelligence.

Again, I do apologize for asking such fundamental question. If you can’t be bothered answering, by all means point me to the appropriate “Ask Jeeves” video or Yahoo! Answers page.

We live on the planet of the Apes.
The understanding you speak of can be written, but very, very few will ever fully understand it. Such has been the case for thousands of years. Nothing has changed in that regard.

[CELS]

@James S Saint

No, because it requires logical thought not merely empirical observation. And with logical thought, empirical observations are unnecessary concerning such origins.

Well, certainly logical thought is not necessarily separate from science? Also, it seems that so much of our understanding of the universe comes from empirical observation, particularly at a quantum level. How can we apply logic to a reality we have never perceived? Understanding quantum mechanics a priori seems impossible. Of course, that brings us back to my second question.

@James S Saint

The understanding you speak of can be written, but very, very few will ever fully understand it. Such has been the case for thousands of years. Nothing has changed in that regard.

Would you care to elaborate or post a reference? I don’t know you quite well enough to just take your word for it. Clearly, the human understanding of the universe as evolved greatly over thousands of years.

[James_S_Saint]

@CELS

@James S Saint

No, because it requires logical thought not merely empirical observation. And with logical thought, empirical observations are unnecessary concerning such origins.

Well, certainly logical thought is not necessarily separate from science?

It wasn’t intended to be, but it has become separate and often completely left out. Thus all of the theories you now read (QM among them) are not logically qualified, merely speculated with mathematics (logic) handling some of the details, but not the fundamental concerns and especially not the critical definitions.

@CELS

@James S Saint

The understanding you speak of can be written, but very, very few will ever fully understand it. Such has been the case for thousands of years. Nothing has changed in that regard.

Would you care to elaborate or post a reference? I don’t know you quite well enough to just take your word for it. Clearly, the human understanding of the universe as evolved greatly over thousands of years.

To those extremely few, it hasn’t changed a bit. No one accurately recognizes brilliance but the brilliant, so it gets hidden by the forest of delusions of brilliance. Science is merely about the details, nothing really new but the toys.

[CELS]

Confucius once said “If I hold up one corner and a man cannot come back to me with the other three, I do not continue the lesson”. I take it you’re a fan of that approach.

At any rate, thanks for your input. I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t understand why you’re saying it.

[Nah]

@CELS

I have one question, which I suppose can be divided into two questions for sake of simplicty.

1. Can we possibly understand the origin of the universe through scientific discovery? Many people argue that science can only explain how things work, without really answering why. I’m not well-read when it comes to natural sciences. I seem to remember that Stephen Hawking argued in a recent book that there was no need to believe in a god to explain creation, because new discoveries concerning gravitational force might explain how our universe was created. Which, of course, leads to the question of why gravitation works as it does. So, can science actually discover the cause of all things, if there is such a thing?

I don’t think so.
Any theory is limited by the premises it’s based upon.
And “all things” would require a theory without any limit.
It’s like asking if we can see all around with our eyes without moving our head.
Because of its orientation and focus, we have limited field of vision and thus we cannot see “all around”.
It’s just the nature of theory (or scientific method, or any logical perspective) to be limited and conditional.

2. Is it reasonable to assume that humans are capable of understanding how the universe works? I’m not arguing that some things are impossible to understand, I’m just raising a question about the stupidity of mankind.

I do think we are A LOT more stupid than we would like to pretend.
And that reduces our chance to be less stupid.
The tendency to believe that humans are intelligent is a lot stronger if you are raised in the monotheist culture (even if you don’t believe one of these silly childish religion).

Two main causes of our stupidity is the lack of sustained higher awareness level and the natural tendency of any focused awareness that see the narrow focused region as if it’s whole/all/everything, I would say.
Because of these, combined with other reasons, we are generally unable to think in very logical, systematic, and orderly manner.
This is applicable to the people with high IQ, too, as far as I’ve observed.

However, some people can “understand” things without thinking (and often without the ability to explain them), in some cases. I don’t consider this as the “full understanding”, but it’s better than nothing and it can be more precise than badly reasoned thought.

I do think it takes both logical and more “direct” type of understanding to fully grasp things, or to be fully comfortable/confident with the understanding.
When we gain a little more proficiency in thinking and understanding, we would understand the extent of our own stupidity.
What some of us call as “civilization” or “culture” is just insanely stupid.
And I don’t think it’s limited to just us, humans.
If there are ETs, angels, goods, whatever, I think it’s probable that they are also stupid in their own way, because of the nature of the awareness.

[James_S_Saint]

@CELS

Confucius once said “If I hold up one corner and a man cannot come back to me with the other three, I do not continue the lesson”. I take it you’re a fan of that approach.

At any rate, thanks for your input. I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t understand why you’re saying it.

A mind is formed of what it believes to be true. For a mind to recognize a statement as true, it must recognize its premise as true. Thus half of everything it sees is merely a reflection of itself.

So whether his own mind is blind or the one showing him is blind, half of all he sees is blindness. If his mind is not blind, he has no need for guidance.

So although I quite sympathize with Confucius and most others and I have my lower limit for the effort, I give hope to possibility over despair to probability. Their path is easier for them on a clear day, but this isn’t a clear day.

[CELS]

@Nah

I don’t think so.
Any theory is limited by the premises it’s based upon.
And “all things” would require a theory without any limit.
It’s like asking if we can see all around with our eyes without moving our head.
Because of its orientation and focus, we have limited field of vision and thus we cannot see “all around”.
It’s just the nature of theory (or scientific method, or any logical perspective) to be limited and conditional.

I understand what you’re saying. But is it reasonable to think that science may improve our logical ability to a critical point, from which such a theory might be created? I can see how science will never be able to make the final step, but I suppose that the final step will be easier at that critical point than it is now. Unless it is as James S Saint says: science is merely about the details, nothing really new but the toys…

@Nah

I do think we are A LOT more stupid than we would like to pretend.
And that reduces our chance to be less stupid.
The tendency to believe that humans are intelligent is a lot stronger if you are raised in the monotheist culture (even if you don’t believe one of these silly childish religion).
Two main causes of our stupidity is the lack of sustained higher awareness level and the natural tendency of any focused awareness that see the narrow focused region as if it’s whole/all/everything, I would say.
Because of these, combined with other reasons, we are generally unable to think in very logical, systematic, and orderly manner.
This is applicable to the people with high IQ, too, as far as I’ve observed.

Could you expand upon the idea of sustained higher awareness and focused awareness?

@Nah

However, some people can “understand” things without thinking (and often without the ability to explain them), in some cases. I don’t consider this as the “full understanding”, but it’s better than nothing and it can be more precise than badly reasoned thought.
I do think it takes both logical and more “direct” type of understanding to fully grasp things, or to be fully comfortable/confident with the understanding.
When we gain a little more proficiency in thinking and understanding, we would understand the extent of our own stupidity.
What some of us call as “civilization” or “culture” is just insanely stupid.
And I don’t think it’s limited to just us, humans.
If there are ETs, angels, goods, whatever, I think it’s probable that they are also stupid in their own way, because of the nature of the awareness.

What do you mean by a more “direct” type of understanding? Intuition, perhaps? A logical understanding seems sufficient to me.

@James S Saint

A mind is formed of what it believes to be true. For a mind to recognize a statement as true, it must recognize its premise as true. Thus half of everything it sees is merely a reflection of itself.

Perhaps. But even so, a mind can change.

@James S Saint

So whether his own mind is blind or the one showing him is blind, half of all he sees is blindness. If his mind is not blind, he has no need for guidance.
So although I quite sympathize with Confucius and most others and I have my lower limit for the effort, I give hope to possibility over despair to probability. Their path is easier for them on a clear day, but this isn’t a clear day.

It seems you’re arguing against the possibility of learning.

[James_S_Saint]

@CELS

It seems you’re arguing against the possibility of learning.

Just pointing out the difficulty involved in learning truth versus more delusion. It isn’t impossible, it just takes a really long time or just the right combination.

[Nah]

@CELS

@Nah

I don’t think so.
Any theory is limited by the premises it’s based upon.
And “all things” would require a theory without any limit.
It’s like asking if we can see all around with our eyes without moving our head.
Because of its orientation and focus, we have limited field of vision and thus we cannot see “all around”.
It’s just the nature of theory (or scientific method, or any logical perspective) to be limited and conditional.

I understand what you’re saying. But is it reasonable to think that science may improve our logical ability to a critical point, from which such a theory might be created? I can see how science will never be able to make the final step, but I suppose that the final step will be easier at that critical point than it is now. Unless it is as James S Saint says: science is merely about the details, nothing really new but the toys…

I don’t usually read/care what JSS write, so I don’t know about the last point.

Although it depends on what you think of science and logic, they are limited and thus they can’t grasp “all things” nor anything in wholesome manner.

But you are free to hope/dream.

@Nah

I do think we are A LOT more stupid than we would like to pretend.
And that reduces our chance to be less stupid.
The tendency to believe that humans are intelligent is a lot stronger if you are raised in the monotheist culture (even if you don’t believe one of these silly childish religion).
Two main causes of our stupidity is the lack of sustained higher awareness level and the natural tendency of any focused awareness that see the narrow focused region as if it’s whole/all/everything, I would say.
Because of these, combined with other reasons, we are generally unable to think in very logical, systematic, and orderly manner.
This is applicable to the people with high IQ, too, as far as I’ve observed.

Could you expand upon the idea of sustained higher awareness and focused awareness?

@Nah

However, some people can “understand” things without thinking (and often without the ability to explain them), in some cases. I don’t consider this as the “full understanding”, but it’s better than nothing and it can be more precise than badly reasoned thought.
I do think it takes both logical and more “direct” type of understanding to fully grasp things, or to be fully comfortable/confident with the understanding.
When we gain a little more proficiency in thinking and understanding, we would understand the extent of our own stupidity.
What some of us call as “civilization” or “culture” is just insanely stupid.
And I don’t think it’s limited to just us, humans.
If there are ETs, angels, goods, whatever, I think it’s probable that they are also stupid in their own way, because of the nature of the awareness.

What do you mean by a more “direct” type of understanding? Intuition, perhaps? A logical understanding seems sufficient to me.

What is exactly “a logical understanding” to you?

I’ll explain depending on your perspective.

[nameta9]

What is “understanding” ? What is the “why” ? What sequence of symbols will satisfy us ? Why does any sequence of symbols that we associate with an explanation seem truer, more important, more worthy than any other, than just noise, or a random aggregation of rocks on Mars ? At what point do we create a language and meaning and logic and thought processes and patterns from any random aggregation of elements, at what point do they trigger “feelings”, “emotions”, “sensations”, other thought processes, other ideas ?

These questions have no answer because no answer is possible from the outset: all that we do, all that we think, and especially THE INTENTIONALITY OF USE (what we plan to do with the understanding, just meditate upon it ?) of our symbols, narratives, descriptions and formulas are essentially we talking to ourselves, or better Mass - Energy or Matter talking to itself, and making it all up, as there is nothing outside the system of arbitrary relationships intrinsic to how our language - logic -thought patterns are hardwired in our brains (completely arbitrary - quirk computers that can be and will be designed differently). Reality, the Universe, Physics, the Laws of Physics are what we simply invent, what we make up, the HUGE LIE THAT OUR MINDS INVENT AND MAKE BELIEVE CORRESPOND TO SOME EXTERNAL TRUTH OR OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

No, we are simply an instantaneous reaction to an action, an instantaneous instruction being executed in a computer made up of the memory of the world as we have it configured and as we compare it to others. But there is no memory, only noise, only a sequence of random symbols associated to random meanings.

The truth is we live in a World Without Memory. What is memory ? how does an elementary particle remember what it is compared to another, how does existence last in time just enough for interaction, just enough time for another entity to touch it and perceive it ? The universe has no memory, what is the the relationship between time and temperature ? At what point is everything frozen in time, at what time interval is the temperature of the universe absolute zero ?

To be absolute zero temperature every item or discernible (if that is even definable or even knowable even for god ?!? ) entity must be completely still compared to all of the others: at that small time interval everything is still, is a picture, at that small time interval the temperature of the universe is absolute zero. And at that small time interval existence is timeless and spaceless. Find the time interval.

It probably is 10^-10000000000000000000000000… forever picoseconds, but the catch is, we will never know, can never know, can’t put a sensor on every point in space and clock it and record it to see if they are all still.

You would need a memory larger than the universe to record the memory of the universe itself, but if the universe doesn’t remember itself, in all of its entire details, than how can it even exist ? We exist only as we remember what we are, we are our memory, but a universe that has no memory doesn’t even exist.

If everything around us is dead, what makes us think that we are right and all of the dead objects wrong ? No, they are the ones who have got it right, we are just a moment in time, of Mass Energy and Matter playing tricks on itself, deciding to pretend to be alive, for just some short time, and really believing it, but it knows it is all false, the rocks, that table and the dead piece of trash over there really know the truth, has it right, and really knows what is going on.

[Gaiaguerrilla]

Your question 2 OP is an important justification for why I think we can still have “seers” or “sages” even in our modern day.

Reductionism seems to drive people to the assumption that it is the only way to view things rationally. What should correct it is that reductionism seems currently the only way for US to view things rationally.

That brings forth the possibility that even with computers and quantum mechanics, it is not irrational for us to theorize that “gods” (more advanced intelligence) look down on us and advise us in subtle ways. We already know that it is possible to conceive of an organism which would be genetically engineered with an intellect superior to our own. Even though we have the intelligence to possibly create that organism, do we really think that we can predict what kinds of discoveries this organism would pioneer ahead of us? In that pioneering of this hypothetical organism, would it also pioneer a method of creating an intelligence greater than itself??

What arrogance we have, for those of us believing we are necessarily the pinnacle of intelligence in the galaxy or even on the planet.

[Nah]

@Gaiaguerrilla

What arrogance we have, for those of us believing we are necessarily the pinnacle of intelligence in the galaxy or even on the planet.

Chirstian (and other monotheistic) culture boosts such belief, and make us more even stupid/insane than we can be. It makes big difference, but we don’t know the extent of damages as long as we stay within the mental frame.