Is Science Infinite?

Is science infinite? Can it keep giving us profound insights into the world forever? Or is it already bumping into limits, as I argued in The End of Science? In his 2011 book The Beginning of Infinity physicist David Deutsch made the case for boundlessness. When I asked him about consciousness in a recent Q&A he replied: “I think nothing worth understanding will always remain a mystery. And consciousness (qualia, creativity, free will etc.) seems eminently worth understanding.”

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Is Science Infinite?

Is science infinite? Can it keep giving us profound insights into the world forever? Or is it already bumping into limits, as I argued in The End of Science? In his 2011 book The Beginning of Infinity physicist David Deutsch made the case for boundlessness. When I asked him about consciousness in a recent Q&A he replied: “I think nothing worth understanding will always remain a mystery. And consciousness (qualia, creativity, free will etc.) seems eminently worth understanding.”

more…

Deutsch is right, there’s no reason to assume that consciousness can’t be scientifically understood.

The rest of the article is naively mystical.

On a more banal note, it can’t keep doing it forever because there will come a time when consciousness cannot exist.

dv said:

On a more banal note, it can’t keep doing it forever because there will come a time when consciousness cannot exist.

—-

Given that there are multiverses, then there is no reason to suspect that consciousness will not survive.
Just as there is no reason to suspect that time began at t=0.

tauto said:

dv said:

On a more banal note, it can’t keep doing it forever because there will come a time when consciousness cannot exist.

—-

Given that there are multiverses, then there is no reason to suspect that consciousness will not survive.
Just as there is no reason to suspect that time began at t=0.

There’s no evidence of a multiverse at this point

dv said:

tauto said:

dv said:

On a more banal note, it can’t keep doing it forever because there will come a time when consciousness cannot exist.

—-

Given that there are multiverses, then there is no reason to suspect that consciousness will not survive.
Just as there is no reason to suspect that time began at t=0.

There’s no evidence of a multiverse at this point

You are such a debbie downer.

dv said:

tauto said:

dv said:

On a more banal note, it can’t keep doing it forever because there will come a time when consciousness cannot exist.

—-

Given that there are multiverses, then there is no reason to suspect that consciousness will not survive.
Just as there is no reason to suspect that time began at t=0.

There’s no evidence of a multiverse at this point

—-

We don’t know what dark energy and dark matter are, but we know they exist…

tauto said:

dv said:

tauto said:

—-

Given that there are multiverses, then there is no reason to suspect that consciousness will not survive.
Just as there is no reason to suspect that time began at t=0.

There’s no evidence of a multiverse at this point

—-

We don’t know what dark energy and dark matter are, but we know they exist…

Unlike the multiverse, which is basically science fiction.

dv said:

tauto said:

dv said:

There’s no evidence of a multiverse at this point

—-

We don’t know what dark energy and dark matter are, but we know they exist…

Unlike the multiverse, which is basically science fiction.

What would constitute evidence of the multiverse?

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

If that is true then science is infinite.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

tauto said:

—-

We don’t know what dark energy and dark matter are, but we know they exist…

Unlike the multiverse, which is basically science fiction.

What would constitute evidence of the multiverse?

I know several answers to this, depending on which multiverse you’re talking about. Yes, there are scientific observations for each type of multiverse, some tests have already been applied and others require better technology than we now have.

dv said:

tauto said:

dv said:

On a more banal note, it can’t keep doing it forever because there will come a time when consciousness cannot exist.

—-

Given that there are multiverses, then there is no reason to suspect that consciousness will not survive.
Just as there is no reason to suspect that time began at t=0.

There’s no evidence of a multiverse at this point

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

For the tennis pundits….

Federer 20 GSF wins, 10 GSF losses

Nadal 16 GSF wins, 7 GSF losses

Djokovic 12 GSF wins, 9 GSF losses

Murray 3 GSF wins, 8 GFS losses

where GSF = Grand Slam Final

mollwollfumble said:

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

If that is true then science is infinite.

HHGTTG?

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

If that is true then science is infinite.

HHGTTG?

YES

makes appeals to authorities

SCIENCE said:

makes appeals to authorities

If a multiverse exists, it does not automatically follow that consciosness will survive.

I suppose that since our universe is metastable, it must come to a firey end. That would be the cosmic inflation multiverse. Consciosness would not survive the transfer from one universe to another.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Is Science Infinite?

Is science infinite? Can it keep giving us profound insights into the world forever? Or is it already bumping into limits, as I argued in The End of Science? In his 2011 book The Beginning of Infinity physicist David Deutsch made the case for boundlessness. When I asked him about consciousness in a recent Q&A he replied: “I think nothing worth understanding will always remain a mystery. And consciousness (qualia, creativity, free will etc.) seems eminently worth understanding.”

more…

I haven’t dealt with the “Is it already bumping into limits?” part of the question.

There is the “infinite time is necessary for the acquisition of infinitely accurate knowledge” side of the answer.

Coupled with the above are proofs that mathematics can never fully describe even Newtonian physics. All we can do is slowly get more and more accurate.

Then there’s the abject failure of the use of mathematics for describing physics beyond the standard model. Starting with the failure of the GUT model proposed by Howard Georgi and Sheldon Glashow in 1974. The last new mathematics that has actually worked as a description of physics is slow-roll-inflation from Linde and separately by Albrecht in 1982. So in that sense it can be said that theoretical physics died in 1982.

Biology is still ongoing, but the classification of flowering plants has reached the end – the number of new species described per year is similar to the number of duplicates removed. The same is approximately true of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. But not fish, not yet. Similarly it could be said that physical anatomy has reached stagnation.

Inorganic chemistry, hard to say. New minerals are constantly being discovered but they are were mostly pre-known as artificial creations. Not much new here.

Nothing new has been said about the science of morality since Kant in 1785.

Organic chemistry – if it isn’t a protein or a nucleic acid then it’s totally in the field of technology (eg. drug technology) rather than science.

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

makes appeals to authorities

makes sens

Human imagination might be more infinite than scientific knowledge

but can you imagine a leph

didn’t read it all, it troubled me right off the bat, littered with we, and some confusions about what minds do, of the latter it seemed to be written in the style of a hoped-for-contagion.

the limits of understanding is a driver, what would be the motivation if it didn’t exist, intrigue etc would have nothing to do.

fortunately the universe is big enough that it’ll never be fully understood, worthy of cheer that, be thankful.

in fact, the greedy desire to understand everything can have a sterilizing effect.

there are cultural influences that do just that.

contemplating the limits of science, I mean what a joke, average person doesn’t know half of what’s going on in a random square foot of their own back yards.

a big headed arrogant species.

transition said:

in fact, the greedy desire to understand everything can have a sterilizing effect.

there are cultural influences that do just that.

contemplating the limits of science, I mean what a joke, average person doesn’t know half of what’s going on in a random square foot of their own back yards.

a big headed arrogant species.

If everyone occupies a different space time, can there ever be a uniform understanding of everything?

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

in fact, the greedy desire to understand everything can have a sterilizing effect.

there are cultural influences that do just that.

contemplating the limits of science, I mean what a joke, average person doesn’t know half of what’s going on in a random square foot of their own back yards.

a big headed arrogant species.

If everyone occupies a different space time, can there ever be a uniform understanding of everything?

given consciousness is a differentiated/ing I, how would that work. I mean there is agreement, but no two trips there are ever the same.

i’m getting hints of a (hoped-for) convergent we in your proposition.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

in fact, the greedy desire to understand everything can have a sterilizing effect.

there are cultural influences that do just that.

contemplating the limits of science, I mean what a joke, average person doesn’t know half of what’s going on in a random square foot of their own back yards.

a big headed arrogant species.

If everyone occupies a different space time, can there ever be a uniform understanding of everything?

given consciousness is a differentiated/ing I, how would that work. I mean there is agreement, but no two trips there are ever the same.

i’m getting hints of a (hoped-for) convergent we in your proposition.

Everyone occupies a different space time, then each person has a different life experience which will influence their decision making, how does each person really know that they understand something given their unique path in space time?

If everyone is different, then each person will have a different view of what constitutes the theory of everything

One way to converge information would be to have an implanted theory of everything chip in each participants brain. Say 1000 participants.

and compare that access of information to another group of 1000 participants who do not have the implanted chip but still have access to all the information via reading.

and run fMRI scans to test each person to discover how information is understood, assessed and validated.

Tests would include mathematical equations, concepts, theories and validated observations etc

Is everyone’s concept of God the same?

No its usually different, because they occupy a different space time, and have a different set of life experiences.

Is everyone’s concept of human rights the same?

Is everyone’s concept of greed the same? Then what of all the other emotions?

etc

If everyone is different, then everyone has a different view of everything.

How does 1 + 1 differ from person to person?

How does understanding human rights person differ from person to person?

If would be interesting to see fMRI observations

All kinds of tests could be done, real information vs imaginative

How does the concept of “we” differ from person to person?

Tau.Neutrino said:

If everyone is different, then everyone has a different view of everything.

How does 1 + 1 differ from person to person?

How does understanding human rights person differ from person to person?

If would be interesting to see fMRI observations

All kinds of tests could be done, real information vs imaginative

>>How does understanding human rights person differ from person to person?
Religious beliefs alter that.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If everyone is different, then everyone has a different view of everything.

How does 1 + 1 differ from person to person?

How does understanding human rights person differ from person to person?

If would be interesting to see fMRI observations

All kinds of tests could be done, real information vs imaginative

>>How does understanding human rights person differ from person to person?
Religious beliefs alter that.

Indeed.

Many people are quite proud and arrogant to be ignorant

Tau.Neutrino said:

If everyone is different, then everyone has a different view of everything.

How does 1 + 1 differ from person to person?

How does understanding human rights person differ from person to person?

If would be interesting to see fMRI observations

All kinds of tests could be done, real information vs imaginative

Human rights is a cultural abstraction that cannot be tested by science

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If everyone is different, then everyone has a different view of everything.

How does 1 + 1 differ from person to person?

How does understanding human rights person differ from person to person?

If would be interesting to see fMRI observations

All kinds of tests could be done, real information vs imaginative

>>How does understanding human rights person differ from person to person?
Religious beliefs alter that.

Indeed.

Understanding how different religious beliefs change perceptions of human rights is crucial if we want to make the world a better place.

If religions change the scope of human rights by being selective about it then people need to understand how that happens within the context of their religion and then compared with the full scope of human rights available to them.

Something like that.

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If everyone is different, then everyone has a different view of everything.

How does 1 + 1 differ from person to person?

How does understanding human rights person differ from person to person?

If would be interesting to see fMRI observations

All kinds of tests could be done, real information vs imaginative

Human rights is a cultural abstraction that cannot be tested by science

What if it could be done, would that change things.

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If everyone is different, then everyone has a different view of everything.

How does 1 + 1 differ from person to person?

How does understanding human rights person differ from person to person?

If would be interesting to see fMRI observations

All kinds of tests could be done, real information vs imaginative

Human rights is a cultural abstraction that cannot be tested by science

What if it could be done, would that change things.

If human rights is information and science can observe information then why not?

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If everyone is different, then everyone has a different view of everything.

How does 1 + 1 differ from person to person?

How does understanding human rights person differ from person to person?

If would be interesting to see fMRI observations

All kinds of tests could be done, real information vs imaginative

Human rights is a cultural abstraction that cannot be tested by science

What if it could be done, would that change things.

No. Because many people put religious lore before secular law. Understanding would not alter that.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tamb said:

>>How does understanding human rights person differ from person to person?
Religious beliefs alter that.

Indeed.

Understanding how different religious beliefs change perceptions of human rights is crucial if we want to make the world a better place.

If religions change the scope of human rights by being selective about it then people need to understand how that happens within the context of their religion and then compared with the full scope of human rights available to them.

Something like that.

Also the observation that religious interference with human rights usually comes across as antisocial.

Interfering with women who want abortions is antisocial, its religious people who are the ones doing the harassment

Interfering with gays who want same sex marriage is antisocial, its religious people who are the ones doing the harassment.

Interfering with people who want euthanasia is antisocial, its religious people who are the ones doing the harassment.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Human rights is a cultural abstraction that cannot be tested by science

What if it could be done, would that change things.

No. Because many people put religious lore before secular law. Understanding would not alter that.

Then can the Theory of everything be available to them if they discard real information?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

What if it could be done, would that change things.

No. Because many people put religious lore before secular law. Understanding would not alter that.

Then can the Theory of everything be available to them if they discard real information?

Some people genuinely believe in the flat earth despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>How does 1 + 1 differ from person to person?

quite a lot, in practice

has very versatile qualities does 1

I see many religious people having a selective approach to observation, if they discard real information, how does that effect society? how should the law deal with that?

Tau.Neutrino said:

I see many religious people having a selective approach to observation, if they discard real information, how does that effect society? how should the law deal with that?

If current examples are anything to go by: Very badly.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I see many religious people having a selective approach to observation, if they discard real information, how does that effect society? how should the law deal with that?

If current examples are anything to go by: Very badly.

Yes, very embarrassing.

Tau.Neutrino said:

How does the concept of “we” differ from person to person?

do questions always precede answers? Is the totality of the universe like that, or is it a product of your mental activity?

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

How does the concept of “we” differ from person to person?

do questions always precede answers? Is the totality of the universe like that, or is it a product of your mental activity?

The Royal We.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

How does the concept of “we” differ from person to person?

do questions always precede answers? Is the totality of the universe like that, or is it a product of your mental activity?

I’m not understanding your concept of we.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

How does the concept of “we” differ from person to person?

do questions always precede answers? Is the totality of the universe like that, or is it a product of your mental activity?

I’m not understanding your concept of we.

I asked though of the problem with questions preceding answers (you seem busy that way). I don’t see that the external environment (or internal) informs that way, necessarily, that it could, because the structure that is out there, or exists, is an answer, or are answers, in important ways.

So, i’m thinking existing structures are answers, of sorts.

On the subject of dubious inclusive, the lazy we, that gets around and passes for breathable air, or some substitute, one would hope the conscious differentiated I might dissolve some of that.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

do questions always precede answers? Is the totality of the universe like that, or is it a product of your mental activity?

I’m not understanding your concept of we.

I asked though of the problem with questions preceding answers (you seem busy that way). I don’t see that the external environment (or internal) informs that way, necessarily, that it could, because the structure that is out there, or exists, is an answer, or are answers, in important ways.

So, i’m thinking existing structures are answers, of sorts.

On the subject of dubious inclusive, the lazy we, that gets around and passes for breathable air, or some substitute, one would hope the conscious differentiated I might dissolve some of that.

Perhaps the entire universe is one big brain, each galaxy the equivalent to a neuron and a thought takes billions of years

dv said:

tauto said:

dv said:

There’s no evidence of a multiverse at this point

—-

We don’t know what dark energy and dark matter are, but we know they exist…

Unlike the multiverse, which is basically science fiction.

I wouldn’t call it science fiction.

Either there is a single verse, or there is a multiverse. We have no evidence either way, so I don’t see any reason to make any assumptions about it.