The End of Knowledge?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>John Horgan wrote a book where he basically took the position (vastly simplified) that scientific knowledge was slowing down in terms of large paridigm shifts. We will continue to discover things but they will be incrementally smaller in affecting our overall knowledge. The Meta Model hypothesizes a universe that has infinite matter, infinite volume, infinite time and infinitely small/large granularity of scale. Does the model imply anything regarding this topic? Will paradigms remain large in increment over time or will we have a decay curve of approaching "truth" to arbitrary closeness as Horgan claims? Is the store of knowledge beyond our ability to understand, just as a cat cannot comprehend calculus? If not a limit to knowledge what is our limit to comprehend knowledge? Any takers?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The Meta Model suggests that we can have an overall understanding, such as that all five dimensions (three of space plus time and scale) are both infinite and infinitesimal, and about the nature of existence. But we obviously will never be able to explore all of infinity. <img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
But we obviously will never be able to explore all of infinity. <img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It's far worse than that. We'll never be able to completely describe even as simple a thing as a grain of sand. I have a strong suspicion that a complete description is equal to ability to create things ex nihilo based solely on information. Kind of "the all-knowing one is as good as almighty". But that's just philosophy, anyway...
Still it's completely possible that we get to the point of diminishing returns that's good enough for any practical use, and stagnate there.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Is the store of knowledge beyond our ability to understand, just as a cat cannot comprehend calculus?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Cats have intellect more than enough to understand calculus, they simply feel no urge to do so. In fact, intellect of a tiger is higher than that of an average drunkard.

I know I'm out on a limb here but I'm going to take a logical leap anyway. I haven't read the book yet, though I read a review and ordered it. John Horgan is a staff writer for the politically correct Scientific American. Which means, he must spend his time squelching new and innovative ideas under the cover of the "peer rewiew" process. His theme is that we are nearing the end of scientific knowledge aquisition, and tells us how we should deal with it. I find this ironic and absurd. The age of science is barely three hundred years old. I'd say that qualifies it for being in its early infancy. But I'll tell you if I'm wrong after I read the book. Neil

The really nice thing about finding answers to questions is that every answer seems to generate two or more new questions, so we will never run out of questions. This keeps life interesting.
Duff

John Duff

The posing of a question of limits of knowledge (an asymptotic limit on scientific progress) overlooks the true nature of the dimension of scale in MM, and the infinitisemal structure of all things.

On a side note: knowledge and certainty, are they interchangeable? With increases in knowledge, it would appear that certainty decreases.

As far as approaching the goal of improving the human condition, "knowledge" directs human behavior. On the other hand, some science postulates a future when certainty be reached, and this will come about through advances in advances in knowledge; and this is what the forum seems to be talking about.

Reliance on certainty appears to diminish the vitality of the scientific mind, which should be infinitely active in this infinite and infinitisemal universe.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
It's far worse than that. We'll never be able to completely describe even as simple a thing as a grain of sand. I have a strong suspicion that a complete description is equal to ability to create things ex nihilo based solely on information. Kind of "the all-knowing one is as good as almighty". But that's just philosophy, anyway...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Agora,
If you have the time, I would love to hear more about this "all_knowing = ex nihilo" philosophy....Why? How?

I hope it doesn't confilct with the purpose of the messageboard.
Thanks.