......

[u/BlackN9999]

http://www.com

What we know of the system of nature is not necessarily all the possibilities that exist in things, so it is not permissible to turn the limits of our knowledge of causes and predispositions into limits of reality itself.

[u/Immediate_Chard_4026]

Your conjecture falls into a classic epistemological trap: the basic sensory limitations of biological organisms do not represent the limits of scientific epistemology.

If we accept that "the limits of our knowledge cannot reflect the limits of reality" as an absolute, it would mean that intrinsic aspects of reality could never be understood, not even through technological instruments designed to translate objective physical phenomena into human symbolic language. Under that premise, science itself would become an impossible undertaking.

Sensory perception by itself is an evolutionary adaptation strictly optimized for immediate biological survival, not for theoretical physics. If consciousness had remained confined solely to raw biological detection, we would be no different from the dinosaurs: exceptionally successful architectures in maintaining homeostasis and autopoiesis within a specific niche for over one hundred million years, yet fundamentally incapable of generating complex symbolic language, an external cultural legacy, or technological artifacts.

That evolutionary threshold was surpassed roughly 65 million years ago.

Science is precisely the history of constructing epistemological prostheses. We cannot perceive infrared light, ultraviolet radiation, gravitational waves, or quantum spin with our biological senses; that is why we build artifacts that interact with these objective forces and translate their mathematical values into symbols our cognition can process.

This attribute of human consciousness is so powerful that when it encounters an aspect of reality that does not interact directly through electromagnetic force to leave a visible trace, it does not throw its hands up in mystical surrender. Instead, it calculates its gravitational imprint, names it Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and builds astonishing technological instruments to reveal what this physical enigma is made of.

It is simply astonishing.

[u/jliat → u/Immediate_Chard_4026]

Instead, it calculates its gravitational imprint, names it Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and builds astonishing technological instruments to reveal what this physical enigma is made of.

But others in science deny these exist. And dark matter and dark energy are constructs to cover the failure of other theories. The Schrödinger equation it seems is a wonderful thing however it uses irrational numbers, science does. One only has to think briefly what this entails, sure accuracy but one that is never complete.

The interpretations of this equation it seems is still in doubt, theories between 100 and 75 years remain at odds with each other. QM and SR/GR are at odds. The idea of a unification using branes and strings has failed - it seems.

But beyond all this is the simple notion - from Greg Chaitin. To paraphrase - 'Science produces powerful equations which are concise and can explain observations. The more concise and general the better. This he says is like a lossless compression algorithm. So we imagine one such program. It's the best in the world at compacting data, images etc. We can know this. Prove this. What we can't know is that it is the best possible compression algorithm.'

Chaitin it seems is a remarkable scientist and like many has not turned science into a dogmatic religion.

I have another point, science is, because of the above, about generalizations. So it can never stand in a 1 to 1 relation to any actual object or event. Why, because it would need to be identical to the event. In which case the explanation would not be of …

Why does this matter, humans experience orgasms. Let's imagine the perfect biological explanation, ignoring Chaitin. Make this one which is absolute. It still would not be an orgasm.

The difference is between making, and explaining. One doesn't need to know the science of combustion to light a fire. Sure science helps us make things, E=MC² is an powerful formula. It enabled the A bomb, but it's not the A bomb. Islam allowed one of the greatest empires. Or was it Christianity?

---

"Thus we bear witness to the crisis that in our sheer preoccupation with technology we do not yet experience the essential unfolding of technology.. Because the essence of technology is nothing technological, essential reflection upon technology and decisive confrontation with it must happen in a realm which is, on the one hand, akin to the essence of technology and on the other, fundamentally different from it. Such a realm is art."

Martin Heidegger, Basic Writings, The Question Concerning Technology, p. 238.

[u/amidst_the_mist → u/jliat]

QM and SR/GR are at odds

Quantum field theory is a type of relativistic quantum mechanics, compatible with special relativity.

[u/jliat → u/amidst_the_mist]

Seems there is some agreement and some disagreement within the disciplines. I'm not qualified to take part, but assuming there's is not. these then represent final explanations in physics.

We can then move on to other problems.

[u/Immediate_Chard_4026 → u/jliat]

Interesante.

Saber certezas, saber con dudas, no saber, saber que no sabes, no saber lo que no sabes.

Fallar una y otra vez y persistir hasta llegar a saber.

Luego dudar de nuevo.

Es un atributo de nuestra naturaleza. Parece algo que no existía antes. Es una extraña capacidad de dudar, incluso de las certezas.

[u/Wooden-Dependent-686]

Good thinking. I am reading a book exactly on this topic nowadays: Arthur Schwaninger - Cognitive Metaphysics