Cross-post from the science forum:

[rug]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x67894

SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society.

Rees suggests that the inherent intellectual limitations of humanity mean we may never resolve questions such as the existence of parallel universes, the cause of the big bang, or the nature of our own consciousness.

He even compares humanity to fish, which swim through the oceans without any idea of the properties of the water in which they spend their lives.

“A ‘true’ fundamental theory of the universe may exist but could be just be too hard for human brains to grasp,” said Rees, who is also the astronomer royal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7149095.ece

[The Wielding Truth]

1. I like to think this guy is more aware of all our human possibilities.

Other scientists are more optimistic. Brian Cox, the BBC science presenter and physics professor who was awarded an OBE yesterday, said: “The idea that certain things are beyond us is quite a bleak one and history does show that we can eventually overcome the most difficult of problems.”

:think:

[rug]

2. You're free to believe who you wish.

[skepticscott]

3. As I'm sure you will

but the more sensible among us will continue to withhold "belief" based only on the opinion of someone with credentials. Intellectual spoilsports that we are, we'll just wait around for evidence.

[rug]

4. Get a comfortable chair for the wait.

[skepticscott]

35. And the length of the wait is relevant...how?

Why should the speed at which we acquire knowledge be used as an excuse to compromise intellectual integrity? Why would anyone be intellectually lazy enough to say "I can't wait for a real answer, so I'm just going to say 'God did it'"?

[rug]

37. Wait, as in Godot.

[skepticscott]

46. That's right, I forgot

you're a charter member of the Duck Dodgers club.

[rug]

47. I forgot something too.

You're the grandmaster of the missing the point society.

[skepticscott]

53. If you ever deign to make a point

worth catching, rest assured that I will. Not holding my breath, based on your history of evasive and irrelevant one line snarks, though.

[rug]

54. Read the OP if you're looking for a point.

Although it's hard to see with your blinders.

[laconicsax]

5. We may never understand something. Therefore, God!

Is there a different reason you posted this in R/T?

[rug]

6. What implications do you sense in a universe that cannot be understood and will outlast humans?

[laconicsax]

7. Well, clearly, the limits of our knowledge imply the existence of a petty desert god.

:eyes:

Humans are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It shouldn't be a surprise that we don't know everything and certainly shouldn't be a surprise that there will always be limits to our knowledge. The universe isn't human-centric, there's no reason to suspect that it is, and there's no reason to care that it isn't.

Funny how some theists trot out the old, "we don't know everything" as proof that they know the unknowable. The egocentric arrogance of assuming that a supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing god gives a shit about what you ate for breakfast is astounding. If the universe is so vast that it may be permanently beyond our understanding, why should a being that can comprehend (and control) it be concerned with whether or not you cut some skin off the tip of your penis or whether you mix wool and linen?

[rug]

9. Lot of straw and no substance.

[laconicsax]

11. If you'd care to answer the question I asked, you might get a response more to your liking.

Then again, if you never state a position, you can always call criticism a straw man attack without being proven wrong.

I wonder which you'll do.

[rug]

14. I take it then the only implication you see in this article is regurgitated drivel about foreskins.

[laconicsax]

18. I take it you can't answer a simple question posed to you.

Too bad, I was hoping that maybe you'd post more than a short evasion for once.

[rug]

24. There is a simple answer which your reflexive agenda prevented you from apprehending.

From a purely nontheist position, what implications do you see in this view?

It certainly has a theological implication, but that is far from the only one.

[laconicsax]

36. There's a simple question you've yet to answer.

Is there a reason you posted this in R/T, other than to promote the theological position I mocked?

It's a question that could be answered with a simple "yes" or "no."

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ZombieHorde]

8. Just because humans don't know how do understand subject X

does not mean subject X will never be understood by humans.

[rug]

10. Although the evidence suggests humans will not last long enough to understand it.

Assuming the tools and capacities are sufficient.

[laconicsax]

12. How long will it take to understand it, and how long will humans last.

Cite your evidence.

[rug]

16. Hohum, burden shifting again. Ok, where's your evidence on the longevity of this species?

Your turn.

:eyes:

[laconicsax]

17. You made the claim on the longevity, please provide your evidence. n/t

[rug]

26. "The universe isn't human-centric, there's no reason to suspect that it is"

Why would you think this species is exempt from the extinction of all prior species?

[laconicsax]

30. That's known as a non sequitur.

My observation about the relation of our species to the universe has nothing to do with your question. What's more, your question presupposes something that isn't true--that I think that our species is exempt from the extinction, though I'm not sure what you mean by "the extinction of all prior species." Some species have gone extinct, others haven't. We're exempt from previous mass extinctions because our ancestors survived. When the next mass extinction is all said and done, we may be here, we may not be.

Many insects and reptiles have been around for hundreds of millions of years. Our earlier iteration, Homo erectus was around for almost two million years. We've only been around for about 140,000 and there's no reason to suspect that we won't have that kind of longevity.

You made the following claim:

Although the evidence suggests humans will not last long enough to understand it.

Assuming the tools and capacities are sufficient.

I simply asked you to cite your evidence. That's not shifting the burden of proof. You made a specific claim, you have to back it up. That should be easy since the claim was about the existence of evidence.

[rug]

39. That's known as your quote.

[laconicsax]

52. You mean the part where I quoted you?

Maybe you don't understand how quotes work, but when someone quotes you, they're repeating your words. In this case, you said that http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=251383&mesg_id=251395">"the evidence suggests humans will not last long enough to understand it."

Please provide your evidence.

[rug]

55. Perhaps you can ask again in A&A.

However, measuring the span of any species, including homo sapiens sapiens, against the age and size of the universe yields a very low probability of this species surviving long enough to comprehensively understand it.

Do you have any evidence to support your hope, that is, your hypothesis, that humanity has the capacity and time to reach that conclusion?

[darkstar3]

59. Who says we won't evolve into a new species?

If you limit your view only to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, then certainly it is a short lived species. However, the various species that we refer to collectively as "man" have continually and progressively evolved into smarter, better mammals. The evidence suggests that, barring any planet-killing planetoids such as Apophis, we will continue to do so.

[rug]

64. Well then, it wouldn't be we then, would it.

If you have anything other than speculation to support your notion that humanity will evolve int a species or species with the capacity to decipher the universe, I'm all ears.

[darkstar3]

65. Oh, FFS...

1. It would still be a species referred to as "man", just as we refer to our distant ancestral races as "man".
2. GFY. Your game has become boorish and absurd.

[rug]

69. Ah, GFY is within the rules I see.

BTW, thanks for the evidence.

[laconicsax]

66. Geologic time need not apply.

On a geologic time scale, we've gone from living in caves to exploring space in the blink of an eye. The notion that understanding the universe requires immortality is laughable...unless you can't get past certain theistic preconceptions.

[darkstar3]

68. Of course,

I agree with you, but I was trying to make a point about the extreme shortsightedness of his focus.

[rug]

70. Try it using astronomical units.

[laconicsax]

81. Sure, why not measure time in units of distance?

Do you even know what the terms you use actually mean?

[darkstar3]

82. I'll bet he thinks you could measure eons in light-years...

so I'm gonna guess the answer to your question is "no".

[rug]

83. 1 Astronomical Unit = 1.58128588 × 10-5 light years

You mean that?

[laconicsax]

87. Yes.

Do you routinely measure time in units of distance? If someone asks you how long you'll need to complete a task, do you say "oh, about 6 yards" before getting to work?

[rug]

89. Not being an astrophysicist, I don't.

The Royal Society may indeed.

[darkstar3]

91. Astrophysicists are not in the habit

of using distance dimensions to measure large values of time. No one with a damn clue about scientific measurement does.

[laconicsax]

93. Yet you do so to make a point.

I'm glad though that you admit that you don't know what you're talking about though.

[laconicsax]

61. Ahistorical speculation isn't evidence.

Using the age of something compared to the age of the universe as a metric to predict understanding, should result in some rocks, being only about 1/3 the age of the universe in having a significantly greater chance to understand the universe. The longevity of a species (on the scales involved) does not indicate it's chances of increasing understanding of the universe.

As to my evidence, just look at the advances made in the last 500 years. 500 years ago the prevailing model was geocentric, there was no real understanding of chemistry or classical physics, not to mention atomic and quantum theory. If your conjecture about insufficient time was valid, 500 years is not nearly enough time to accomplish any of that. Even if you take the entire history modern Homo sapiens, all 140,000 or so years of it, that shouldn't be enough time to accomplish what we have, especially since H. erectus was around for over 2 million years and didn't even come close.

Consider how far we've come in the last hundred years compared to the last 500. Do you really think that we'll be no closer to a comprehensive understanding (you may want to define those terms you used) of the universe in the year 2110? 500 years from now in 2510? What about a thousand years from now in 3010?

Remember, it only took us 66 years to go from the first powered flight of a heavier-that-air object (something Lord Kelvin believed to be impossible just 8 years prior) to putting an astronaut on the Moon.

[rug]

67. That sounds suspiciously like the Martingale system.

To answer your question, no I don't think so.

[darkstar3]

71. that would be because

your faith has fitted you with blinders to human capacity. No surprise there, given the history of Catholics running down the human race.

[rug]

74. Sorry, I already used the blinders epithet elsewhere. Try again.

[darkstar3]

78. Couldn't care less,

and you should look up the word epithet. ur doin it rong.

[laconicsax]

73. Ok Lord Kelvin.

X-rays are a hoax, powered flight is impossible, and physics will never discover anything new after 1900.

[rug]

76. Therefore humanity will decipher the universe.

:eyes:

[laconicsax]

84. Close, but no.

Therefore, predictions that we'll never learn anymore than what we already know are often wrong.

Of course, when you have a religion that parades around its holy book as having all the answers, it's hard for adherents to imagine learning anything new.

[rug]

85. If you think the OP means we'll never learn anything more, you've gravely misread it.

[laconicsax]

88. You're the one who's been arguing that we're not going to learn anything more.

[rug]

90. Not at all. I happen to agree with Rees that it's unlikely we'll learn it all.

There is a distinction.

[laconicsax]

94. And yet, you didn't bother to mention so until now.

Prefering instead, it seems, to argue that it's impossible to increase our understanding of the universe for a number of red herring arguments.

I think this is the first you've actually given any suggestion of why you posted this. Now, why did you post it in R/T? What is its significance to religion/theology?

[rug]

95. That was only the argument you wished to make.

The OP is quite plain. Why the compulsion to distort it?

[laconicsax]

97. Maybe if you'd cared to say anything coherent or relevant, this discussion would would be different.

In my first comment on this thread, I asked you what relevance you thought Lord Rees' comments had to religion. You balked at the question and began your usual subject-line only red herrings and evasions.

It's poor form to blame the results on anyone other than yourself when you consistently refuse to answer direct questions.

The OP is quite plain. It has nothing to do with religion, requiring possible interpretations of your intent to be made. Until you actually offer a counter to those interpretations, you have no business attacking them as distortions.

[rug]

99. "Therefore, God!" is a rather different comment than you're posting here.

I didn't balk at answering it; I ignored it.

You, on the other hand, completely evaded any answer to my question, choosing instead to trot out a tired diatribe about petty desert gods.

If you genuinely don't see any relevance between that article and ultimate theological issues, particularly in light of the comments in this thread, your thinking process is damaged. More likely, your claimed ignorance is intentional.

[laconicsax]

103. And in ignoring it, you evaded the question we've home back to.

Why did you post this if not because of the opinion in that comment?

It's hard to take you seriously when you refuse to answer simple questions, then get all pissy when the discussion doesn't go how you'd like.

[ZombieHorde]

13. Humans may go extinct before we understand some subjects, such as parallel universes.

Or maybe we won't.

[rug]

15. Maybe is the only certainty here.

[dmallind]

101. That we merely inhabit something which we cannot comprehend in toto?

What else does it imply?

I'm perfectly fine with the extremely high probability (not certainty) that there will always be questions humanity cannot answer. Not necessarily questions we have now of course, but simply based on the basic premise that all discoveries in science tend to create new questions.

But it is absurd to assume that we can infer anything beyond the inarguable fact that we have a finite understanding of totality. We cannot, by definition, assume anything valid about that of which we have no knowledge.

[rug]

107. For one thing, it implies that science is not the philosophical tool it's often advertised to be.

For another thing, it impacts Stoicism at least as much as it does theology.

[dmallind]

109. In what way does science fail due to finite knowledge?

science in the philosophical sense is a method to gain knowledge. Epistemologically, it is far more productive than any other method. Just because we are of finite capacity for knowledge does not mean that the scientific approach is not the most valid way to fill that capacity. I am unaware of any meaningful "advertising" that claims the human understanding of science should be infinite to be either useful, or better than all alternatives.

[rug]

110. Because science is often cited as the means to explain the virtual limitness of the universe.

If this article is credited, it does not.

You're left then with determining if it does not, then what does? If nothing does, then what?

Is this really an argument between science and theology or between theology and philosophy? Either way, the tool of science is not determinative.

[dmallind]

111. How and by whom is it often cited as being abnle to answer all questions ?

If it does not, then nothing does currently known. Revelation and other "mystical" suppoosed sources of knowledge have never been shown to be effective.

So we either develop some other epistemological toolkit or we accept not knowing everything. Neither necessitates or even supports making up things about the unknown and claiming them to be true, or useful theories.

The tool of science is not infinitely determinative you mean, surely?

[RainDog]

98. I know - isn't this the most idiotic rationale conceivable?

humans are too stupid to understand the universe, therefore they understand god - or their concept of god has any relation to reality, even when those things that humans do understand all point to the fallacy of religious belief?

LOLOLOLOL.

it's like a Tom Tomorrow cartoon.

[rug]

104. You have inventive reading skills.

[RainDog]

105. that's funny

coming from someone who thinks women should be forced to give birth because of religious superstitions.

[rug]

106. I don't know what's more ludicrous, your non sequitur or your pulling shit from your ass.

[RainDog]

108. I know what's more ludicrous, even if you don't. byebye n/t

[Cleobulus]

19. Why is he placing limits on human potential?

We have learned more in the past century than in all the preceding centuries combined. We do not know it all, yet, but that doesn't mean we should stop searching for the answers to these puzzles. We may have difficulty in intuitively understanding the realities that exist on the subatomic and cosmic scales. However, that doesn't mean we can't conceptualize it, because we have help in the tools we make, namely the most important, the computer, that helps us to visualize and understand the nature of the universe around us.

Human brains may be limited, but our tools are not, we already "offload" a lot of our thinking to computers, and we will continue to do so, and that will help us find more answers to the questions we have about the nature of the universe itself.

Not to mention we are the first species to evolve on this planet that can, now, finally, add some conscious decision making into the evolutionary process of every species on this planet, if we want to. Hell, we are already attempting this now, with the use of gene therapies to get rid of the most common and disastrous of hereditary disease. Who says we can't do the same in the future to improve the human brain?

Its this idea of things that people claim are impossible for humans to understand that is just frankly insulting to the entire human race. We have accomplished so much, who is this man to say that we are reaching our limits? I say that if there are limits out there, then we should at least attempt to reach past them, for to not do so is to deny that we are human.

[laconicsax]

20. He's probably realizing that he may not live to see the answers he seeks.

That kind of realization can generate bitterness.

[Cleobulus]

21. That sounds like a weakness, I actually hope, to a certain extent that there will be...

some unanswered questions by the time I die. I'm comfortable with saying "I don't know", indeed, saying that means I never have to stop learning, which is actually something truly to fear, the end of learning, the end of discovery.

[rug]

27. The opposite of recognizing limits is the claim of infinity.

I don't think human potential is infinite.

[trotsky]

29. Your god has limits. Can't create a square circle, for instance.

So your point is???

You must not read much science fiction to not be aware of some fairly believable scenarios in which humans could potentially, at least with the help of technology, reach the capacity of being able to do all the activities you credit to your god. Create universes, live forever, etc., etc.

[rug]

41. You too often confuse semantics with theology.

[trotsky]

42. Funny how you understand neither. n/t

[rug]

48. Not as funny as your failure to grasp the OP.

[trotsky]

49. Oh I grasp it just fine.

However I just don't leap to the unwarranted conclusions that justify pet religious beliefs for no reason.

[rug]

50. Then read it again.

There is no leap, only your unfettered prejudgment which drives you to make that leap.

[trotsky]

51. ...

[Cleobulus]

31. Why not? As individuals sure, but as a species, why do you wish to limit us...

to some arbitrary limitation that has no basis in reality. What is your motivation for denying humans potential?

[rug]

40. So, you believe humanity is eternal?

[Cleobulus]

43. No more so than the Universe itself, assuming we don't kill ourselves...

or through our ignorance, allow ourselves to be killed. But we have the potential to last much longer than the Dinosaurs did on Earth. Are you saying that we shouldn't even try?

[rug]

44. Not at all, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Cleobulus]

45. That's just plain old pessimism, things may seem dark now, but there a hell of a lot brighter...

than, let's say, just 100 years ago, or a thousand years ago. Unless you seriously think some supernatural being is going to end it all sometime soon, humanity, unless we kill ourselves, or allow ourselves to be killed, are a going concern. We have control over so much, not least of which is that we have options to deal with most, if not all, extinction scenarios.

[trotsky]

28. Because that's what religion - esp. Christianity - does.

It sends the message that humans are weak, despicable, and/or sinful. What other kind of attitude toward human potential can possibly come out of such a negative worldview?

[Cleobulus]

58. And that's why I believe Christianity is evil.

The negativism permeates everything about the religion, to such an extent it can even slow down or halt progress.

[struggle4progress]

22. One ought to distinguish a philosophical attitude from a scientific one

On a philosophical POV, we should be amazed that the world is regular enough to permit us any significant understanding at all; and we should recognize that, since the world is large and our heads are small, we are very unlikely ever to grasp it all

From a scientific POV, of course, there is nothing to be gained from an assumption that something cannot be understood: one attempts to understand this-or-that and either makes some progress or does not. There are no experiments that show we cannot understand this-or-that because the proper scientific retort to such a claim would be maybe you just didn't try the right thing

On the other hand, there are convincing philosophical arguments that certain kinds of scientific knowledge cannot be obtained. For example, to study subatomic particles one needs to observe macroscopic effects of the particles, but this means the little buggers are interacting with things much much bigger than they are, and these interactions presumably have an effect on the particles; so in contrast to (say) a grizzly bear, that can be observed by bouncing tiny photons off them without much perturbation of the bear, observing a subatomic particle requires interactions that must substantially perturb the particle; this fact produces intrinsic limits to scientific knowledge. Similarly, there are intrinsic limits to our knowledge of phenomena like quasars in deep space, since there is simply no chance of doing any experimental work with them: one can only observe

[bananas]

25. As pointed out in the original thread

there are things we can't know.
It's not philosophical, it's not a matter of you didn't try the right thing.
There are scientific experiments and mathematical proofs showing that some things are unknowable and that our understanding of the universe will always be limited.
See posts 4 and 6 in the original thread.

[struggle4progress]

23. Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees,_Baron_Rees_of_Ludlow

[Silent3]

32. "Rees’s thesis..."

Sounds like a not particularly appealing candy.

[Silent3]

33. While limits to our comprehension are certainly possible...

...it's a bit early to be worried about hitting those limits yet. If we hit a stretch of two or three centuries without making any progress, then if I'm still alive, I'll worry.

From 1874:

"When I began my physical studies and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science... Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries."
- from a 1924 lecture by Max Planck (Sci. Am, Feb 1996 p.10)

In the meantime, none of this makes "God did it!" a better answer than "I don't know" when we hit our limits, however.

[laconicsax]

34. "God did it" is worse than "I don't know."

The former stops inquiry, the latter invites it.

[darkstar3]

56. Ego and time centric stupidity.

In past centuries, people have said the same thing about trying to understand volcanoes, lightning, tides, movements of the stars...hell, go back far enough and people believed the same thing about fire.

Lord Rees would do better to sit quietly and listen to his companions in the Royal Society with regards to scientific history, progress, and evolution, rather than pontificate on gauzy limitations that probably don't even exist.

[rug]

57. Send him an email.

[darkstar3]

60. That's seriously all you have to say?

God, could you be more boring?

[rug]

62. Perhaps Lord Rees would give your opinion its due.

[darkstar3]

63. If everyone should direct their criticisms only to Lord Rees, then WTF did you post this? n/t

[rug]

72. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I expected an intelligent, civil discussion.

My bad.

[darkstar3]

75. Bullshit. And you know it, too.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

80. Sorry, not interested in your fantasies.

[darkstar3]

86. Methinks you doth protest too much...

"There once was a man named Oedipus Rex
he loved his mom a little more than the rest..."

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

96. A discussion of what?

You reposted something old from the Science forum and have yet to offer any reason why you feel that it belongs here. If you can't be bothered to do even comment on your own post, namely what it has to do with religion, why should you expect anyone else to take it seriously?

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

102. I already posted what I think of a possible link between this article and theology. You balked at it

[Evoman]

112. Maybe. Maybe not. Might as well keep trying,

What else are we gonna do...waste our time reading the bible. Lotta good that's done.

[Deep13]

113. Possibly, but what does this have to do with religion or theology?

Anyway, I don't think these problems are as intractible as suggested. Given enough time we will figure out how to figure these things out. We have already figured out, at least in theory, many things that are beyond our mental abilities to understand. The multidimenstional universe is one of them. Also, just the scale of the universe is impossible to visualize.