Do you guys worry we may come to the point where we just can't

>>8428675
Yes I have this thought too sometimes, the idea that some problems in science might be intractable or even too impractical to figure out. I don't think we're there yet at least not in the life sciences but I can't say anything about physics or chemistry. But yes I do think that will be an issue eventually.

if you want to get real mad it's a proven fact that such is the case in math

i forgot the guy but basically he found a mathematical equivalent for "this sentence is a lie", thereby proving that there is at least one unresolvable thing in math

>>8428675
We've already hit that point.

>>8428675
>Do you guys worry we may come to the point where we just can't know anything more about the world?


Are you kidding?

I'm an engineer....

I want to use that knowledge to build more awesome shit!

>>8428675
Sometimes I think that the era between Newton and Einstein will turn out to have been a fluke in the history of science, and that we'll never again develop elegant models that make exact predictions for anything. Best case scenario we'll be stuck with ad-hoc statistical methods that give plausible results until they don't. But what do I know.

>>8428675

So you admit to not being involved in any academic research? We still don't know exactly how bicycles work. There's tons of shit we don't know that needs work.

>>8428863
Did you read the OP? The problem is not that we'll know everything, just everything that is possible for us to find out. The event horizon of enquiry

>>8428875
Not in our lifetimes. I get involved in academic research, and you'll know.

>>8428675
I doubt we can ever solve the P=NP problem with the current math. We would need a breakthrough in basic research. We need to ask why we cannot solve a problem. NP is the monster of cs. We only create toy programs and pseudo-science AI until this problem can be at least better explained.

>>8428843
Eventually there will be nothing novel left to build.