Science is set to fail

>>8854670
>ology

So, a science to tell us that science will fail?

Your conclusion is correct but your reasons are baffling and implausible.

Yes but the more vast and detailed our scientific knowledge, the more godlike our technology will become

>>8854678
>things that end with ology are sciences
slow down there psychology and sociology

>>8854670
>kid doesn't know about the pragmatic approach
>is yawning on about epistemology
Brainlet confirmed, how is your Phil 01 course going, any trouble understanding the Wikipedia articles?

Holy shit. A good thread and 5 good responses in a row. On /sci/ in 2017. Amazing.

I cant argue against that, you are correct. Fourth option is that we would find some magical source of knowledge that tells us the phenomenas listed in your option 3, like a book from God or measurements+theory so aesthetic and perfectly predictive that there would be no reason to deny them.
Fifth option would be that any particle in the universe can define what the laws are, but the power of these definitions is a measure of energy.

>>8854670
>you'll know
>knowledge is impossible.

how_to_spot_a_brainlet.jpg

I read in a book dedicated to epistemology that there are four types of epistemic regress (the absolute foundation of knowledge)

1.Infinite (like in OP)
2.Circular, that we find a loophole that laws/foundation of all reality feed on eachother
3.Inaccessible: absolutely counter-intuitive, which means that we "find" the final step and know that it is inaccessible to us
4.Certainty: actually find the building blocks of all workings of everything


My money is on 3.
Infinite regress I think demands too much as a theory.
Circular would be my second pic after Inaccessible
And I know for a fact that Certainty is not possible.

Why I know that?
You can answer this by simply posing this question:
Why something rather than nothing?
While it my sound edgy 101 philosophy, it's quite robust.

You'll get two types of answers to that question:
God/mystical/magic/chaos was the "prime" cause.

Or

Universe was created out of nothing (le krauss feis)

Although, those questions simply pass the buck.
Who made god/chaos/magic or how did it come into existence, why did it exist?

"Out of nothing" in physics means quantum stuff, which implies physics, which implies something.

All in all, all of those explanations still require a preexisting entity/force.

Which leaves you with one option: universe can't be coherent.
You can have knowledge, practical enough but not absolute.

You can also count that as a reply to you:
>>8855151

>philosophy
I guess you're not smart enough for REAL science

>>8855106
ofcourse >this guy enters the thread

>>8855106
>>8855156

>>8856273
>real science
yeah like bill nye :^)

File: 4908695+_82978e199b2084eef12d89e37ebe9fb0.jpg (9KB, 250x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x200px

>>8855191
>You can have knowledge, practical enough but not absolute.

>>8856302
Absolute knowledge is a farce.

>>8854670
>Either all of physics are infinitely regressive, particles within particles within particles etc, hence not anchored in any solid way
This doesn't make absolute knowledge impossible, just harder for human beings alone.

>no matter how rigorous or how far into the future, is just an approximation
>no matter
>how far into the future
>approximation
Aha, see, that's where you're wrong. If you had "infinite" time to understand "infinitely regressive" quanta, you would have enough time to understand it all. And provided "how far into the future" we go, we will inevitably have a means of discerning that using something that would seem like magic to you and I right this second, if not something that already is hard to consider given the common folk understanding of the world. Assumptions about whether humanity will ever be allowed to exist that long is a valid objection to that, but only if you ignore that you've given us this hypothetical scenario where we can go however far into a future where there are still people to do things with, who still do not find a way to know absolute knowledge.

For example. There exists theory-less models. This means you can plug in a whole slew of random data and get a sensible answer out of them, whether it's counting numbers, or counting cucumbers- and none of them rely on some stringent, presumptuous premises like "the sun must orbit the earth" or "only treat particles as waves in this scenario". You would get a more thorough understanding of the answer if you could account for
>everything
present in the system, would you not?

Knowledge is less a reflection of the world than a tool for operating in it. Knowing that is knowing that you can absolutely have absolute knowledge- it just requires you to operate in a far more different way than you already do. To mold reality to suit our hubris in thinking we're special and our brains are tailored to understand everything there is, in virtue of themselves, is dumb.