There are people on this board who believe we will not have a complete understanding of the universe even if we have a...

Kant did philosophy of science you idiot brainlet

has kant done anything besides meme morality?

Chaos theory and high dimensional dynamic systems? Most real systems are too complicated to reliably model and predict.

>unknowable
>knowledge
This isn't even a meaningful idea.

Reductionism is dead.

This is sort of true.

Since math involves infinities, by definition there will always be more. There may be a way to prove colatz conjecture, but there will always be a variant which requires further work to prove. However we may be able to prove something about all variants of collatz conjecture, varied by a given rule. Of course theres varients of the rules then, and so you find there is more unknown to make known.

Teal deer: the universe is infinite, and with infinity theres always more, therefore there is infinite potential knowledge of the universe. Therefore there can never be a truly complete understanding of it.

Also when I say universe I truly mean the universe, All that ever was, is, or will be. Literally every possible combination of every dimension of information.

The Observable Universe on the other hand Might be finite, in which case its very possible we'll eventually know literally everything there is to know about it.

>a complete understanding of mathematics
Study Godel and get BTFO.

I said understand, not model and predict. Kill yourself my man.

You have no idea what Godel actually meant, Wikipedian brainlet.

What does understand mean if we can't even model the damn thing? How do you think scientist build an understanding of a system or phenomenon?

I do, I've study Godel in college.

>A means B. I'm a huge fag please plunder my anus.
American community college doesn't count, and you didn't graduate.

I go to MIT. Stop projecting your insecurities onto others.

Someone has done very little actual research. If you did, you would know how models are simplified to the point they barely represent reality, and they can only make predictions of hyper simplified systems.

>I go to MIT.

MIT students don't use pop-psych bullshit terms like "projecting." You're a faggot basement dweller.

Yo my man, I'm in Boston too.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I'll have a reputable job in academia and you'll be nothing, so your opinion doesn't mean shit to me.

Yeah boi!

BU here, what did you study in undergrad?

>job

Dude, you are a NEET.

You know that feeling you get when you teacher told you a really hard Mathematical operation that you took literally days to understand?
the most brilliant mind of this world are trying to understand some of these Mathematical operation Mother nature/God/allah/Moot gave to us, and they still struggling to get some shit out of them.
a man can get as much answers from the world they want, but there will always be something that they can't completely understand in the end.
deal with it, life is that way, now pic up your books and get back to learn shit!

>we will not have a complete understanding
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

I'm pretty sure incompleteness proves this but I don't know shit about the philosophy of math. From the pop sci it seems like this is the case.

>Projecting is a pop sci concept
You just might be a retard user

>rebuttal is and ad hominem

if psychology was science it would be pop sci
it's pop psych, and only used by pretentious idiots who don't know jack shit about anything
faggot brainlet

Impossible.

You can never explain where a mother's love comes from, or where your spirit goes when you die.

how could anyone confirm the completion in the first place?

If you know everything, you'll also know you completed everything.

because every single answer raises a lot of new questions, and even if we end up explaining our reality then we would have to ask ourselves why is it that way to begin with

>I know what people on this board believe
No, you do not.

Literally who gives a fuck. This is all dependent on what you consider admissible as knowledge and understanding

Also what you consider a legitimate problem. Is causality a legitimate problem? What about the origin of consciousness?

we have biological limits. it's possible we are not capable of understanding 'the universe'.

>agrees with the philosophers he read.
Man, you don't get philosophy at all. Philosophy does not give you answers, it's there to teach you how to ask questions.

>The Observable Universe on the other hand Might be finite, in which case its very possible we'll eventually know literally everything there is to know about it.

user, I would suggest that Observable id subjective to level of knowledge / methodology / technology. Therefor the Observable is ever changing in size, hopefully getting larger. However, if you take Veeky Forums for reference on progression of intellect growth among the population, maybe the Observable might be getting smaller over time. . .
Ironically the internet made a big part of the general public even more ignorant then before.

That chick's pretty hot.

We'll bomb ourselves into extinction before that happens.

I might not know the exact velocity with which i throw a rock at a bird but if i bothered to, i could. I might not be able to amass specific knowledge about every particle in the universe but that does not mean I'd be unable to understand how and why things behave the way they do.

Do you have a complete understanding?

How can you demarcate the limits of maths and of science?

What if it was found out that a 'complete" understanding would be impossible without delving into multiversal or strange dimensions?

So tell us OP, whereupon do you base your understanding of what a complete understanding would be?

>even if we have a complete understanding of mathematics and science.
Gödel incompleteness theorem bitch.

there are literally parts of the universe that we can never reach or recieve information from anymore. This means that whatever theory we can come up with and test in the reachable/visible universe can only be valid in those parts, without being certain that it's also the case outside of this boundary.

First post, best post. I'll explain.

>known
What we know through science.

>unknown
What we don't currently know, but we'll eventually know using science.

>unknowable
This is most of the universe. A whole bunch of shit we will never know because it's beyond us.

>There are people on this board who believe we will not have a complete understanding of the universe even if we have a complete understanding of mathematics and science.
I'm only going to say one thing "Generic Hamiltonian Dynamical Systems are neither Integrable nor Ergodic": ams.org/books/memo/0144/

>unknowable

This is actually two categories:
>known unknowable
Stuff we now we can never fully understand
>unknown unknowable
Stuff weneither have nor will ever even conceive of that we can't even know that we'll never know about.

OP, can you predict the development of music from mathematics?

a simple insult is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy

>"you're wrong because you're a brainlet"
ad hominem
>"you're a brainlet"
not

>I'm pretty sure
>but I don't know shit
the archetype of Veeky Forums

>if we have a complete understanding of mathematics

Thing is we have proved that we can't have a complete theory of all mathematics.

>Fuck philosophy.
the eternal mating call of the brainlet

>makes no sense
>posts titcow
fuck off idiot

>Think that science has truth values. KEK

What do you mean?

>complete understanding of mathematics
Such a thing does not exist.

Go read about Godel's incompleteness theorem

Predictive power and explanatory success is fine but it does nothing to resolve the conceptual and interpretational issues at the heart of our theories. It will be far from a complete understanding, it'll be more like building a clock and knowing what will happen at each time