Humans too simple to understand universe: scientist

And we could call that reality beyond our understanding God, it's as good a word as any. This shows the shortcomings of atheism and scientism - thinking we're so smart we can figure it all out. As Rumsfeld would say, there's all those damn unnkown unknowns out there. (And in here too.) Of course theism is just as bad, if people think they have figured out God and it's role in the world.

Fixed

Fixed

Whatever turns your crank.

Yes there are things out there that are beyon our understanding. There has always a problem for me. I believe in science and I also believe in God. At times this causes a conflict but there is a great deal out there that we don't know. There are limitations to what can understand.

It's good to get away from the topic of Islam. It was starting to get a bit unfriendly.

The unknowns will eventually become known, but once humanity progresses through the Transhuman stage and then into the post-human stage of mental and physical development. Once we reach that point, we will start to understand more and more of the universe, ahving left our relatively simply bodies and brains behind.

...and living as pure energy existing in all dimensions... nuts.

And this is why I try to avoid any religion discusions with atheists. It's not that they don't believe, but it seems most of them have to get in their little insults.

The guy is just offering an opinion. When they said "scientist" I thought that meant he'd have something to back it up. Godel basically proved this with his "Incompleteness Theorem" (in my mind the greatest feat of intelligence in the history of humankind). Godel proved that no [sufficiently complex] consistent rational algorithm (e.g. logic, mathematics) can completely describe a given system. There will always be truths which are unreachable by said system.

Indeed Shakespeare was (as usual) remarkably prescient when Hamlet said "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Interestingly, Penrose proved that no artificial intelligence yet conceived, no matter how big and how fast, could prove Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

The Penrose that you are talking about is that Roger Penrose
in Cambridge?

I kinda figured the same.

I mean we have done really super well for hyper intelligent monkeys, using the system we devised to determine who has the most banana's to conclude the existence of atoms and then utilize them to blow stuff up and heat pop-tarts and all.

But we may be fast approaching the wall, the hard real ugly limit of human understanding and we may need to make some post-humans to figure it all out while we mere humans drink the purple kool-aid of shame and retire from our toils.

Well, if you have an infinitely complex system, you will run out of brain cells eventually.

Unless, of course, human beings are supernatural.

Not all of them.

Just a few of us.

Not all of them.

Just a few of us.

yep.

Here is one:



Here is the other:

Science is also becoming so complex that discoveries soon won't be made by individuals, but by groups. No one person is capable of being a generalist in a field, because there simply is too much data to first learn.