Is there a finite limit to Scientific Knowledge?

[CoyoteNature]

There does seem to be the idea in science that there will eventually be a descriptive theory encompassing all arenas of physics. In fact it seems like this is the ultimate goal of most major scientific areas. The premise is that eventually everything will be known, and categorized, and beyond that would be merely details. I'm not sayin they say it, just saying that is the feel of it.

However this only assumes a finite system, it doesn't allow for a possibly infinite system, or merely larger then the observed domain of natural laws which we see (some recent ideas of expansion suppose we are expanding into another universe's wavefront). Even as far back as Herman Godel, there being no finite limit to knowledge, why not the universe?

Perhaps it is because you couldn't prove a infinite system vs. a finite system?

But anyway, thoughts, finite infinite, some combination of both?

[The Grim Squeaker]

I'd say so, after all there are a set amount of universal laws, and once you know them all, and the most efficient method to do something and are down to Planck time circuits (Or if you have "hyperspace") then there isn't more to learn, the laws of physics are'nt changing.

The culture books are a good example of this, scientifically they know everything except multi universal tapping (excession) and the only thing left to discover is that or subliming.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

My answer to your question is that there is a finite limit to scientific knowledge. The universe itself contains a finite amount of matter. This means that the universe can only represent a finite amount of information. (This finite amount of information will describe the momentum, position, velocity and energy levels of every particle in the universe. In this will be encoded the principles by which these interactions take place. Since there are only a finite number of "bits" with which to do these "calculations" it follows that there are only a finite set of principles which govern the whole thing.)

Humans and their equipment are a very small subset of the set describing the matter in the universe. Thusly, all human knowledge thorough the history of the species can be expressed as some fraction of the sum of all possible combinations of states of our minds, and what tools we can build through the history of the species. (We say it's a fraction, as some states are unprofitable to pursue, some will be pursued and expressed repeatedly, taking away time that could be spent seeking out other states, and the species may not survive long enough to achieve all possible combinations of information states.) And, as humans only devote a fraction of their time and resources pursuing scientific discoveries, the end sum of scientific knowledge achievable by humans throughout the duration of the species will be some finite fraction of the sum of overall human knowledge and experience.

Thus, if one acknowledges the following arguments:
A) The universe has a finite ability to represent information.
B) The maximum amount of information that can be conveyed by the universe is dictated by a finite set of principles which produces a consistent result x for any given f(n) where f is a function of some input conditions n.
C) Human beings make up a finite fraction of the information represented as postulated in A and B.
D) Humans are inefficient at studying science, which means that:
E) Human scientific knowledge is a finite subset of all possible human knowledge postulated in C, with the implications stated therein. So in short:

F) Scientific knowledge is finite.

[Sea Skimmer]

The only way I could see there being no limit to science, would be if the very laws of the universe in fact change.

[tharkûn]

The only way I could see there being no limit to science, would be if the very laws of the universe in fact change.

And in a nonpredictable fashion, to boot.

For instance even if c changes, but we can predict the change then we just come back to a finite set of laws.

There may be many scientific theories we cannot prove and hence satisfy Godel's incompleteness, however argueably all of science is improvable if you don't a priori dump sophistry as useless. There are a finite number of measurements that can be made in the universe and that will prove be a ridiciously high upper bound to scientific knowledge.

[Surlethe]

I'm curious to know who voted "no", and why.

[Zero]

I didn't vote 'no' but I can imagine that the why would be that even though the universe is finite, and contains a finite amount of matter, it's possible that there's no finite amount of detail to any one bit of matter. Perhaps things are irreducibly complex, so that as techniques of analysic subatomic stuffies become better and better, we'll simply discover that there's no end to the complexity of things.

[Molyneux]

There may be a limit to the knowledge science can accumulate, but the limit itself may be unattainable. Time will tell.

[tharkûn]

it's possible that there's no finite amount of detail to any one bit of matter. Perhaps things are irreducibly complex, so that as techniques of analysic subatomic stuffies become better and better, we'll simply discover that there's no end to the complexity of things.

Only if we find reason to throw QM out the window. Every "smaller" thing will require smaller amounts of energy between various possible states. Eventually any "measure" of this energy is going require such reciprocal uncertainty in time that the uncertainty would be greater than the age of the universe. Obviously that would be a Bad Thing; which makes the choice to keep QM, and an inherent lower limit to how small of detail you can have, and ditch this line of thought not particularly hard.

[wautd]

I doubt we'll ever be able to fully understand the universe. Stephen Hawking made once said it best I can't find the quote back

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I didn't vote 'no' but I can imagine that the why would be that even though the universe is finite, and contains a finite amount of matter, it's possible that there's no finite amount of detail to any one bit of matter. Perhaps things are irreducibly complex, so that as techniques of analysic subatomic stuffies become better and better, we'll simply discover that there's no end to the complexity of things.

There are finite limits to how small you can subdivide time time and the resolution of the universe. (i.e. Planck Time and Planck Length.) Matter can only be subdivided so far, until you encouter the zoo of specific, discrete, and indivisible elementary particles. All of this very much suggests that there is an absolute limit to the complexity of the universe, since it operates at a fixed clock, has a fixed "pixel" size, and is composed of discrete elements.