Can we work out the fundamental questions of the universe?

What particular questions are you thinking of?

@Fyrius
Similar to Douglas Adam’s Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy where they ask for the answers, the thing is we don’t even know the questions yet.

Maybe how to combined relativity with quantum theory.

I think it will happen. One of many reasons to be excited about the LHC, for one thing.

@forki
Well, that’s what we should find out first, then. Before we do, I think it would be somewhat premature to ponder whether we are capable of answering such questions.

I also think we should consider the possibility that an inability to even formulate the question is not an indication of just how deep the mystery is, but rather a hint that the mystery might not actually have much substance at all beyond a vague feeling that there should be a question there.
I think this might have been the point Douglas Adams was trying to make when he wrote about Life, the Universe and Everything. The project turned out to be useless because people didn’t think much about the question itself, and just assumed it was obvious.

As for combining relativity with quantum theory, I’m sure the physicists are already working on issues like that.

The fundamental questions about the universe will not be answered until we acknowledge the full spectrum of fundamental elements in the universe. As long as science is based purely upon the observable properties of energy and matter alone, it is incapable of providing answers to the question of why. The materialist is only capable of answering the how, but not the why. We must, for the sake of science, finally acknowledge the third element of information.

I fear this will not occur until the old dogmatic guard dies away, taking their materialistic theology along with them.

Welcome to the Age of the Petabyte, marking the End of Theory.
The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete
____________________________

As our collection of facts and figures grows, so will the opportunity to find answers to fundamental questions. Because in the era of big data, more isn’t just more. More is different.

Being inside the apple, we can determine much about the how. But the real fundamental Q is Why?

To answer that question, we must look for answers outside of the apple.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
“As long as science is based purely upon the observable properties of energy and matter alone”
“We must, for the sake of science, finally acknowledge the third element of information.”
Pleased to meet you, I’m a humanities major. Hi.

Science isn’t remotely that one-sided. It deals with much more than only matter and energy. You seem to be forgetting about the existence of fields like psychology, sociology, linguistics, game theory, memetics, mathematics, semantics, and indeed information theory.
Fun fact: Information theory has been around since 1948. The revolution you’re waiting for already happened over sixty years ago.

Furthermore no single field of science deals only with making observations. The why is what every field is all about; the explanations that connect the observable facts. These are called hypotheses and theories. You’ve probably heard of them.

@Fyrius

Psychology? Sociology? Mathematics? The Rest? Traditional Science has made a folly of these disciplines by approaching them from the antiquated position of hard Marxist Dialectic Materialism, attempting to reduce mind to brain, disregarding any true notion of free will, conflating thought/action with cause/reaction. A prime example of which is the conflation of the “Why?” question with the “How?” question. Traditional Science approaches notions of why and how as synonymous. How unfortunate.

One of the more popular mathematics questions I see here on fluther is the debate of whether Mathematics is a discovery, or an invention. A year ago when I joined, most people suggested it as a discovery, as if math was just floating around in the universe somewhere. Same thing for the laws of the universe, as if they were given to us and communicated by the cosmos. Thankfully, I see that tide turning in the past year, with more people accepting the fact that both Math and Laws are human descriptions of observable phenomenon and nothing more. They are products of mind. And that mind cannot be reduced to pure energy and matter.

Yet still they refuse to accept (or even understand) Weiners claim that Information is not energy or matter. Information is still reduced to being a physical thing. No regard is given to immaterial notions whatsoever. Weiners genius is overlooked, and Science shackles itself against the pursuit of truth, fearing it may lead into realms that are better left taboo.

And though Info Theory has been around for a while, its implications are still unappreciated by the mainstream. And the principles it developed are commonly rejected and ignored by other disciplines. If Info Theory is a part of the ultimate digital revolution, then I also suggest its roots are much older than Shannon.

I’ve heard it stated, that it takes any major theory or philosophy around 80 years to be widely accepted by the establishment. Even longer to be digested and understood by the general population. We’re getting close to that point with Info Theory, but we’re still not there yet.

The story goes, that it actually begins with the artist. A new aesthetic emerges from the mind of the creative. This gives philosophers new things to ponder upon, and gathering their wits, present their new philosophies to the universities, teaching them to new minds. These new ideas will not be fully accepted until they pass the gauntlet of empirical scientific analysis. As well, the young graduate must wait his turn, accepting and learning the old ways, before gaining the matured respect later in their careers, allowing them to fully pursue the new ideas. Then, and only then, will industry benefit from these new thoughts, whereas the general public becomes the last to know, yet fully embracing the new found tech, create the buzz for all to learn.

Such is the path followed by Info Theory and the Digital Revolution. I suggest it actually began in the late 1800’s with Seurat’s Pointillism

Deviating from the topic I feel science can understand the subjective realm but we science has hardly touched upon that yet. There was a video on TED reflecting my views on the matter.

Is this question answerable? We’re talking about the future, and I don’t know anyone who knows the future. It is the future that determine whether we can work out the fundamental questions of the universe.

I feel pretty sure that we will know more and more and more as time goes on. I feel pretty sure that there are an infinite number of secrets in the universe. But those are just feelings based on my experience.

It seems to me that there is some other question underneath this one that gets at what the OP is really intersted in.

“He even compares humanity to fish, which swim through the oceans without any idea of the properties of the water in which they spend their lives.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7149095.ece

This is clearly bunk; we, first of all lack adequate means of communication with fish so we cannot say with any amount of certainty that fish have no idea of the properties of the water through which they swim. They may have a very exact idea and thus are able to navigate thousands of miles unerringly, swim in complicated schools without ever once colliding with another, anticipate danger approaching, etc.
Secondly, assuming that fish are without consciousness and volition, living purely on instinct without the capability of higher reasoning and then putting humans on the same level, unable to question their own existence is frivolous. We certainly have an “idea” and are constantly striving to clarify that which we do not know.

Alternately; 42.

@envidula61 ”...there is some other question underneath this one that gets at what the OP is really intersted in.”

The OP only asks “How”? The underlying question for everyone is “Why”?

These two question, unfortunately, are often conflated as the same.

My thoughts you ask? I think it’s obvious. His “thesis” is nothing new. They’re just selling news “product”.

Look at ants. Will an ant ever be able to understand Einstein’s theory of general relativity? No. He doesn’t have the mechanisms.

It must follow that humans too are limited (as will be any computer ever made.) There will always be more than what we got. That thought actually offends some. Why?

The trick is to expand the horizon as much as possible, but know full well it can only ever go so far.

If you think about it, it’s amazing that humans could NOT think this way – and believe instead somehow the human brain can do anything in time. We’re told that lie our whole lives to try and pump us up to achieve capitalistic/competitive victory – but it’s silly poppycock.

I’m reminded of Annette Bening in the movie American Beauty (1999). Or someone here had this great link to the little girl self-motivating in the mirror! Sorry – I saved the link, but don’t remember the awesome jelly who found it.

Small point… Fermat’s Last Theorem was not proved with a computer. It was proved by Andrew Wiles. Maybe you are mixing it up with the 4 color theorem?

Interesting article. But we can get around the ‘beyond human comprehension’ part using Ray Kurzweil’s approach:build a superintelligent computer and give it the ability to evolve. Eventually it would be so intelligent that we can’t even fathom what it’s doing. Given its friendly nature we can ask it the question to work out the fundamentally explicable answers of the universe like dark energy and quantum gravity and ask it to explain it in simple terms.

I think there’s a fundamentally inexplicable part as well (the ultimate origin of the natural laws themselves), but maybe the superintelligent being can prove me wrong.

Could a superintelligent computer ever be self-sufficient? I.e., be completely independent of humans and yet, still able to create the hardware it needs for it’s existence? Could there be a robotic machine for every single thing that a human being does, including creative problem solving?

The Forbin Project

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – great movie/reference.

Yeah the 70’s was well ahead of the game when considering A.I.

The Forbin Project is a must see. But don’t forget the other classic staring Proteus in The Demon Seed.

Both movies available in their entirety on YouTube.

@ipso
“Look at ants. Will an ant ever be able to understand Einstein’s theory of general relativity? No. He doesn’t have the mechanisms.
It must follow that humans too are limited (as will be any computer ever made.)”
That mustn’t follow at all.
Ants aren’t just dumber humans. There are some fundamental qualitative differences between a human and ant mind. For starters, ants do not preserve knowledge in writing, and do not form worldwide communities to work together over the centuries to solve theoretical problems. They also have no motivation to bother with pondering physics while there are tunnels to be dug and picknicks to be ruined.
Bad analogy. Unwarranted conclusion.

That doesn’t mean I disagree with you. Surely our minds are limited. You just made my skin crawl with that non-sequitur, that’s all.

That’s no reason to accept defeat already, though. Let us find our limits by smashing into them face-first, rather than shunning the areas where we expect to find them. They might not be as close by as we think.

I particularly hope I’m still around when the transhumanists get their act together, when intelligence can be expanded like we would upgrade a computer.

@Fyrius – I hear you, but, ”It must follow” ^^ stands.

I knew it was cheeky fallacious when I used it, but chose to use it anyway – because I couldn’t think of anything better – almost daring someone to disagree, but you called me out without actually disagreeing – so that didn’t work out too well for me.

However, you go on:

You stated: “Ants aren’t just dumber humans.” I never said that. I believe you committed an Appeal to Ridicule fallacy, itself a non sequitur.

You stated “There are some fundamental qualitative differences between a human and ant mind.” – that is a False Analogy, because strictly speaking ants don’t have minds. even if you want to back into the “hive minds” thing.

You stated: “Bad analogy.” I could not disagree with you more. I think it’s a great analogy actually: ants limitations = a great way to understand that humans too “must” likewise have limitations.

So – “you win”, but I just wanted to go down swinging.

@ipso ””It must follow” ^^ stands.”

I’m afraid not. There is a monumental chasm between ants and humans so no analogy may be offered to this question of what is understandable. And it’s not just ants, which was a poor analogy to begin with because ants have no language. A more fitting analogy would have been bees, for at least they have a language, that being the figure 8 waggle dance.

But still the analogy falls, for bees and all other animals. For humans alone are capable of crafting new words to express new concepts. For this reason, humans should therefor be capable of comprehending any and all concepts that may be communicated with language.

@Fyrius “Surely our minds are limited.”

Minds or brains? If brain, then yes I most certainly agree with you. But mind cannot be attributed with limits so confidently. How may we place limits upon that which has still yet to even be discovered? Limits denotes a physical barrier. We have no evidence to conclude that mind is physical.

I propose that mind is immaterial in nature, and therefor physical limitations do not apply. As well, for the same reasons given to @ipso, as long as mind is capable of creating new words to express new concepts, I see no limitations of understanding attributable to this uniquely human characteristic.

_______________

When computers are capable of expressing intentionality, combined with an ability to create new words that express new concepts, then and only then, will they be on par with human consciousness.

@ipso
Lol, I’m sorry for upsetting your cunning ruse. :P

“You stated: “Ants aren’t just dumber humans.” I never said that.”
You didn’t say this, that’s true. But I inserted that because your analogy could only work if ants were just dumber humans, and this is exactly the reason why it was invalid; the differences are more extensive than just quantity.
I’m sorry if I gave you a wrong impression. I didn’t mean to be ridiculing, I just meant to be clear. In my wish to be clear I sometimes point out things that are stupidly obvious. That doesn’t mean I’m trying to imply you disagree on those things, or think you’re too dumb to realise those things yourself.

“You stated “There are some fundamental qualitative differences between a human and ant mind.” – that is a False Analogy, because strictly speaking ants don’t have minds.”
Hmmmyes. Well, replace it then with “a human mind and the ant equivalent of a mind”, if you like. Whatever part of the ant regulates its actions. (I’ll be buggered if I know how ants work.)
Incidentally the fact that you need a different term goes to show quite precisely what I was trying to say; it’s a reach to even compare the two.

Thanks for being as reasonable as to yield. That’s to your credit, not many people ever seem to do that.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
Once again you underestimate science, and insult its achievements by equating your personal ignorance to “nobody knows”.

Various aspects of the mind have already been proven to be reducible to the processes at work inside the brain. Neurologists know exactly what part of your brain deals with memories, and what parts with music, what parts with planning and making decisions, what parts with motor actions, and what parts with intentions of motor actions. Neuropsychologists know exactly what parts of your brain tissue they need to mess with in what way to render you aphasic, depressed or paranoid.
Even you know cocoa makes you cheerful, and caffeine makes you energetic, not to mention the effects of cannabis and LSD. All substances that directly affect your state of mind, by tinkering with your brain chemistry.

Yes, we have evidence to conclude that the mind is physical. Mind-body dualism belongs with phlogiston and vitalism, and with Apollo’s chariot and the dew fairies, for being both ostensible balderbash and unscientific to begin with.

I also think you shouldn’t get hung up on the ability to create new words with new meanings. It would be child’s play to create a program that generates new pronouncable strings of speech sounds and combines them with newly constructed concepts, like pairing “flandargle” with “blind lumberjack” or “webblest” with “red bucket”.

Sure the computer could be programmed to do it. May we see that functionality without the programming? It must arise on its own merit without being designed to do so. We may give it all the tools necessary to accomplish the task. But programming it to embrace language expansion is no different than programming a thermostat.

And yes yes neuropsy has made great strides in learning what buttons to press to make the lights blink on the machine. But it has not uncovered the mind which presses those buttons on its own. We can also reverse engineer a computer and find out what makes its lights blink too. But we would never claim that knowledge as the reason. That’s only the cause. I do not equate cause with reason. Cause is mechanical. Reason is mindful.

For instance. Mechanical Cause cannot explain why the use of terms like “ostensible balderbash” would contribute anything to this discussion. But Mindful Reason can indeed explain that those words were specifically intended to belittle the point of view of another by comparing it to the perceived foolishness of mythology and folklore.

“May we see that functionality without the programming? It must arise on its own merit without being designed to do so.”
Cool ad-hoc postulation, bro. But the only difference between one and the other is that the version you would accept only performs the task by accident. How is that superior? It would no less be a deterministic machine; any AI is.
And how do you ever expect any AI to be created without it being programmed the way we want it to be?

“But it has not uncovered the mind which presses those buttons on its own.”
I’m not going to take your word on that any more.
Are you qualified to be able to tell how much neuroscience does not know? For all you know someone might have published a paper on this very issue just a second ago.

“I do not equate cause with reason. Cause is mechanical. Reason is mindful.”
Then nature is full of causes, but reasons only exist where people intend things.
The human mind is a natural phenomenon; its structure cannot have reasons.

“Mechanical Cause cannot explain why the use of terms like “ostensible balderbash” would contribute anything to this discussion.”
Again you mistake personal lack of insight for the absence of a possible satisfactory answer. Mechanical cause definitely can explain it, in theory; it’s just not feasible to explain mental macro-events in terms of the interactions of neurons. That doesn’t mean the macro-level is not still material.

“But Mindful Reason can indeed explain that those words were specifically intended to belittle the point of view of another by comparing it to the perceived foolishness of mythology and folklore.”
And lo and behold, your Mindful Reason is the wrong answer. As expected from someone who has to do without a Reasonful Mind.
And yes, that’s a sarcastic jab to belittle your intellect. But what I said earlier was a rather specific criticism that you could address on its merits, now that you know its relevance. Here’s a hint: “ostensible balderdash” means we know from scientific fact that it’s not true. And don’t leave out “unscientific to begin with”, either.

Side note: I am getting agitated. The mechanical cause for this is a combination of a mild dosage of adrenaline released by stress from processing the information you post, and fatigue – with its biochemical consequences – due to the fact that it’s an hour and a half past midnight and I need sleep. If there were more caffeine and carbohydrates in my system, I would experience different thoughts now given the same input.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – wrote: “For this reason, humans should therefor be capable of comprehending any and all concepts that may be communicated with language.”

I agree – humans may in fact someday be able to comprehend all the words they create.

But there sure as shit are a lot of things in the universe that the human mind will never understand – even if the brain develops to the size of a planet. One example would be, “what it is like to be an ant”.

@Fyrius got that. You didn’t. He was hung-up very specifically on my “must follow” usage – and he was dead right. he just added some extra gobbledygook, so he missed the clean 3pt takedown.

You both misconstrued that I thought ants dumber than humans. I said that ants could not understand Einstein’s theory of general relativity because they don’t have the mechanisms. Who is to say that ants can’t combine TODAY to understand 1000 fold more profound and complex things than the human mind ever will – ever. Waxing rhapsodic about the vast complexity of the human mind (vs. ant) just digs yourself deeper. The point was not to sublimate ants to humans – it was to contrast them.

Humans have this nasty little solipsism that the mind is infinitely capable to know all things “in the universe”. The hubris.

@Fyrius On your monitor, can you see the optical illusion in your last post? I notice this rare phenomenon from time to time. You will think me mad if your monitor/browser is not lining up the words in the same manner as mine does.

Squint and blur your eyes while moving the scroll bar up and down. Do you see it? It’s like a fattening scar upon your thoughts. No really. It begins on the word “possible” on the line “Again you mistake personal lack of insight for the absence of a possible satisfactory answer.”

And then it veers to the right on the next line with the word “mental” and under that “material”. Then my emboldened text ”intended” and under that “folklore”.

Do you see it?

The words continue to make this page scar, growing wider, words on top of the other continuing with “someone” over “rather” over “ostensible” over “unscientific” over “dosage of” over “its biochemical” over “If there were” over “given the same”.

Perhaps your monitors pixel count and your browsers text formatting does not provide for the same perspective. Maybe you’ve seen it before in other text enough to know what I’m talking about.

The words align vertically, falling to the right and growing wider. They form “mental material intended folklore someone rather ostensible unscientific dosage of its biochemical If there were given the same”

I find this phenomenon fascinating. It almost makes your thoughts three dimensional. Is there a name for it? If not, we should give it one. We are humans after all. We can create new words to describe new phenomenon.

I think I’ll post another thread on this topic just to see if anyone else sees what I see.

BTW… I avoid addressing your comments directly as I do not wish to be a source of agitation for you or anyone else. I certainly respect your beliefs. I’ve said enough to express my position here. No need to beleaguer the point. You may have the last word.

I agree with your decision – this isn’t going to go anywhere.