I say yes. I predict that in my area, math, there will be computer devised concepts and results beyond human understanding. If simply the length of a particular discovery - only so much that can be kept in the mind and be instantly retrievable for comparison.

Maybe not.

Well, for what it's worth, I think there's no end to things that can be discovered. We're more aware of that now than ever before, I would have thought, since we now have a realistic grasp of the immense scope of the Universe and the teeming complexity of organic life and the environment. It seems pretty clear will always be more to discover.

But perhaps there's distinction to be made between the limits of knowledge, and the limitations of knowledge, considered as the mastery of facts or as scientific expertise. There are cognitive modes or skillful actions, like those that might characterise artistic or athletic or aesthetic pursuits. Such proclitivities - consider for an example the uncanny abilities of musical prodigies - rely on something other than knowledge in the sense usually understood.They often rely very much on what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi described as 'flow'. His work focused on the state of intense focus and immersion in activities, which he described as being so absorbed in an activity that nothing else seems to exist. The state of flow, according to Csikszentmihalyi, is highly conducive to creativity and personal fulfilment. I suppose they involve a kind of knowledge, but more like know-how than symbolic or propositional knowledge (although obviously concert pianists often have extraordinary knowledge of the classical piano repertoire as well.)

There are several other themes and memes the OP brings to mind, but I'll leave it at that for now.

Are there things in the physical universe that we can never find out? — Vera Mont

Humans will probably never know.

If so, is that due to our limitations or time constraint?

Both.

Are there things beyond our range of perception, ...

Yes: planck and relativistic phenomena ...

beyond our ... imagination or

I can't imagine it.

our ... ability to devise instruments?

Certainly (re: technical impossibilities).

Or are there things we are not meant to discover ...

How about a "God" that hides from us?

or not able to comprehend?

Well, 'narrow AI systems' like AlphaGo neural nets play the strategic game Go in ways which are incomprehensible – black boxes – to the best human players and students of the game. I suspect in the coming decade or so we'll encounter many more 'black box solutions' – rendering our species cognitively obsolete – in disciplines automated (colonized) by AGI such as finance, engineering, computation, molecular biology, nanotech, neuroscience, chemistry, fundamental physics, ... public administration, etc.

You have already mentioned what we can never find out: what is the physical universe? Whatever you answer will just move the question to the concepts you used in your answer. So, at the end, what we can never find out is the meaning of your question itself. Is there anything in this world that we have been able to understand in a definitive way? Is knowledge possible? What is knowledge?

So, at the end, what we can never find out is the meaning of your question itself — Angelo Cannata

That's pretty depressing! I have always relied in human knowledge for safe food, solid buildings, transportation that conveys me predictably from A to B, and medicine that cures my headache and heals my wounds. I can't subscribe to a philosophy that doesn't know what knowledge is; it would be contrary to my daily experience.
But I do believe that the human mind, as well as the the scope of human exploration has limits. I also believe that we, as a species, will run out of time before we have reached those limits.

Do dogs have limits? Apes? Fish? Tigers or Elephants?

Are we a part of nature or are we an exception to nature, not subject to its whims?

Since I take it that we are natural beings, we have natural limits.

If there were you should have to think on both sides of it.

This is like the joke of those who lost their keys in a dark place, but decided to look for them in another place, because in the other place the was light. You can’t solve problems by ignoring them just because they are uncomfortable. If you see that your car is going towards a wall, the solution is not to close your eyes.
Philosophy shows us that everything can be criticized. The very concept of knowledge can be criticized. This can be uncomfortable and depressing to those who don’t like to explore different ways of thinking. If you don’t like to explore different ways of thinking, what is the point of doing philosophy?

I can't subscribe to a philosophy that doesn't know what knowledge is; it would be contrary to my daily experience. — Vera Mont

:up: :up:

[W]hat is the point of doing philosophy? — Angelo Cannata

Well, to begin with it seems, "the point" is to interpret questions we (still) do not know how to (definitively) answer and thereby reason towards more probative questions. Or, in other words, "the point of doing philosophy" is learning how to overcome (or, at least, mitgate) the ignorance of one's own ignorance.

Philosophy shows us that everything can be criticized. The very concept of knowledge can be criticized. — Angelo Cannata

Be my guest. Find all the fault you want with knowledge. Just don't expect me to "do" a philosophy that denies its existence. In this thread, I was hoping to explore, not the nature of knowledge, or what may imaginatlively lie beyond the physical universe, but the theoretical limits to humanity's quest for knowledge. If the very concept is suspect, that's fine -- I'm sure there is a place with more light in which to seek certainty.

If you don’t like to explore different ways of thinking, what is the point of doing philosophy? — Angelo Cannata

Well, I'm not sure about 'doing' philosophy. I don't do it. I read a little about it. But my interest is superficial.

People seem to take an interest in philosophy for a range of reasons. Often simply to find more sophisticated post hoc justifications for what they already belief. I also think a lot of people are attracted to philosophy to undertake a bit of a survey of what other (seemingly) crazy ideas there are available.

I have always thought that human knowledge was simply the best inferences we can make given our limitations and the perspectives available to us. We can apply some of our knowledge with prodigious results. But we seem unable to avoid wars, famines, environmental catastrophe and hideous internecine religious and political conflicts. We have just enough knowledge, it seems, to take us to the precipice.

We have just enough knowledge, it seems, to take us to the precipice. — Tom Storm

That's probably true. Knowledge is not wisdom, or sound judgment or prudence or far-sightedness or justice. Knowledge is nothing more than the acquisition, organization and deployment of accurate information (facts.)

Its an interesting question. It seems to me that humans are learning about how matter behaves when acted upon by the fundamental forces. But what matter is and how and why the fundamental forces operate the way they do seems to be beyond us. And I'm not sure we are making any progress in these areas, and maybe never will.

Maybe this article is of interest:
Gödel and the fundamental incompleteness of human self-knowledge

Are there things in the physical universe that we can never find out? — Vera Mont

Whether unicorns exist.

Good paper, but it seems to me that thinking about minds in terms of Turing machines and computationalism is a bit behind the times.

Are there things in the physical universe that we can never find out?
If so, is that due to our limitations or time constraint? — Vera Mont

There have been a lot of good answers. I'll try not to be too redundant.

The universe is believed to be much larger than what we can observe of it, so it would seem reasonable to say, that with regards to the sheer number of things/events in the universe we can find out about very few of them. This is independent of our limitations or time constraints. (Unless the speed of light is considered to be an aspect of "our limitations".)

Are there things in the physical universe that we can never find out? — Vera Mont

Our knowledge allows us to build a model of the universe.

Over time our knowledge can increase and our model of the universe becomes better.

But our better model of the universe is still incomplete, unless our knowledge is infinite.

I don't believe that our knowledge can be infinite.

Therefore there are things in the physical universe that we can never find out.

about minds in terms of Turing machines and computationalism is a bit behind the times — wonderer1

The computational theory of mind is pretty much still in vogue.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/abs/computational-theory-of-mind/A56A0340AD1954C258EF6962AF450900

I don't think there is anyone being an expert in all fields that has/had subject matter experts; maybe that indicates limits of sorts?

The computational theory of mind is pretty much still in vogue. — Lionino

It's relatively easy to think in computationalist terms, so looking at human minds in computationalist terms is like looking for your key under the street light because that's where the light is.

The evidence supporting connectionism is growing at an astronomical rate these days. You can check out the SEP entry on connectionism although it was last revised in 2019, so can't be informed by recent developments in AI.

The evidence supporting connectionism is growing at an astronomical rate these days. You can check out the SEP entry on connectionism although it was last revised in 2019, so can't be informed by recent developments in AI. — wonderer1

:up:

Are there things in the physical universe that we can never find out? — Vera Mont

Absolutely. For example: what is the ontological bedrock of physical reality? No matter how deeply we explore, we can't know we've reached rock bottom.