Can reason and logic explain everything.

staticphoton

Consider two scenarios:

1. There is nothing in the universe that can't be understood by human reasoning and logic. Even those problems for which we have not found solutions, we would be able to grasp and understand these solutions if they were somehow presented to us. Through logical thought and reasoning, there is nothing in the universe beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind.

2. There are aspects of the universe and its workings that are simply beyond the capability of human reasoning. We will continually formulate more sophisticated models to explain the universe, however if somehow the true universal laws were presented to us, it would be beyond our capability to decypher them. The fundamental workings of the universe will forever remain a mystery that the human mind is not capable of grasping.

You might deduce that if scenario #1 holds true, that the reasoning capability of the human mind has reached its evolutionary apogee, and that the capacity of comprehending the workings of the universe are within reach of the homo sapiens. We are the end game.

On the other hand, scenario #2 leaves room for futher evolution of cognitive powers, the sapiens being of a far future will look at our mental capacity just like we compare ours to that of a Rhesus monkey. This future being would be better equipped to grasp the workings of the universe, and yet again, it might still not be enough.

I will leave you with those thoughts as something to consider when thinking through existential items such as god, life, meaning. If you choose to believe in scenario #1, then human reason will guide you in finding definitive solutions. If you choose #2, humility would be a good place to start.

In any case, it boils down to belief. Whatever road you choose to walk, realize the truth is only in your mind.

Terrapin Station

The first thing we need to clarify when we're answering this is just what is an explanation? Just what are the criteria for an explanation? Just what do explanations do?

And likewise, given what you're actually saying in the post (as opposed to the title), just what is understanding? Just what are the criteria for understanding?

staticphoton

The criteria is that we can formulate a model that will resolve any question about the universe's workings.

Terrapin Station

The criteria is that we can formulate a model that will resolve any question about the universe's workings. — staticphoton

Resolve any question to any arbitrary person's satisfaction?

staticphoton

Logical reasoning doesn't care about personal satisfaction.

Terrapin Station

↪staticphoton

What would you say determines whether a model resolves a question then?

alcontali

There is nothing in the universe that can't be understood by human reasoning and logic. — staticphoton

Science is merely a Platonic-cave shadow of the real explanation for the universe, i.e. the theory of everything (ToE).

We will continually formulate more sophisticated models to explain the universe, however if somehow the true universal laws were presented to us, it would be beyond our capability to decypher them. — staticphoton

It is not even sure that "more sophisticated models" are within reach. They could be, but they could also not be.

Concerning the ToE, i.e. the "true universal laws", Stephen Hawking argued that they were out of reach in his lecture Gödel and the end of physics. I am a bit uncomfortable with his justification for that view, because he readily mixes mathematics and physics:

What is the relation between Godel’s theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted.

This connection is not "obvious" to me. Hawking said all of that en passant between two other ideas, and he very quickly moved on to the next idea. I am not sure that it is that easy. Mathematics and physics are epistemically so different that it leaves a strange impression when someone shoots off that kind of statements between breakfast and lunch. Even though I do not reject Hawking's views, I think that they were said too easily, and absorbed by the audience too easily. As far as I am concerned, the link between mathematics and physics is not as simple as Hawking depicts it.

staticphoton

Science is merely a Platonic-cave shadow of the real explanation for the universe, i.e. the theory of everything (ToE). — alcontali

It is not even sure that "more sophisticated models" are within reach. They could be, but they could also not be.

Based on that I assume you're leaning towards #2: We are not capable of formulating a ToE. Need to wait for a more evolved sapiens.

As far as I am concerned, the link between mathematics and physics is not as simple as Hawking depicts it — alcontali

Agreed, two different animals. Physicists use math like a carpenter would use a monkey wrench to drive a nail.

staticphoton

What would you say determines whether a model resolves a question then — Terrapin Station

If the results of applying the model exactly resemble the real thing.

Terrapin Station

If the results of applying the model exactly resemble the real thing. — staticphoton

"Exactly resemble" seems to be an oxymoron. It's not going to exactly BE the real thing. And resemblance is a judgment, unless you want to try to set up objective criteria for it somehow.

Terrapin Station

At the very least, this should underscore some of the problems with answering a question like this.

People almost always talk about explanations without analyzing the idea of explanations. Explanations are not that cut and dried that we can just bypass that step.

staticphoton

People almost always talk about explanations without analyzing the idea of explanations. Explanations are not that cut and dried that we can just bypass that step — Terrapin Station

Agreed. Explanations would require a language/system that is coherent and watertight, which can be used universally to communicate a concept or idea without becoming distorted by personal interpretation. Mathematics is our best present attempt to do so in the field of physics, and although progress has been made, there are many aspects of existence that cannot be formulated by mathematics. So I go with #2.

I'm just postulating two possibilities. Not proofs or truths implied.

tim wood

the sapiens being of a far future will look at our mental capacity just like we compare ours to that of a Rhesus monkey. — staticphoton

Neil deGrasse Tyson has somewhat pointedly observed that human and chimp DNA differs only very slightly, and what if we meet beings whose DNA differs from ours...?

And there's the approach from the other side. Can even we craft a question ultimately unanswerable? That is, for any iterated series of "Whys," is there always an answer?

staticphoton

Neil deGrasse Tyson has somewhat pointedly observed that human and chimp DNA differs only very slightly, and what if we meet beings whose DNA differs from ours...?

And there's the approach from the other side. Can even we craft a question ultimately unanswerable? That is, for any iterated series of "Whys," is there always an answer? — tim wood

Actually our DNA differs very slightly from that of a worm.

And yes, you can craft an absurdity, which would be unanswerable.

Terrapin Station

Agreed. Explanations would require a language/system that is coherent and watertight, which can be used universally to communicate a concept or idea without becoming distorted by personal interpretation. — staticphoton

You can't have a language without semantics, and you can't have semantics without personal interpretation. There's no way to make personal interpretation universal.

staticphoton

You can't have a language without semantics, and you can't have semantics without personal interpretation. There's no way to make personal interpretation universal — Terrapin Station

Correct. That is a limitation of the Homo Sapiens. The reason I lean towards #2.

jellyfish

Whatever road you choose to walk, realize the truth is only in your mind. — staticphoton

I like your post in general, but maybe it falls into its own trap. 'The truth is only in your mind' is in some sense not virtuously humble at all but just one more 'super theory' put forward as a truth that is not only in your mind or my mind.

jellyfish

Explanations would require a language/system that is coherent and watertight, which can be used universally to communicate a concept or idea without becoming distorted by personal interpretation. Mathematics is our best present attempt to do so in the field of physics, and although progress has been made, there are many aspects of existence that cannot be formulated by mathematics. So I go with #2. — staticphoton

FWIW, I go with #2 also. But I go with #2 because I have old-fashioned actual beliefs about human cognition. For instance, I think if we really suffer the 'nature' of language that it becomes pretty obvious that we know not how we do. Obviously we can build better mousetraps. We can experience a sense of progressive sophistication. But the old rationalistic fantasy is dead for me anyway. I don't think we can get the mathematics of Being that some philosophers have craved.

jellyfish

This connection is not "obvious" to me. — alcontali

I agree. That quote doesn't feel right. For one thing, I can predict whatever I want,without some mathematical proof. And then math = axiomatic is itself a commitment. If there are true statements about natural numbers that have no proofs (and there are), then the whole proof game is put in a new light.

jellyfish

On the other hand, scenario #2 leaves room for futher evolution of cognitive powers, the sapiens being of a far future will look at our mental capacity just like we compare ours to that of a Rhesus monkey. This future being would be better equipped to grasp the workings of the universe, and yet again, it might still not be enough. — staticphoton

Good point. But what does it mean to explain something? It seems connected to a sense of familiarity and mastery. You give someone an 'explanation' when they calm down and get back to work. They could dig further into it, but they aren't motivated to do so. Call it 'God' or 'laws of physics.' Though we could specify these loaded concepts forever, they are often enough to tuck us in.

staticphoton

I like your post in general, but maybe it falls into its own trap. 'The truth is only in your mind' is in some sense not virtuously humble at all but just one more 'super theory' put forward as a truth that is not only in your mind or my mind — jellyfish

Yes, definitely worded that one wrong. Meant to say that which we hold as truth, is only a belief.

staticphoton

I don't think we can get the mathematics of Being that some philosophers have craved — jellyfish

I have noticed a tendency among colleagues (engineers and scientists) to firmly believe that human reason can conquer all, or put in another form, only that which can be grasped by human reason can exist. One in particular who I respect greatly has even stated it.

That was the main reason for my posting. Attempting to debunk the notion in a public forum before I bring it to the lunch table. Practice.

staticphoton

Though we could specify these loaded concepts forever, they are often enough to tuck us in — jellyfish

The super sapiens example was only to illustrate that we don't have the capability, however, theoretically the evolution of intellect can go on indefinitely and still never reach a nirvana of cognition.

jellyfish

I have noticed a tendency among colleagues (engineers and scientists) to firmly believe that human reason can conquer all, or put in another form, only that which can be grasped by human reason can exist. One in particular who I respect greatly has even stated it. — staticphoton

I really like your theme.

I think we agree that human reason cannot conquer all, but I think I know what your colleague might have meant by 'only that which can be grasped by human reason can exist.' I'd tweak that and say that anything intelligible for us is (tautologically) graspable by reason. In other words, we can't specify the unintelligible except by a vague negation as some X which we aren't grasping.

So in some sense the unintelligible or unreasonable doesn't exist for us. That said, it seems clear to me that our thinking is mostly fuzzy and analogue (math being the exception.) So reality-for-us fades out gradually as we can make less and less sense of it.

jellyfish

The super sapiens example was only to illustrate that we don't have the capability, however, theoretically the evolution of intellect can go on indefinitely and still never reach a nirvana of cognition. — staticphoton

We agree. I guess I was just trying to explain what I find fascinating about so-called explanations. A super-sapien would build better mousetraps. But as long as they are still human-like (an amplification of our own nature), I think they'd wrestle with philosophy. The less like us they are, the less we can really imagine them. The superior alien is like a god or an angel, which is to say essentially human for the human imagination. It's just that our imaginations can push beyond the usual mortal limits.

Consciousness in the strict sense, or consciousness properly speaking, and consciousness of the infinite cannot be separated from each other; a limited consciousness is no consciousness; consciousness is essentially infinite and all-encompassing. The consciousness of the infinite is nothing else than the consciousness of the infinity of consciousness. To put it in other words, in its consciousness of infinity, the conscious being is conscious of the infinity of its own being.
...
Every limitation of reason, or of human nature in general, rests on a delusion, an error. To be sure, the human individual can, even must, feel and know himself to be limited – and this is what distinguishes him from the animal – but he can become conscious of his limits, his finiteness, only because he can make the perfection and infinity of his species the object either of his feeling, conscience, or thought. — Feuerbach

I'm not presenting this as gospel but as an interesting thought that I relate to your theme. The super-sapien is an object for 'infinite' human consciousness --and that object is in that sense an image of that consciousness freed from limits it experiences as contingent. We just happen to have this cognitive structure, and yet we can strangely vaguely imagine a better cognitive structure --which must it seems in some sense already be ours for us to imagine it.

ssu

1. There is nothing in the universe that can't be understood by human reasoning and logic. Even those problems for which we have not found solutions, we would be able to grasp and understand these solutions if they were somehow presented to us. Through logical thought and reasoning, there is nothing in the universe beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind. — staticphoton

And if that human reasoning and logic finds out that to some questions we simply cannot find out solutions even if they exist because of logic? That it would be illogical if we could find the solution.

This actually happens already as we are part of the universe and cannot observe things from outside the universe.

You might deduce that if scenario #1 holds true, that the reasoning capability of the human mind has reached its evolutionary apogee — staticphoton

Why would we assume that? There are many basic questions still open. Like the question in mathematics about what actually is infinity? Taking infinity as an axiom isn't an answer.

Artemis

2. There are aspects of the universe and its workings that are simply beyond the capability of human reasoning. We will continually formulate more sophisticated models to explain the universe, however if somehow the true universal laws were presented to us, it would be beyond our capability to decypher them. The fundamental workings of the universe will forever remain a mystery that the human mind is not capable of grasping. — staticphoton

Question: Whose mind are we referring to here? Your average Joes and Janes? Or the greatest minds of our entire species?

Deleted User

↪Artemis

“Greatest minds of our species” Would you care to give us an example of such a mind?

Artemis

↪Mark Dennis

I assume the abilities of someone like Einstein or Hawking or Kant or even someone lesser known like Harvey Siegel to comprehend certain aspects of the universe surpasses the abilities (or inclinations, but I suspect the latter contributes heavily to the former) of your average Joes and Janes.

staticphoton

Consciousness in the strict sense, or consciousness properly speaking, and consciousness of the infinite cannot be separated from each other; a limited consciousness is no consciousness; consciousness is essentially infinite and all-encompassing. The consciousness of the infinite is nothing else than the consciousness of the infinity of consciousness. To put it in other words, in its consciousness of infinity, the conscious being is conscious of the infinity of its own being.
...
Every limitation of reason, or of human nature in general, rests on a delusion, an error. To be sure, the human individual can, even must, feel and know himself to be limited – and this is what distinguishes him from the animal – but he can become conscious of his limits, his finiteness, only because he can make the perfection and infinity of his species the object either of his feeling, conscience, or thought. — Feuerbach

Very nice...

staticphoton

Question: Whose mind are we referring to here? Your average Joes and Janes? Or the greatest minds of our entire species? — Artemis

I would have to go with the greatest minds of course, they represent the upper limit of human cognitive ability.

Can reason and logic explain everything.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions