Except "all things possible" beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind, but I don't know why they'd be relevant in whining about. — Swan

In characterizing an interest in understanding things unknown as "whining", one shows contempt about the concept of understanding things unknown.

If one doesn't feel interest in comprehending things unknown then one should leave threads about comprehending things unknown to those who are interested.

What does logic "explain" about logic exactly..?
What is A+B=C 'explaining' about itself? — Swan

As said before, logic by itself is nothing. In the context of existing as an element of human reasoning, merely a tool to aid in the understanding of things.

Yeah, on my view, understanding, and whether something counts as an explanation, are subjective--it depends on whether someone's curiosity, questions/issues, etc. have been satiated, and of course that depends on how they assign meaning, their experiences, their biases, and all sorts of things. — Terrapin Station

It seems to me that you are providing an objective explanation of what is "understanding" and "explanations" - one that is the case for everyone. So, is your explanation about explanations really how explanations are independent of my view of them, or do we each have our own view of what an explanation is? If so, then how can we even communicate?

If "truth" is subjective then it seems logical to say 1. is the case. If there is no such thing as an "objective" truth, - only subjective ones, then your truth is understandable to you. If it's not understandable to you, then how can it be a "truth" for you? — Harry Hindu

I think this thread might be taking an unintended direction. I'm going to reword the premise of the OP:

If the blueprint of the universe was laid in front of humanity, would humanity be able to decipher and understand it.
#1: yes, we can figure it out.
#2: No, we are not evolved enough. maybe we never will be. — staticphoton

This doesn't make my statement invalid or off-topic. I'm asking clarification of what you mean by "understanding" and "figure it out".

This doesn't make my statement invalid or off-topic. I'm asking clarification of what you mean by "understanding" and "figure it out". — Harry Hindu

For example, if we could come up with a model that can faithfully simulate all natural phenomena, then that would satisfy the premise.

Both reason and logic are nothing more than theoretical a priori processes in the human rational system. They don’t explain anything in and of themselves, but only set the parameters for the methodology from which explanations become possible.

That being granted, it follows necessarily that the question as to whether reason and logic can explain everything, is insusceptible of a rational answer, because the major premise in both propositional constructions are themselves unjustifiable inductive inferences.

Nothing like using reason and logic incorrectly, in order to ask them to do something they’re not equipped to do anyway.

Still, everything changes, so.............

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

How does empiricism play a role in the above? IOW one might think you mean via deduction alone. I am guessing that is not what you mean, but then I think it might be helpful to include the empirical side in our choices, because presumably, we would need to be able to somehow do research on everything and experience it via observation of some kind. IOW there are factors I think need to be explained in scenario one that might affect people's choice of one or two.

How does empiricism play a role in the above? IOW one might think you mean via deduction alone. — Coben

In that case, the OP will have to scrap science, because it uses an entire bureaucracy of correspondence-checking formalisms that keeps scientific patterns in sync with experimental observations.

Pure deduction, i.e. "pure reason", only deals with abstract, Platonic worlds constructed from a basic set of (possibly arbitrary, speculative) beliefs. Pure reason is not about the real, physical world at all.

Well, yes. I suspect he or she is including science, but I think that facet has to be described/included, since I think this opens up more issues in deciding.

Well, yes. I suspect he or she is including science, but I think that facet has to be described/included, since I think this opens up more issues in deciding. — Coben

Well, yeah. Immanuel Kant already pointed out at length in his "Critique of Pure Reason" that science is not pure reason. On the contrary, science seeks to explicitly systematize experimental observations.

It is not possible to target the real, physical world and still hope to stick to pure reason. It cannot be done.

If one doesn't feel interest in comprehending things unknown then one should leave threads about comprehending things unknown to those who are interested. — staticphoton

That must be it. Fair enough.

The short answer to your question is 'no' for three reasons.
(1) 'Things' are thinged by humans relatively to a continuously evolving 'body of knowledge' which continues to raise further anthropocentric questions.
(2) As already pointed out, 'logic' (in the traditional sense) is merely one aspect of human reasoning. And as far as frontier science is concerned 'reasoning' is more highly dependent on mathematical models more abstract than set theory.
(3) Although abstract models may generate the 'prediction and control' aspects of what we call 'science' the question still remains as to whether that is sufficient to constitute 'explanation'.

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. — staticphoton

That just does not follow.

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

And that is abject bullshit.

Both reason and logic are nothing more than theoretical a priori processes in the human rational system. They don’t explain anything in and of themselves, but only set the parameters for the methodology from which explanations become possible.

That being granted, it follows necessarily that the question as to whether reason and logic can explain everything, is insusceptible of a rational answer, because the major premise in both propositional constructions are themselves unjustifiable inductive inferences.

Nothing like using reason and logic incorrectly, in order to ask them to do something they’re not equipped to do anyway. — Mww

By "everything in the universe" I meant the set of actual physical laws that govern the universe, so poor wording on my part.

How does empiricism play a role in the above? IOW one might think you mean via deduction alone. I am guessing that is not what you mean, but then I think it might be helpful to include the empirical side in our choices, because presumably, we would need to be able to somehow do research on everything and experience it via observation of some kind. IOW there are factors I think need to be explained in scenario one that might affect people's choice of one or two. — Coben

Yes, empiricism would be limited to what we can physically experiment with and it would follow deduction as much as it can to "catch up".
#1 means we have the reasoning powers to define an all-encompassing physical model of the universe which eventual empirical results would prove true.

In that case, the OP will have to scrap science, because it uses an entire bureaucracy of correspondence-checking formalisms that keeps scientific patterns in sync with experimental observations.
Pure deduction, i.e. "pure reason", only deals with abstract, Platonic worlds constructed from a basic set of (possibly arbitrary, speculative) beliefs. Pure reason is not about the real, physical world at all — alcontali

Well, yeah. Immanuel Kant already pointed out at length in his "Critique of Pure Reason" that science is not pure reason. On the contrary, science seeks to explicitly systematize experimental observations.
It is not possible to target the real, physical world and still hope to stick to pure reason. It cannot be done. — alcontali

I think the scientific establishment in its present form presents an obstacle to the premise in the sense that the results of any reasoning would need to be proven by experiment before being accepted, but that is just a side show to the ability of mind to comprehend the workings of the universe. In other words, if the "writing" of natural laws was presented to us, do we have the ability to comprehend them.

The short answer to your question is 'no' for three reasons.
(1) 'Things' are thinged by humans relatively to a continuously evolving 'body of knowledge' which continues to raise further anthropocentric questions.
(2) As already pointed out, 'logic' (in the traditional sense) is merely one aspect of human reasoning. And as far as frontier science is concerned 'reasoning' is more highly dependent on mathematical models more abstract than set theory.
(3) Although abstract models may generate the 'prediction and control' aspects of what we call 'science' the question still remains as to whether that is sufficient to constitute 'explanation'. — fresco

The question is whether we have the capability to come up with such a model. To understand the workings of natural law.

That just does not follow — Banno

Is based on the assumption that something cannot be more complex than the system which produced it. As in the watch being more complex than the watchmaker. So the evolutionary process would be limited by nature's capability to produce a more complex brain.

Pure conjecture of course. I don't know whether nature has limited capability. If it has infinite capability then of course there are no limits.

And that is abject bullshit. — Banno

Yes, somebody already pointed that out... bad choice of words on my part, not at all what I meant to say.

What it meant is that for whatever reason some people might choose to believe in #1 and some in #2, but in either case it would be nothing but belief. No truths spoken here.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the workings of natural law'.
IMO There are no 'natural laws' except a limited number asserted by humans such as 'the second law of thermodynamics'. The word 'workings' presents its own problem because it tends to imply the concept of 'causality' which has questionable philosophical status.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the workings of natural law'.
IMO There are no 'natural laws' except a limited number asserted by humans such as 'the second law of thermodynamics'. The word 'workings' presents its own problem because it tends to imply the concept of 'causality' which has questionable philosophical status — fresco

Natural Law is just a provincial way of calling the order of the universe. It does not imply that such things as the law of thermodynamics, or causality, actually exist... they do in a limited scope/portion of the universe, just in the same way that if you zoom in on a curve, the closer you get it begins to resemble a straight line, and you can use straight line geometry to approximate things within a very narrow scope, but if you "zoom out" this approach falls apart. These are just concepts formulated by mankind in its quest to understand the order of the universe.
So can we know the actual order? Do we have the capacity to formulate, to model it?

Yes, empiricism would be limited to what we can physically experiment with and it would follow deduction as much as it can to "catch up". — staticphoton

1) So, deduction first, testing later?
2) So, we have the issue of what the mind can reason and deduce itself to in terms of conclusions. But then we also must have access to whatever we need to test direclty, physically. And we would need the technology, presumably necessary to do those tests. And we would need to know what technology to create that would aid us in those tests.

There seem to be a lot of contingent factors. And anyone saying they are sure, seems to be speculating wildly.

Then I wonder about this idea 'empiricism would be limited to what we can physically experiment with....'. What part of empiricism are you ruling out here?

#1 means we have the reasoning powers to define an all-encompassing physical model of the universe which eventual empirical results would prove true. — staticphoton

Understood.

If the premise had been, “can reason and logic explain that which is present to human observation or mere thought” I wouldn’t have been so quick to jump. The human cognitive system, re: reason, is a relational system, re: logical, therefore it is by means of a methodology based on reason and logic a human should ever claim to know anything at all.

I see no reason to suspect you do not accept that physical science is grounded by pure reason, at least in its theoretical domain, which all science must be at some point. Whether the laws which justify our understanding of the world inhere in the world and are merely discovered, or are rationally determined a priori in response to the affect of the world on our sensibility, is sufficient to demonstrate the absolute necessity for pure reason with respect to the human’s ultimate seeking after knowledge.

Nevertheless, in a certain sense, you are correct, insofar as nothing whatsoever a consciously interactive human ever does, excepting pure reflex or sheer accident, is not immediately preceded by the thought of it, which is the epitome of reason and logic, however rational/irrational, logical/illogical it may be.

For example, if we could come up with a model that can faithfully simulate all natural phenomena, then that would satisfy the premise. — staticphoton

How would we ever know that we have simulated all natural phenomema?

It's a different question than asking if we could understand the model, isn't it?

It seems to me that you are providing an objective explanation of what is "understanding" and "explanations" - one that is the case for everyone. — Harry Hindu

I actually didn't give what I'd say is an explanation or definition etc. of either--I just mentioned a characteristic. I wouldn't say that a definition of "understanding" is at all a definition of "explanation" by the way. I'd agree that explanations have to involve understanding, though.

So re "objective explanations" I wouldn't say the idea of that makes sense.

Re "one that is the case for everyone," what I'm doing when I give a definition of something like "understanding" is that I'm giving what I consider to be a functional account of what's really going on (ontologically) in conventional cases of the word "understanding" being used. It wouldn't cover unconventional cases, it wouldn't necessarily be how anyone else consciously thinks about understanding--so it might not be anything like a definition that other people would give, etc.

Re the subjective/objective terms, again, I use them to refer to whether something occurs in a brain functioning in mental ways or not.

So the terms have no implication for just how common or uncommon anything is.

Re "explanation," I've never actually tried to construct a functional definition of it (as I have for "understanding"). I've partially not done that yet because I still have a suspicion that some people have a more "technical" idea in mind re what counts as an explanation or not--something akin to the technical ideas of "information" a ala Shannon, say--but I'm not sure that there's any common technical idea of explanations in that vein, and even with "information" a la Shannon, I'm not at all convinced that it's not basically a bunch of gobbledygook.

I actually didn't give what I'd say is an explanation or definition etc. of either--I just mentioned a characteristic. I wouldn't say that a definition of "understanding" is at all a definition of "explanation" by the way. I'd agree that explanations have to involve understanding, though. — Terrapin Station

Now you are providing an actuality - what words mean independent of how anyone else interpreted what you said. You don't seem to realize that what you are saying is the way things are - either in your head, or outside of it. Is that really how things are in your head? In describing how things are in your head, you are explaining your understanding of how things are in your head. How do you know that you are right or wrong? How do you know that the scribbles on the screen actually represent what's in your head, and how would I know that?

Now you are providing an actuality - what words mean independent of how anyone else interpreted what you said. — Harry Hindu

You're not thinking that I'm someone who says, "Everything is subjective" are you?

You're not thinking that I'm someone who says, "Everything is subjective" are you? — Terrapin Station

Did I say that, or use the word, "subjective" in my post that you replied to? Instead of putting words in my mouth, and wondering about things I didn't accuse you of, you should address the points and questions in my previous post.

Did I say that, or use the word, "subjective" in my post that you replied to? Instead of putting words in my mouth, and wondering about things I didn't accuse you of, you should address the points and questions in my previous post. — Harry Hindu

Why are you saying "Now you are providing an actuality" then? So what?

The actuality you provided wasn't in your head, it was on the forum. So you aren't supplying an explanation of what is in your head, but a state-of-affairs that exists on the forum - the actions that was an effect of what is in your head. So how can we talk about how each one of us sees things when we seem to agree on what we see and what we see produces effects in the real world that we can all talk about? What makes us agree if we have different views? How could anyone come to an agreement? Is it something about the world, or our views, and arent our views part of the world?