Thread: Will science ever explain everything?

Will it? Discuss.

Ive said no, if we knew all the answers it would be no fun :wink:



One i dont think we'll never answer is what happened before the big bang


Then theres, whats it like inside a black hole, whats the universe expanding into



But weve got loads of things to go at for many years to come yet

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Ive said no, if we knew all the answers it would be no fun :wink:



One i dont think we'll never answer is what happened before the big bang


Then theres, whats it like inside a black hole, whats the universe expanding into



But weve got loads of things to go at for many years to come yet

And there's always what numbers will be drawn in the lottery next week.... :wink:

Since you said "ever" that implies no time limit. So with infinite amount of time I said Yes.... Someday science will explain everything.

Bettina

Nah. Any scientist knows that science only offers logical and accepted explanations based on observation and experimentation. It only explains what we want it to. Therefor it has an infinite amount of things to explain seeing as how we will always be searching.

You probably all know this quote, and if not now is a good time to learn it.

Originally Posted by Stephen Hawkings

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?... Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?

Will science explain this?

Everything of relevans can be explained by science. the rest is irrelevant

I'm a perspectivist. There is moral, aesthetic and scientific language - perhaps even more perspectives.

As for a unified theory, it's bollocks. We can't even figure out one theory for how language is produced in the brain. Let alone formulate a theory about the universe with our language :P

Mr U

As for a unified theory, it's bollocks.

everythings talks for it. we will succed. with it we are one step further perfection

Every answer brings more questions

I’d say no. There will always be something new to invent or discover, and if we have finished on earth there will be enough outside our atmosphere. Once we even come close to explaining everything we know of now, there will come things that have to be explained.

one day we will reach the end, how far its until that day we dont know

You could question if Humans will live long enough to have an explanation for everything.

Then there are those unanswerable questions like, where the hell did I put that? - Thats the real question science needs to answer

What is "everything" again?

Originally Posted by silkworm

What is "everything" again?

look it up in a dictionary. Everything: all things; all

Well science does not really explain things—it just describes them


"There have been many times when I asked myself if we scientists, especially those seeking to answer "ultimate" kind of questions such as the origin of the Universe, are not beating on the wrong drum. Of course, by trying to answer such question as the origin of everything, we assume we can. We plow ahead, proposing tentative models that join general relativity and quantum mechanics and use knowledge from high energy physics to propose models where the universe pops out of nothing, no energy required, due to a random quantum fluctuation. To this, we tag along the randomness of fundamental constants, saying that their values are the way they are due to an accident: other universes may well have other values of the charge and mass of the electron and thus completely different properties. So, our universe becomes this very special place where things "conspire" to produce galaxies, stars, planets, and life.

What if this is all bogus? What if we look at sciece as a narrative, a description of the world that has limitations based on its structure? The constants of Nature are the letters of the alphabet, the laws are the grammar rules and we build these descriptions through the guiding hand of the so-called scientific method. Period. To say things are this way because otherwise we wouldn't be here to ask the question is to miss the point altogether: things are this way because this is the story we humans tell based on the way we see the world and explain it.

If we take this to the extreme, it means that we will never be able to answer the question of the origin of the Universe, since it implicitly assumes that science can explain itself. We can build any cool and creative models we want using any marriage of quantum mechanics and relativity, but we still won't understand why these laws and not others. In sense, this means that our science is our science and not something universally true as many believe it is. This is not bad at all, given what we can do with it, but it does place limits on knowledge. Which may also not be a bad thing as well. It's OK not to know everything, it doesn't make science weaker. Only more human."

questions of relevans is the only ones that are relevant to answer
Questions of relevans is the only questions who have a answer
Science can answer all questions of relevans
Therefor science will be able to explain all relevant questions

Science answer questions with more questions I tend to believe. :wink:

and then there's the classic "What was the original question.." 8)

Originally Posted by wildfire

Will it? Discuss.

Interesting question, I knind of have a different approach to this:

My answer would be there is nothing to explain.

if we did explain everything, and at one tiny point in time we took readings on the direction/speed all atoms were going, we could feed them to a computer and it would eat the numbers and spit out a model of everything that would ever happen ever. you could select a time and it would tell you all that would happen in the whole universe ever and we would know everything that would ever happen. even if we saw the model we couldnt change what would happen, because the computer would know if you were going to show people or not because really the brain is only a complex computer and if we explained it we would know all and couldnt change it its like real fortune telling * takes breath*

Science has already declared that it cannot know everything:

In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

Source: http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html