Limits to understanding

take everything

What are the limits to understanding/knowledge.
I'd imagine its difficult to get exact answers on this but i'm interested in what you think.

Are there things that will always be simply un-understandable or unknowable.
If so what are the elements that make something this way- is there a field of study that looks at this?

I'm probably talking through my arse here but off the top of my head two areas that strike me immediately as forboding when it comes to complete understanding are quantum physics and chaos theory for example.
The randomness of quantum theory (the uncertainty principle) is a limit on knowledge- do scientists worry about this? Are there ever attempts to "tame" this randomness.

Chaos theory (or things like turbulence etc) seems, if anything, even more depressing. Is this a genuine obstacle to full knowledge/ prediction. Or can this be "tamed" some how as well.

These relate to unknowability/unpredictability specifically i guess (a data problem where the theory is understood but the data prediction is still lacking? so i dunno if they're unfathomable as such- it'd be interesting to get an opinion on this nonetheless).

The above rambling notwithstanding , what about proper "un-understandibility" (referring to actual theories/concepts that are impossible to understand rather than just data).
What things will always be unfathomable.
What are the implications of this.
Or is there actually nothing that can't ever be understood.

Morbert

This is something I've thought about, but never on any deep level. I suppose the question is whether or not we could ever bootstrap our intelligence to an arbitrary level. (i.e. Augment our brain for higher intelligence, use the intelligence to devise more sophisticated augments, repeat; maybe devise new neural architecture to understand previously ungraspable concepts, etc.)

My optimism probably stops with empiricism. I believe we'll always be subject to what our senses tell us, and we won't knowingly become oracles, knowing what's necessarily true.

18AD

Is it possible to have a theory or concept that cannot be understood? Surely the very act of someone coming up with it would make it understandable. If it was sufficiently un-understandable it would be taken to not actually contain any meaning, and there would be nothing to actually understand in it.

You mention quantum and chaos theory, especially in relation to predictability. What would you mean to say if you said that the future could be understood?
In what way? As not yet happened events. If you think you can undertand the future you are saying that you can understand things that don't exist. Unless you are talking about 4-dimensional time, as an extended space-time worm.

Understanding is limited by language. You can only understand through language. Any further explanation of a concept happens through language.
Can you understand a false theory and is this understanding the same as understanding a true theory?

lemd

This week's new scientist has an article about the limits of knowledge, haven't got round to reading it yet though.

wylo

lemd wrote: »

This week's new scientist has an article about the limits of knowledge, haven't got round to reading it yet though.

Cheers Ill check this out

OP, have you considered the thought that something simply happens and is un-understandable? Well I suppose you have , and your just wondering where that limit is.

But I guess as there are more advances in the study of physics/science we'll be able to see why more things occur, but I also believe that as time progresses we will embrace acceptance that some things simply happen and that there is no such thing as understanding it.

Look at gravity, we know it exists, but we dont understand do we? And as a result we accept it for what it is, a law of physics.

Even going back to the theory of the big bang, there already seems to be an acceptance by humans that we cannot understand why it started, it just did (if that theory is correct of course). Now Im open to corrections on that one, im not a physicist, but from what I gather there is no conclusion , even theoretically.

So maybe to answer your question, that limit is the laws of physics.
Anything deeper than that and we must accept as un-understandable, the only reason I say that is because the laws havent ever really changed since the studying of it began have they?


Im not sure if that answered anything or was I just repeating what you were saying.

take everything

lemd wrote: »

This week's new scientist has an article about the limits of knowledge, haven't got round to reading it yet though.

Yeah i saw that as well.
Unfortunately the comments section seems to have been hijacked by God vs Atheism arguments. :pac:

Edit: I like Rees' important distinction between
1. awareness of what one doesn't understand (humans in the case of a lot of things) vs
2. unawareness of what one doesn't understand (chimps (but also presumably humans to a lesser degree)).
But, compared to chimps it's still only a matter of degree though isn't it, our unawareness of ignorance.

Axle_of_Elvis

I think Wylo hit the nail on the head with the example of gravity. We can observe its effects, and from those observations make predictions (that bodies of a certain mass at a certain distance will affect each other's velocity in a certain way). But as long as we cannot observe a mechanism by which gravity operates it remains "unknowable". We can predict how it behaves but we cannot explain how this happens.

This is a question of what we can see, not what we can know.

I wonder why the OP links "knowability" with "predictability". If everything in the universe were predictable (if we "knew" everything), then we would have no free will. Surely you could hardly claim to be the author of your own actions if other people were able to predict them in advance with perfect accuracy?

take everything

Axle_of_Elvis wrote: »

I wonder why the OP links "knowability" with "predictability". If everything in the universe were predictable (if we "knew" everything), then we would have no free will. Surely you could hardly claim to be the author of your own actions if other people were able to predict them in advance with perfect accuracy?

What i mean by "predictable" is just future events that are knowable now (a subset of knowable i suppose).
IMO there is no such thing as free will (in the sense of humans somehow making choices independent of the physics behind the processes that inform those choices).

I wouldn't think knowing fully about these processes changes that. Although the effect of knowing what you yourself are going to do next would be interesting (psychologically, that's a bit of a mind-****).

TBH, all this relates to data and maybe i probably shouldn't have gone on so much about knowing data in the OP.
I was more interested in the "understandability of theories" rather than "predictability of data".

Axle_of_Elvis

take everything wrote: »

I was more interested in the "understandability of theories" rather than "predictability of data".

I'll be honest here and admit I'm having a hard time grasping what you mean by the "understandability" of theories. In particular, how is this different from "predictability"? The scientific definition states that a valid theory is something which allows you make predictions which can be empirically verified or falsified by observation. So, if predictability is excluded, we cannot talk of theories at all.

take everything

Axle_of_Elvis wrote: »

I'll be honest here and admit I'm having a hard time grasping what you mean by the "understandability" of theories. In particular, how is this different from "predictability"? The scientific definition states that a valid theory is something which allows you make predictions which can be empirically verified or falsified by observation. So, if predictability is excluded, we cannot talk of theories at all.

Again i'm not an expert here but I don't think this is the case with stuff like Quantum theory and Chaos theory. Predictability of data is a problem but the theories are understood AFAIK.

But tbh as i say, maybe i shouldn't have mentioned these at all because they are simply about the precise knowability of data even after understanding the given given theories.
I'm more interested in the possibility that there are aspects of reality that aren't amenable to understanding (through theory) at all by us for some reason.

Axle_of_Elvis

take everything wrote: »

I'm more interested in the possibility that there are aspects of reality that aren't amenable to understanding (through theory) at all by us for some reason.

But we don't understand things through theory. Theories are developed as part of the scientific process through which we explore things we don't understand. We then test a theory by seeing if it allows us to accurately predict outcomes. Once repeatedly verified in this way the theory is no longer a theory but a fact. Hence we speak of Newton's Law of gravity, no longer a mere theory.

In quantum physics, much of the discussion is theoretical precisely because we have not built instruments sophisticated enough to measure the behaviour of quantum particles. The Large Hadron Collider is an attempt to create such an instrument; work there is ongoing, but it should lead to understanding, that is, to laws of physics in place of our current theories.

But I'll hazard a theory of my own:

An aspect of reality x is unknown if and only if we know absolutely nothing about it.

If we ever learn (know) anything about x, x is no longer unknown.

An aspect of reality x is unknowable if and only if:
(1) it is unknown, and
(2) we will never know anything about it.

But if we know that we will never know anything about x, then we know one thing about x: that we will never know anything else about it. Conditions (1) and (2) above cannot apply to x at the same time.

Therefore, there are no aspects of reality which are unknowable, although there are some which are currently unknown.

18AD

Axle_of_Elvis wrote: »

An aspect of reality x is unknown if and only if we know absolutely nothing about it.

If we ever learn (know) anything about x, x is no longer unknown.

An aspect of reality x is unknowable if and only if:
(1) it is unknown, and
(2) we will never know anything about it.

But if we know that we will never know anything about x, then we know one thing about x: that we will never know anything else about it. Conditions (1) and (2) above cannot apply to x at the same time.

Therefore, there are no aspects of reality which are unknowable, although there are some which are currently unknown.

This is great! How concise.

Your conclusion is suspect though. It does not imply that there is no aspect of reality we cannot know. X applies to particular instances or apects of reality, not all. I think you have universalised your theory from a particular theory.

Morbert

Axle_of_Elvis wrote: »

But we don't understand things through theory. Theories are developed as part of the scientific process through which we explore things we don't understand. We then test a theory by seeing if it allows us to accurately predict outcomes. Once repeatedly verified in this way the theory is no longer a theory but a fact. Hence we speak of Newton's Law of gravity, no longer a mere theory.

In quantum physics, much of the discussion is theoretical precisely because we have not built instruments sophisticated enough to measure the behaviour of quantum particles. The Large Hadron Collider is an attempt to create such an instrument; work there is ongoing, but it should lead to understanding, that is, to laws of physics in place of our current theories.

But I'll hazard a theory of my own:

An aspect of reality x is unknown if and only if we know absolutely nothing about it.

If we ever learn (know) anything about x, x is no longer unknown.

An aspect of reality x is unknowable if and only if:
(1) it is unknown, and
(2) we will never know anything about it.

But if we know that we will never know anything about x, then we know one thing about x: that we will never know anything else about it. Conditions (1) and (2) above cannot apply to x at the same time.

Therefore, there are no aspects of reality which are unknowable, although there are some which are currently unknown.

I reject (2), and tender that you can know some things about an unknown, and it will still be unknown. For example, you say that "If we ever know anything about x, x is no longer unknown." I have a number in my head right now. It is unknown to you. You know that it is unknown to you, but that does not mean that therefore the number in my head is now known to you. So we have a case where you know something about an unknown, and it is still an unknown. Similarly, you might know that there are unknown aspects of reality, but that does not therefore mean the aspects are known.

take everything

Axle_of_Elvis wrote: »

But I'll hazard a theory of my own:

An aspect of reality x is unknown if and only if we know absolutely nothing about it.

If we ever learn (know) anything about x, x is no longer unknown.

An aspect of reality x is unknowable if and only if:
(1) it is unknown, and
(2) we will never know anything about it.

But if we know that we will never know anything about x, then we know one thing about x: that we will never know anything else about it. Conditions (1) and (2) above cannot apply to x at the same time.

Therefore, there are no aspects of reality which are unknowable, although there are some which are currently unknown.

I'm not sure how "knowing we'll never know anything about x" necessarily implies "knowing x" (if that is what you mean).
Just by knowing something about x (the fact that you know you'll never know x) doesn't imply knowing x, does it.

Although, by the same token, i see where you're coming from. I am interested in the notion of how someone would get to the stage that they would know they'll never know anything about something. As you say this stage seems to presuppose some kind of knowledge about x (but i don't know if it necessarily means actual knowledge of x).

There is a paradox called Fitch's paradox which seems to imply that absolute knowability isn't possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitch's_paradox_of_knowability

I'd love to hear other views on this.
On the face of it, to me at least, it seems to be a fundamentally interesting issue.

Enkidu

I would be inclined to say there are some limits. For example quantum mechanics, we already have the theory, but even after a century we still don't really get what it is saying. I suspect that we may not be able to understand quantum mechanics fully. We can calculate with it, but I don't think it will ever make any sense to us.

Axle_of_Elvis

Some interesting posts there.

18AD says "Your conclusion is suspect though. It does not imply that there is no aspect of reality we cannot know." I think what my (only slightly facetious) syllogism implies is that if there are unknowable aspects of reality, we cannot know either what they are or that they are. We can't say that there are unknowable aspects of reality, neither can we say that there are no unknowable aspects of reality. We just don't know either way.

Morbert says "I reject (2), and tender that you can know some things about an unknown, and it will still be unknown." Fair enough, but you seem to be speaking of the Rumsfeldian known unknown, whereas I took "unknown" to mean the Rumsfeldian "unknown unknown". A different beast entirely. Your example of the number in your head proves only that I cannot read your mind: this is incontestably true. But although not currently known to me, the number is perfectly knowable in itself, and incontestably well known to at least one member of the human genus (i.e., your good self). And I could know it, if you told me what it is: do you really mean to say that a thing which both is known and can be known is, in fact, unknowable?

And thanks to take everything for introducing me to Fitch's paradox. I'll have to take a bit of time to digest it.

Batchkid

If there was a limit to understanding, that would mean the amount you can understand is being limited/withheld inside some restriction/barrier, which ultimately means knowledge exists infinitely because knowledge would have to exist outside that restriction/barrier, and no matter how many restrictions you have, you'll always have knowledge existing outside of that restriction/barrier.

Now that might be hard to understand, but I'll put it in other terms;

The reason I believe the universe is of infinite size is because if it isn't, it implies that there is a limit/barrier/edge and for every barrier there would be an external space existing, (a space existing outside that barrier), even if there was nothing beyond that barrier, nothing is still something, it is the absolute absense of existence (which is something), so, either way the universe has to be infinite. Now, apply that to knowledge.

Personally, I think if we did reach the limit of understanding, everything would get boring very quickly, so don't rush to get to it, not that you will, :P.

Axle_of_Elvis

Batchkid wrote: »

The reason I believe the universe is of infinite size is because if it isn't, it implies that there is a limit/barrier/edge and for every barrier there would be an external space existing, (a space existing outside that barrier), even if there was nothing beyond that barrier, nothing is still something, it is the absolute absense of existence (which is something), so, either way the universe has to be infinite. Now, apply that to knowledge.

Hey, why stop there? Apply that to carrots while you're at it: now carrots are infinite. Apply it to your left nipple: now your left nipple is infinite. What fun!

But hang on a minute. Is everything that's true of the universe also true of knowledge? The universe contains matter; knowledge doesn't. The universe has spatial qualities; knowledge doesn't. The universe has a temporal aspect; maybe you want to argue that knowledge does too, I'd sure love to see you try. So, just because the universe is infinite (and I'm not sure it is), how does it follow that knowledge is too?

Morbert

Axle_of_Elvis wrote: »

Fair enough, but you seem to be speaking of the Rumsfeldian known unknown, whereas I took "unknown" to mean the Rumsfeldian "unknown unknown". A different beast entirely. Your example of the number in your head proves only that I cannot read your mind: this is incontestably true. But although not currently known to me, the number is perfectly knowable in itself, and incontestably well known to at least one member of the human genus (i.e., your good self). And I could know it, if you told me what it is: do you really mean to say that a thing which both is known and can be known is, in fact, unknowable?

If a thing is known and can be known, it is knowable. However, if a thing cannot be known then it is unknowable, even if we know it cannot be known. I might have a number in my head, and then promptly die afterwards. The number in my head will be unknowable to you, even though you know it is unknowable.

Morbert

Batchkid wrote: »

The reason I believe the earth's surface is of infinite size is because if it isn't, it implies that there is a limit/barrier/edge and for every barrier there would be external land existing, (land existing outside that barrier), even if there was nothing beyond that barrier, nothing is still something, it is the absolute absense of existence (which is something), so, either way the earth's surface has to be infinite. Now, apply that to knowledge.

I thought I'd change a few words here and there.

Omentum

What is knowledge? And what are limits?

Isnt knowledge proportional to limits?

Or what if knowledge was in fact the flip side of limits. Two sides to the same coin....

Without one would you have the other?

Shtanto

Here's a bit by Thomas Nagle
http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf


As for the unknowable, a lot of our tools are responsible for what we know. Think how ignorant we'd be without the Hubble space telescope. A lot of what we know is interpreted through our vision. If we were bats, we'd have to interpret everything in terms of clicks and squeaks, or if we were sharks, we'd have electro-sense. To what extent is the unknowable dependant on our sensory suite? Is there any difference between knowledge gained by simple vision versus knowledge gained by enhanced vision?

RubyRoss

Morbert wrote: »

I reject (2), and tender that you can know some things about an unknown, and it will still be unknown. For example, you say that "If we ever know anything about x, x is no longer unknown." I have a number in my head right now. It is unknown to you. You know that it is unknown to you, but that does not mean that therefore the number in my head is now known to you. So we have a case where you know something about an unknown, and it is still an unknown. Similarly, you might know that there are unknown aspects of reality, but that does not therefore mean the aspects are known.

So that's what Donals Rumsfled was thinking.