Is Nature Comprehensible?

[RArvay]

Is Nature Comprehensible?

“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”

These familiar words, by Albert Einstein, are profound on many levels. Ironically, they are profound even if they are false. If they are false, the universe is ultimately incomprehensible, but whether it is so simply by its sheer volume, or by some inherent subtlety, that in itself would be a profound bit of comprehension for us to absorb.

Let’s start with the hypothesis that Einstein was correct. If the universe is comprehensible to the human brain, we must ask, why? Why should it be? What is it that shapes the human brain into such a form that it can formulate black holes, dark energy, and universes beyond our own? Does this shaping arise from some property or principle of physics? Is the brain somehow designed by the universe to understand the universe? Or is the brain’s ability to do so merely happenstance?

On the other hand, it would seem more likely that ultimately, the universe is in principle, utterly and forever beyond human comprehension. There are two possible reasons this might be the case.

For one, the computing requirements necessary to formulate the universe, might vastly exceed the maximum possible computing abilities of the human brain. Even were the human brain to evolve into something much larger than it is, it would reach a point at which any further increases in computing ability would result in diminishing returns. It has been said that the human brain is already at or near its optimal capacity to organize the information which it can potentially contain. Furthermore, this limitation on maximum computing ability might well apply not only to the human brain, but even to a hypothetical network of computers no matter how large. In the extreme, even a computer as large as the universe itself might be incapable of working out the foundational principles of the universe.

For two, the ultimate principles of the universe might not be subject to computation at all. The final principle might be too complicated, but instead of that, it might be too simple, too fundamental. Science assumes that the laws of nature are subject to scientific analysis, but there is no proof that that assumption is valid. The basic principle of the universe might be, “It is.” How does one formulate that?

Finally, there might be a recursive factor that governs our understanding of the universe. By this is meant that, in order to understand the galaxies and atoms of the universe, it might be necessary to understand the human brain, which is itself a phenomenon of the universe. Is it even theoretically possible for the brain to understand the brain? I was once on a ship, aboard which there was a small, scale model of that ship. But in order for that model to be truly complete, the scale model had to contain a smaller model, which then had to contain an even smaller model, ad infinitum. In other words, the ship could never be modeled completely except from the outside, which we cannot do with the universe.

Dare we concede that there may be a final limit to our understanding of the universe?

One might state that even if there is, we might continually split the difference, reaching ever closer to whatever is the final understanding of reality, much like starting with a decimal point followed by a nine, and appending a nine after each nine, approaching unity, even if never reaching it. Alternatively, we might begin with a decimal point and a one, never even getting a reasonably approximate understanding.

The worst case scenario is that somewhere along the way, we have taken a completely wrong turn, basing all our theories on a false assumption which, like a house of cards, can reach a very high degree of structure, seemingly sound, until with one final card, the entire thing collapses of its own weight.

It is right and proper that science should strive toward a theory of everything. We should consider however, that what we call everything might be only a small fraction of a systematic and interconnected whole, and an infinitesimally small fraction of it at that.

The outer edge of the map of science might well contain the words, “Here there be dragons.”

[Q-reeus]

Might have been more meaningful, if less confronting, to modify title (thus what follows also) to read "Is it possible the universe may never be fully comprehensible?"
It's pure philosophy not science, but at least with that title there is no woo implied e.g. "Head-in-a-vat solipsism" may be 'viable'.

[RArvay]

Wow. You have really opened a can of worms here.
Is the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis science or philosophy? A little of each?
I don't know.

I suppose I could have modified the title to the piece.
You are right about that.

My assumptions here were objectivist, that the universe external to my brain is real,
and that other people (who are as real as I am) perceive the same reality I do, albeit from different perspectives and contexts.

With that assumption, I am simply asking about what limit there might be to our maximum potential
knowledge, that is scientific knowledge, about physical reality.

If the multi-universe hypothesis is well founded in reality, then it would seem that by sheer volume alone,
science reaches a canyon it can never (even in principle) cross, especially if there are infinite numbers
of infinitely large universes.

But there are other possible limitations as well. Leon Lederman asked whether the human brain has yet evolved
to the point at which it can fully understand -- well, physics, I guess he meant.

Of course in evolution, if it is undirected, there is no "yet." Evolution has no purpose, no goal, but only
survival of the fittest.

Therefore, one might contemplate a future time in which scientists finally encounter a question or problem
which not only they cannot answer, but which signifies to them that our brains are inadequate machinery
(so to speak) for the job. Finally, the very nature of the universe might not even HAVE a solution in terms of
what we consider to be a scientific explanation. Being somewhat facetious, for the purpose of analogy, it might be as if the basis of
the universe is not physics, but music.

I apologize for being all over the board here. Can of worms indeed.
Thank you for responding.
.

[Q-reeus]

Wow. You have really opened a can of worms here.
Is the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis science or philosophy? A little of each?
I don't know....

Not knowing if you support BB (Boltzmann Brains) hypothesis or not, I will venture it amounts to an extreme philosophical position. Based on two premises:

1: Stretching beyond breaking point the probabilistic notion that given infinite time and space (or succession of finite universes), anything can and will happen - including a fully functioning brain/mind popping out of the vacuum. It cannot be disproven by observation for obvious reasons. A final, possible TOE will reasonably be expected to kill it off as insane.

2: An interpretation of QM, now dsicredited, that requires conscious observers to 'actualize reality'.

Combining these two, philosophers and even physicists conjured up an ensuing 'crisis'. In 'typical' multiverse scenarios, BB's are, somehow, expected to swamp 'ordinary' conscious observers like us. Hence the 'overwhelming liklihood' is we should be BB's, floating in the void. Experiencing a rather brief career as observer/universe actualizer, or just observer depending on position on 2 above. There are various proposed hare-brained 'solutions' to this hare-brained 'problem' out there. Enough said.

As for the rest of your musings, since they cannot be tested in any reasonable sense, there's not much to say worth saying. Maybe you and Kurt Godel would have enjoyed long discourses.