Are we reaching the limits of human knowledge?

Every now and then, a discussion comes up about “the end of science” - the idea that we are getting to a point where we will know everything there is to know and be able to explain every phenomenon. I’d like to come at this from a different angle. What if we are heading for the limit not of what there is to know, but of what we are physically capable of understanding?

The days of scientists who were experts and innovators across multiple disciplines are gone; today it takes decades of study to reach the cutting edge of any particular field and only then can new developments be made. I’ve heard it said that there is only a handful of people in the world who truly understand relativity. Perhaps fewer who understand quantum mechanics. Presumably the Theory of Everything that is just out of reach would be understood by fewer still. It would be naive to assume that the complexity of the ultimate nature of the universe coincides so neatly with the limits of the brightest minds our species has to offer. After all our brains are just another part of the system. Isn’t it more likely that the ‘resolution’ of the universe is so fine that the physical laws that govern the behaviour of the brain (and everything else) leave it incapable of understanding those same laws? If so, what implications does this have for the future of science and technology?

I think that we can and do build machines and other devices to help us understand things. For example, you may have a basic understanding of U.S. geography. You know that Iowa is roughly in the center of the country.

But if you needed to drive from New York to Des Moines, you would probably pull up a map on your computer to figure out the exact directions.

Similarly, a lot of people don’t bother to remember telephone numbers anymore. They just store the numbers in an electronic device. In many ways, that device can be seen as an extension of their brain.

Or as another example, take weather modeling. Probably nobody understands the weather well enough to make a weather prediction as well as a computer can. A meteorologist may have a good understanding of a few basic rules; but a worse understanding of how those rules interact and the exceptions to those rules and the exceptions to the exceptions to those rules.

When people make predictions, they are basically modeling a system in their mind. With a computer, the person’s model can often be a lot better. Again, the computer can be seen as an extension of the person’s brain.

So I would say that with the use of computers, the limits on what can be known are far greater than one might think.

I’m not sure I agree with some of the assumptions in the OP. Sure, there are theories that only a few people understand at this point, but they’re also at the cutting edge of science and not within the scope of the average individual’s need to know.

For instance, consider Newtonian physics. Only in the last couple of hundred years did anyone so concisely put together so many laws. How many people understood those rules then? Now-a-days, they teach a lot of those laws in middle and high school. And people understand and care, not because they’re necessarily “more capable” but because they apply more directly to every day life an experience.

I think it’s much the same with a concept like relativity. How much background does Joe Schmoe have in Astrophysics, astronomy, etc.? Very little. How much do the results of those theories affect his every day life in an observable way? Virtually zero.

I think specialization in fields isn’t a result of a lack of capacity or an inability to retain more knowledge, but simply a matter of interest and time and such. If one wants to study the cutting edge of relativity he just can’t apply himself meaningfully in that field and still be excessively knowledgable in many others.

IOW, I don’t think it’s a limit of capacity or ability, but simply a limiting factor of our lifetime, that no one can understand everything simply because there’s not enough time to learn it all, and a limiting factor of granularity. I think scientists will continue to grow more specialized in order to delve deeper into a specific subject.

Now maybe I’m speaking from ignorance, but really are topics like relativity THAT far advanced that the only experts on the topic are 70yo PhDs who spent their entire lifetime of research to get there? Are there no ways to break down those topics to get more specialized allowing people to delve deeper into them in less time? Maybe I watch too much Discovery, but I’ve seen plenty of scientists talking about these sorts of subjects who still appear to have a significant number of years left in their careers.

I think if there is a limit to our knowledge as a species–we’re still improving our education systems, our lives are still getting longer, there’s still plenty of granularity left in fields of research–I think we’re many lifetimes away from it.

I’m inclined to agree with you. The details of any particular discipline are so myriad that a single mind simply can’t wrap itself around all of the details.

The implication for the future of science and technology? Increased specialization. Example: no one will ever recite the entire human genome from memory. But it is possible to become an expert in, say, the short arm of Cromosome 12. Someone else will specialize in the generalities of genetics without understanding the mass of specific details.

For what it’s worth, I can’t imagine that anyone would be able to accurately state that we’re reaching the limits of human knowledge, mostly because we don’t know what we don’t know, including the abilities of our own brains to grasp concepts.

Also, if we did discover the Theory of Everything, how would we know it was really the theory that applied to everything in the world and universe if we haven’t visited all of the universe, explored every single dimension (and if I recall correctly, aren’t there infinite dimensions?), etc.?

I think the OP has it completely wrong. Individuals of our species do not need to have infinite “brain capacity” (or whatever you call it) for science to progress indefinitely. We can have infinite scientific progress as a species even with each individual having only a fixed capacity for understanding.

Science is a matter of ideas. The kind of ideas that can occur in a brain like ours is shaped by our brain architecture, but the total number of possible ideas that can collectively occur in history is not realistically limited.

The same situation exists in all of creative art. E.g. novel writing. Will there ever be a time that all novels will already have been written and it is no longer possible to think of a new novel? Of course not. Somebody will always think of something new to write about.

Science is the same. Talk to any scientist. All scientists I know have an infinite number of ideas for research they would be interested in pursuing, and are severely constrained by time and money (not brain capacity) in what they can actually do.

Of course, there are factors that affect the speed at which new scientific ideas develop. I.e., increasing standard of living lets people do more elaborate experiments for inspiration, gives people more time to spend thinking, and frees up more people to engage in science.

The greatest idea generator in science is in fact scientific progress itself. Ideas inspire new ideas. Scientific progress itself will guarantee that scientific progress will not end. Not for the lack of ideas, at least.

If anything, our capacity is continually increasing, as our ability to publish and access specialized knowledge on demand becomes greater and greater.

We have to think of the brain of humanity, instead of the brains of individual humans. As we “wikify” science, the brain of humanity becomes a giant peer-reviewed log of everything we know. If you require specialized knowledge about something to pursue your research, or to satisfy your layman’s curiosity, you are able to access it easily. Further, there is a huge, distributed effort to simplify and explain the complex concepts of science. Lecture notes are available online and work of the experts in the field is available to those who know enough to follow, and have enough time to teach. This information is no longer locked up in libraries and journals and jargon. And it is all perpetual.

I think we’re just about to expand our knowledge significantly over the next century, and there’s no end in sight.

Sit a chimpanzee down and try to teach him calculus. Try as you might and as smart of a chimp as he is and no matter how many treats you give him, he’s not going to be doing any differential equations in the near future. So when the aliens touch down and try to teach us about their advanced technology will we be as dumbfounded as Cocoa the chimp?

I wouldn’t worry about our long term knowledge seeking. Even if our current brains aren’t very good for some things they will be modified someday.

From what I’ve read, predictions about the “end of science” don’t usually stem from limits on human intellect. The two main concerns I’ve read about are (1). We may reach the limit of what theories can be experimentally tested, especially in particle physics. (2).We may be reaching the limits of reductionism: all the theories that simplify a phenomenon down to understandable predictable rules may be devised, and after that we’ll be left with non-linear phenomena too complex to ever be able make predictions about.