The end of understanding?

[ollypenrice]

Quite a lot of thinkers are looking into the idea that understanding the real nature of the universe may never be possible with brains such as ours, brains which evolved to do rather different tasks.

I wonder what you think? Already we are delving into metaphor to make sense of spacetime and quantum theory. When metaphor becomes too extended it loses its validity. Second generation metaphor (metaphor based upon metaphor) would be very dodgy. Maths is the only language that seems to be able to keep going under pressure and without language we can't think. So are we ever going to understand?

Sigh.

Olly

[brianb]

Our brains are evolved to deal with objects big enough to eat or to eat us moving at velocities typical of our prey and predators. We simply don't have intutitive grasp of the very very large, the very very small or the very very fast. Mathematics enables us to "understand" at an intellectual level.

I don't intuitively understand lots of things, it doesn't stop them being useful models at a technological level. When you let intuition override mathematics, you tend to get engineering disasters ....

[Ben Ritchie]

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." - Einstein

I have a naive hope that the universe is fundamentally simple, and when we make it complex it's a sign we haven't figured it out yet.

[anthony]

The people that know best are those at the cutting edge of that field and it makes us less well placed to speak with confidence. I keep thinking to myself (having heard this opinion) that it was not that long ago that we (collective "we") were first taking to the air in planes and wotnot. So, quite a lot has happened in quite a short time. An oft proffered opinion I know. Sometimes it takes an individual (talented or extraordinary) to make a particular leap in one direction or another that opens up a whole new way of thinking and ensuing progress. So, I think we'll go further (just need a really good military application. Isn't that how it works? before the funding really arrives) and I hope that it is with a bit of arrogance rather than certainty that the people concerned say we are at or near a limit

These are just the thoughts of an interested yet fairly ignorant layperson who is always astounded at the things that we learn about in school etc but were the product of original thought at one point during a "less enlightened" preceeding age

[themos]

Don't trust scientists telling you that the ultimate theory is within our grasp. They are probably looking for funding.

[brianb]

Don't trust scientists telling you that the ultimate theory is within our grasp. They are probably looking for funding.

Ummm. It's in the long term interests of getting science funded that the "ultimate theory" is NOT within our grasp ... if we ever did get it, the funding source would dry up.

[themos]

That's true so there will always be something for scientists to do. But it tickles people's ego to be told that their generation will be the one which will see all the mysteries revealed.

[brianb]

I have a naive hope that the universe is fundamentally simple, and when we make it complex it's a sign we haven't figured it out yet.

Nope, it's because we are stupid. More intelligent than an amoeba, possibly, but there's a hell of a lot we don't know - and never can do. If (like me) you believe that life is a consequence of physics, rather than appealing for explanations in the realms of the supernatural, you're forced to the conclusion that "consciousness" and "intelligence" result from finite state systems, in which case Godel's Theorem must apply.

[Bogdan C]

The answer is simple you guys !

The Universe is a very big place, even infinite for us. So, livining in an infinite Univers, one could asume that there are an infinite number of secrets. We have to discover them. Slowly we are solving this problems, and we discover those secrets. Those who believe that they know how the Universe works, in fact they have no ideea.

Our minds cant understand the universe now, but I believe that in time we could get to comprehend it but never its entire beauty.

[Tim]

Themos makes a good point, a lot of presented, often super-hyped ideas and discoveries are merely the whims of individuals looking to secure their next grant hard to be objective I guess.

I understand what you are referring to Olly, but there seems to me to be a flaw in the logic. If our brains evolved to do/survive/understand the world as it saw it (putting aside for a moment the issue of how sight/touch/hearing/smell/taste could develop in creatures that couldnt do those things), then how come it has the capacity for designing and constructing computers, understanding higher mathematical priniciples, or indeed even the capacity to create and appreciate art. If it has evolved to the extent it has, to master these aspects, then surely the argument that it cannot evolve to master the understanding of the Universe at large is pushing the boundaries of credulity.

Of course, the alternatives to an evolved mind/brain are beyond the boundaries of SGL's cosy walls, and best discussed over a glass of wine or two on a pleasant summers evening Suffice to say that given the extended understanding of the complexity of the human body, at a molecular and cellular level, not to mention the millions of other flora and fauna we share the planet with, many other 'thinkers' are arriving at the conclusion that current evolutionary theory requires more blind faith than intelligent design does.

The thing that freaks me out, is that even if we could set off at the speed of light, in our lifetime we would hardly get past our nearest neighbours, let alone out of our own galaxy......and yet there are billions of galaxies............awesome!!

So many things we dont understand, but I'd hate to think there is anything we cant understand!

Cheers

Tim

[Bogdan C]

I dont think we were created to understand or comprehend. Evolution is random, only the ones who are adapted can survive. Not everything is made to survive and understand the universe. Its just a random coincidence, a chemical accident.

To understand everything, we need alot of time, something that we dont have. We must discover something to get of this planet and head to an other soon if not we will become extinct.

I bet the answer to interstellar travel is something beyond our 3 dimensions of space, something faster than the speed of light.

[Hiddenharry]

thats really confusing metofor over metofor??? lol

[ollypenrice]

Evolution is random? No, this is way wide of the mark. Changes to the genetic structure may be random but selection is systematic. The genes which succeed survive. The nature of their success can be via various means, from finding more food to being more fanciable to the opposite sex (despite being less good at finding food...) but there is nothing random about this. Dawkins upbraids Hoyle on this.

Olly

[Bogdan C]

Sorry about that. When I said evolution, I also included the changes in the genetic structure and life emerging as it is. What I want to say is that we werent created to do something specifically from the begining. Once again I apologise !

[themos]

Once we got to the top of the food chain, our greatest enemy was ourselves. Any evolution since then was driven by the need to outsmart others. Understanding our immediate environment was helpful in that. But understanding the entire universe? There's been no evolutionary payoff in that, I think it's extremely unlikely.

[brianb]

Any evolution since then was driven by the need to outsmart others. Understanding our immediate environment was helpful in that. But understanding the entire universe? There's been no evolutionary payoff in that, I think it's extremely unlikely.

Good points.

Dawkins seems to think that the enormous expansion of the human brain since we and the chimpanzees started evolving differently is the equivalent of the peacock's tail - an "expensive" accessory which has many downsides (in our case, getting the skull which contains it down the birth canal, then the long period of dependence on parents) - the usual evolutionary explanation for development of such apparent encumbrances is sexual selection i.e. "smart" males find it easier to attract females and/or vice versa.

We've now "evolved" to such an extent that our technology is changing our environment faster than we can adapt ... the evolutionary lesson that, in rapidly changing environments, the survivors are small and adaptable jacks-of-all-trades rather than large, slow-breeding specialists has not been learned or understood either. That's bad news for us as well as for tigers, dugongs, whales, elephants ....

[ollypenrice]

Is there not a danger of falling into reductionism when discussing our own evolution in this way? A thing may exceed the sum of its parts. The brain, once evolved to operate with language, may be able to take off on its own, so to speak, and do things it had not evolved to do. I don't want to say that the evolutionary limits are not present but merely to caution against looking back to our evolutionary past in order to prove negatives about the future.

(I was mighty irritated by a BBC Thought for the Day speaker who found in evolutionary thinking a denial of the value of love and altruism. This, too, arose from taking a reductionist view of the evolutionary process. My own view is that, once evolved, we humans, with the maipulative power of language, have developed a moral vision which arises from mechanistic selection processes but now exceeds them. Of course we don't always act according to our best moral vision but that's another matter.)

In any event, going too far is an evolutionary commonplace, isn't it. You go too far (in intelligence, maybe?) and the feedback mechanism does away with you. It takes time to happen, so how long have we got?? Not long, I suspect.

Olly

[brianb]

My own view is that, once evolved, we humans, with the maipulative power of language, have developed a moral vision which arises from mechanistic selection processes but now exceeds them.

Altruism (and presumably the moral imperative) exists amongst many animals, it's certainly very highly developed in the great apes, there are also clear indications that it's common amongst mammals in general though of course it's hard to question a rat.

I'm reminded for instance of the story of a guide dog which - against all training - leaped at its master to push him out of the way of an out-of-control car which mounted the pavement, even though this action resulted in the dog itself being hit.

The dog was certainly acting on instinct rather than intellect or training, though there is a clear impact of domestication on a dog which is likely to perceive its human master as the leader of its pack ...

The point is that I think it's easy for humans to uderestimate mental capacity in species which (apparently) lack language. In any case, the evolution of H. sapiens seems to indicate that brain (over)development was pretty well complete before the modern speaking mechanism and the nerves required to control it evolved. It's true that chimpanzees lack the vocal structures required for spoken human languages, but the certainly seem able to learn to use human language to a level equivalent to human children aged 5 or 6 even though they're handicapped by being forced to use human designed technology to express themselves. It would not surprise me in the slightest to find that great apes have pretty sophisticated language skills of a type that we humans have lost the skill to understand.

[ncjunk]

Is

In any event, going too far is an evolutionary commonplace, isn't it. You go too far (in intelligence, maybe?) and the feedback mechanism does away with you. It takes time to happen, so how long have we got?? Not long, I suspect.

Olly

I like that idea, we will probably burn ourselves out in a relatively short space of time but the Earth will recover.

We are bypassing evolution with technology and, to some extent, handouts in various forms. Therefore people who would not have had the mental or physical skills/capacity to survive are surviving. We view all death as bad in the media but, dont judge me too harshly, it is important for cutting out weakness and controlling population.

As for understanding of the Universe, would we need to invent another method/language, like maths, in order to model the next level of understanding or possibly another form of interpretation tacked onto mathamatics.

There is a high possibility that there are things out there which we will never understand because either we dont know they exist (and will have no way of knowing they exist) or we lack the ability to be able to find that end bit of yarn and start unravelling it.

Another possibility is that in our never ending ... to gain more knowledge we build a machine which, due to miscalculations, ends up destroying us.

Damn entertaining and i love the idea that a civilization (alien) has not been discovered because ever one of them gets to s certain level of technology and end up destroying themselves before they can get to the next "level" of understanding....but then in my view the are vast numbers of galaxies therefore vast numbers of civilizations (at all levels of evolution) and one will make it to higher levels of technology/understanding without self destructing.

To say we are unique in this universe i find laughable as for me the huge number of possibilities no..almost infinite, as most people wont be able to comprehend the sizes involved, possibilities mean life is inevitable elsewhere but i want to know if silicon based life exists or what the largest living entity could be..

Anyway enough rambling...

[ollypenrice]

Ah, survival of the fittest - but don't think of 'fittest' in the modern sense. That's not how Darwin used it. By becoming clever enough to allow our weaker offspring to survive we increase the number of survivng genes. And to a Dawkinsian evolutionist that's the name of the game.

Alien life seems to me to be an odds on favourite but when you consider the fact that we can barely communicate with chimps (with whom we share a common ancestry and staggering genetic similarity) what are our chances of communicating with aliens? Even, that is, if we set aside the speed of light problem.

Olly

[brianb]

survival of the fittest - but don't think of 'fittest' in the modern sense. That's not how Darwin used it. By becoming clever enough to allow our weaker offspring to survive we increase the number of survivng genes. And to a Dawkinsian evolutionist that's the name of the game.

The issue here is that "surviving" depends on environment - if the environment changes (whether by natural disaster or as a consequence of misapplication of technology is irrelevant) then species are forced to evolve in order to accomodate to the new environment, or become extinct. The lesson here is that large, relatively slow breeding creatures which have become overspecialised in one way or another are less likely to survive "mass extinctions" than small, relatively slow breeding creatures which are not carrying excessive evolutionary burdens. In this context, humans are pretty big as animals go, our long childhood reduces the rate at which we as a species can adapt and our oversized brain is a burden, using disproportionate amounts of energy as well as causing other inconveniences.

Technology cuts both ways. Sooner or later the environment WILL undergo catastrophic change, irrespective of our (blundering) attempts to manage it ... and another lesson is that, the bigger the population spike, the worse the crash is, when it eventually occurs.

We humans are the first life-form on Earth since the cyanobacteria 3 billion years ago to have the power to seriously transform the environment ... and cyanobacteria were certainly not capable of consciously controlling their power. So, in some respects, we're a (so far) unique evolutionary experiment. In that context, it wouldn't be a surprise if we turned out to be a failure ... after all, the vast majority of all species that have ever existed on Earth are extinct.

[brianb]

we can barely communicate with chimps (with whom we share a common ancestry and staggering genetic similarity)

We apparently have a common ancestry with every life form known on Earth ... even caelocanths, sea squirts and salmonella bacteria. I think you mean that our ancestry merged with that of chimps (and bonobos) relatively recently - only about 250,000 generations ago there were siblings, at least one of which is the ancestor of all humans and at least one of which is an ancestor of all chimpanzees (and bonobos).

[ollypenrice]

Yes, you are of course right. It was a careless phrase but I think the difficulty of communicating with even a slightly different species should give us pause before we get too excited about chattering with aliens. It is actually very difficult to imagine what other ways of thinking might be like. I'm trying and not getting anywhere...

Olly

PS Sea squirts. There's a sobering thought...

[toml42]

I think it is important to recognise that the understanding and capacity of humanity for knowledge is not contained within a single skull, but is the entire knowledge and inquiry of the human race built over thousands of years and added to incrementally by each successive generation.

Our collected, networked intelligence that spans the generations contains far more potential than a single, messily evolved brain. I think there's a good chance that eventually, collectively, we will understand the universe.

[mdstuart]

Understand the universe..I cannot even understand my wife.