-Novalis
This idea makes the case that humans are not omnipotent beings. We often forget this in day-to-day life since we completely dominate the surroundings. From sky scrapers in cities to millions of acres of forests cleared for farming, it’s nearly impossible to escape the evidence of our superiority over any other species. However, in spite of this superiority, mankind as a species still has their limits.
There are certain tasks that man will never be able to perform as well as other species. Swimming for example, is something man, as a species, will be able to do as well as fish. While man is able to learn how to swim, he is ultimately meant for land. Also, man not only has the limitation of naturally not know how to swim, but other physiological limitations make him suited for land. The lack of gills makes him surface every so often for air, while no way to deal with the increased pressure of increased depth.
Furthermore, what is even more unattainable by man is the sky. While man can walk or swim, he cannot fly without the use of machinery. Once again, this is because he is made for land. Whether man was created this way, or he evolved through billions of years of evolution is irrelevant. The fact is man is not as omnipotent as he thinks he has become.
What if man doesn’t just have physical limitations, but also mental ones? There could be problems that man simply doesn’t have to mental capabilities to solve. The most elusive problem is the theory of unification which would explain the universe. It is referred to as the “theory of everything”, and the current theory to answer this is the String Theory.
In case you aren’t familiar with the String Theory, it theorizes that all matter is made up of unimaginably small vibrating strings of energy. Could it be possible that the complexity of the universe could be explained by little strings of energy? Or is man just desperately trying to answer questions he has no business attempting to solve?
What if man does not have the mental capabilities to answer the greater mysteries of the universe? I personally believe that this is the case. Science and math are based on the past discoveries and work of the past. This is the basis for evolution: small changes that accumulate to something better. During the time between t he 16th and 18th centuries, this evolution of our understanding of the world exploded with revolutionary changes in the way we think about astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry, and biology. However, since this time, the theories that hold weight are dwindling in numbers.
Except for Einstein’s theory of relativity, there have been no truly revolutionary theories dealing with our physical universe in over 100 years. Is it possible that man as a species reached its intellectual peak during the Scientific Revolution and that only a few individuals on the edge of the bell curve of intelligence are able to come up with any new ideas?
This appears to be the case. In a research paper by John Walker, he presents the theory that the world wide mean IQ decreases as time goes on: 5 IQ points in only 100 years. This explains why there has been little progress in unraveling the secrets of the universe. The answers to our questions dealing with the universe are becoming more complex than ever, while our intelligence as a species lessens. We would have to rely on the individuals that lie on the far end of the IQ bell curve, but unfortunately, they will grow fewer in numbers as time goes on.
Does this mean that man will never be able conceive a theory that explains everything? Are we doomed to a fate where the mean IQ is 50 because people reproduce based on physical appearance and not intellectual abilities?
Only time will tell…
18 comments:
Perhaps, even, the physiological limitations you described apply to our brain as well. Maybe our brains are not physically developed enough yet to be considering questions with as much magnitude as a "theory of everything." (the movie "Pi" mentions somewhere that a being comprised of a certain pattern can only work or think within, or utilise, that pattern. That may apply here as well.)
I don't think that our brain would be a physiological limitation. We have to power to imagine anything, however we do not have to power to comprehend everything. So theoretically we could imagine the theory of everything, we just wouldnt be able to articulate it.
you know?
What if we cannot imagine everything, though? In taking with the idea from the movie "Pi," what if we can only think, and imagine, in the patterns we were created with?
If we were created with a pattern, shouldn't we be constricted to the same limitations of that pattern? Constricted to only working within that pattern? (The pattern(s)I'm referring to are ones like Fibonacci, and the golden ratio, and all the other known ones that appear in nature)
Our brains are very certainly a glorious manifestation of the patterns that create us; but what if some thing prevented us from thinking outside of a certain basic frame? If our consciousness is a result of our past experiences and chemistry, then maybe some things are able to be left out of our thoughts and imaginations.
In that case, we would not be able to understand everything there is to be understood, including the "theory of everything."
(At least, maybe. This is more musing than a conclusion.)
Just something to think about in response to what Wil said... If we are indeed created with a pattern like the Golden Ratio or the Fibonacci Sequence that has major presence all throughout nature, then wouldn't it make sense that the theory of everything correlates with that same ever present pattern, and if it was, wouldn't that mean that we in turn would theoretically somehow have to ability to comprehend it, as it would be made of the very same pattern we were created with?
That is an interesting view of how the human mind works, but it does not allow for any innovation.
All revolutionary ideas are revolutionary for the simple fact of them never being seen nor heard before.
Imagination is independent of our consciousness. Ancient man armed with just his imagination developed the wheel. The ancient man did not have any model to base this design off of. This shows that people are able to imagine and create things even if they have not experienced anything similar in their lives.
And man cannot be programmed to a certain pattern. The thing that makes man so great and dominant is his ability to innovate and adapt. With agriculture, man set himself apart from any other animal by breaking the pattern of animals.
well if john walker is right
then we are just going to end up like idiocracy
My argument needs more elaboration.
Though we may be created by many patterns, it is possible that all patterns were not incorporated into our design. Maybe we've discovered everything there is to discover about the universe already; but we likely have not, and there are likely more patterns that are unknown to us.
They may remain unknown, however, because of the patterns we are limited by. Though ancient man's adaptation may have culminated in the creation of the wheel, the circle is an organic pattern that can be observed in many places in nature. Perhaps if nature did not incorporate circular shapes, man would never have imagined it. (And henceforth, everything we have created is based off of things we have discovered in the past, as you pointed out in your article.)
However, through adaptation, maybe man still holds the key to understanding the theory of everything. We have proven that we can adapt to incorporate patterns into our psyche, our collective unconscious. But without the patterns revealing themselves, and without an extended amount of time to decipher it, we may be stuck going in the same circles. (Maybe all patterns we need for a "theory of everything" exist in some other places in the universe.)
There has to be some base point of knowledge. Similar to life, while life can only come from life (Redi would agree), there has to be some point where life did arise.
Man underwent a similar change, at the beginning of his existence, his application of knowledge set in and he was able to create. Also, while a circle does appear in nature, it does not have the same application of a wheel. It was man's imagination that allowed him to create this.
Also, as John Walker researched, adaptation and evolution will only make man less intelligent.
I think we could go on forever, agree to disagree?
Agreed. (What you just said was pretty interesting.)
Good writing though, thought-provoking.
Wow I never knew cam could use such big words i am impressed!!!
The Theory of Everything when applied to Physics is very complicated to understand. However when applied to everything else it is pretty easy as it is based on the natural principles we all know. When you know these and the relation between each one, it is easy to see how they can be applied to everything. What this all means is that whether a conscious system or not, they are all working to maintain a constant, continuous and even level of activity which is the most effective and efficient possible.
Know the Laws of Nature and you know the solution to the Theory of Everything because they can be applied to everything.
The theory of everything that I am referring to is one that can explain all natural phenomena. There are four types of forces in two groups.
Group 1: Weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and electromagnetic.
Group 2: Gravity.
Group 1 is explained with quantum mechanics, while Group 2 is explained with general relativity.
However, these two groups do not have a theory that can combine them both. String theory attempts to do this, but the idea is pretty far-fetched.
I understand that the Laws of Nature are required to understand the Theory of Everything, but just knowing these laws of nature does not explain why they are connected.
A theory of everything would explain the connection.
Claiming that we can't understand everything is just a way for the weak and lazy to avoid having to think about it, the same as inventing a "God." The implication that we can only understand the world in terms of the patterns that we are build around should have gone out the window as soon as anyone imagined a 5th dimension. Sure, they admit that we can never fully envision or conceptualize said dimensions, but the fact that someone thought of it proves that human inginuity can concieve of things we will never experience. Also, assuming that we were only able to conceptualize in terms of patterns we are built around, a "theory of everything" would have to explain in physical terms the existence of humans, so all one would have to do is build a theory that starts from our physical characteristics and interactions with the world around us and work backwards from there. Since the world clearly has a set of concrete rules which we fit into, the patterns we are built around are the same ones as everything else is built around. As for our apparent de-evolution, Cam and I already discussed that. In short, when you remove the struggle for survival, the 'fittest' individuals become the ones who are more adept at reproduction (more attractive, more active sex drive, too stupid to use condom/bc/abortion). So I believe that we are definitely capable of devising a theory of everything, but I'm not sure we'll be able to if this current evolutionary trend continues.
Lastly, Pi was a pretty good movie, but don't try to take away any real knowledge about Math, Physics, Philosophy or Religion from it. It's all pseudo-math that the threw in to make the plot work.
could you elaborate on why you think that humans could come up with a "theory of everything"?
I think we are capable of doing so because I have shown that we are capable of thinking 'outside of the box' and that even if we weren't, we are the product of the laws that would make up the 'theory of everything' so that we wouldn't be limited by our perceptions. Also, I don't believe that there's any genetic limitation that prevents us from becoming intellient enough, it's just that in any situation where we have time to consider such things, de-evolution will more than likely be able to take hold. I'm not saying it's likely that we will, just that it's possible. Hopefully when the time comes that the universe is so entropic as to barely support life, and it will become necessary to our survival to understand the entireity of physics, and hopefully we will be able to do so before we become extinct.
I am not disagreeing that we are capable of thinking outside of the box. If you read all the comments before you posted you will see that I referenced the wheel as proof of human's ability to think outside the box.
However, I do believe that the "theory of everything" is too complex for us to understand or even conceive.
A 4 year old, has an active imagination. He could imagine anything in the whole world, however could that 4 year old understand calculus?
I believe this relates to humans and the "theory of everything". The "theory of everything" would be simply out side of our mental capabilities, just as calculus is outside of a 4 year old's
A 4 year old cannot do calculus because he does not know the prerequisite material, he does not understand it because his mind has not developed fully yet.
My belief is that even when humans reach their mental peak, they are still unable to understand, let alone conceive, a "theory of everything"
Post a Comment