The following agora took place between the 5th of July, 2021, and the 23rd of July, 2021. The moderators were Sammy23, Nociav (Nuswaree), and Aivintis. The Participants were Patchourisu, Canadian Technocrats (Red), y0, and Nociav.
Sammy
Holos UTEPers. After some time since we asked you topics you’d like to have debates about, welcome all to our third agora debate!!!
We have this time a topic you all will love, since it’s something probably many of us have wondered several times in our lives. It has been suggested by Patch, and I hope it brings a fruitful debate which we all enjoy and learn with:
Do you think we have discovered it all? Do you think we will discover everything someday?
Everyone’s welcome to participate. If you will to do so, you just need to DM me. You can apply until Wednesday, and I’ll open the debate on Thursday. Remember this debate is meant to be respectful and according to the Code of Decorum, which you can find in this link: Code of Decorum - The East Pacific - Tapatalk
I encourage you a lot to join, it will be an amazing time sparkles
Opening Statements
Canadian Technocrats
If you dont mind, ill start with something:
I think that the Question of “Have we discovered all” can be answered confidently with “no” and should need not much further debate (correct me if I am wrong).
The second part is a tough one though, because the Number of things we know is big, the Number of things we know that we don’t know is very big and the stuff we don’t even know that we don’t know is, by its very definition, immeasurable.
So the answer to “will we someday know everything” is “we won’t be able to know if we know everything”, thereby following “no”.
That, I hope you agree, wont get us anywhere though, a different approach is required:
To get at the “no” for the second answer, all you need is a single atom. Now tell me the exact speed and position of that atom. Now find that Heisenberg will get in your way and QED. you can no longer know everything
Patchourisu
I agree with you on those points. For he first point, indeed. And to take an example, we don’t know the exact number of stars in the sky. Moreover, since the observable universe is but a part of the universe, there’s plenty of worlds we don’t know. And unless a way to get there, or a breakthrough in Physics that allows tachyons (particles that goes faster than light in the void, which is impossible according to modern theories), we won’t ever know and acknowledge them. Still, knowing the exact state of the universe and all the topography of the Universe at the big bang, we could know.
But then, as you stated, there’s quantum indeterminism that goes on our way to know everything. And I would add to that the possible infinity of the multiverse, in space and time. Where you have infinity, you also have an infinite amount of data to acknowledge. Even if you can reduce the data, from time to time, like with convergent series that takes an arithmetic value out of an infinite amount of infinitesimal compounds, and sometimes you can find regularity among them. Still, Is there a way to acknowledge the universe and Transcend our Universe? I wonder, I wonder?
However, will we discover everything that lies in our reach someday? Probably. We might understand and acknowledge what we can do. But doing so, and also with time, the horizons and our horizons will expand. It is like trying to fill a pierced pot with water: There may have no end.
But with all this uncertainties, we still have a lot of room to imagine and to dream about what we couldn’t grasp otherwise.
Nociav
I agree with both on the first . Of course we don’t know everything. I’m still waiting to know what I’ll have for dinner tomorrow. Now, the second question, I think the other two take the question too literally. Naturally, we will never know everything. Randomness in the universe assures that. We can’t predict quantum fluctuations nor the decay of radioactive atoms. Will we know whether or not a particular economic system or governmental system is good for a particular society. Yes with enough thought and trials. What could we discover in our finite time? A lot. I’m certain we will discover a large amount of scientific information. Will we discover the intricacies of our often contradictory universe? Likely not. We will discover enough that matters. I don’t particularly care about the spin of an atom exactly one meter above the top of my head but I do want to know how and why atoms spin. Those sorts of important propoerties of the universe we will discover.
y0
For the first question, it would take quite a bit of bluster and hand waving on the definition of “everything” to contest the consensus. Even if we restrict the scope to physics, there is so much more left to discover.
As for the second, I believe there is an important distinction between knowledge of existence, invention, and discovery that has not been fully explored in this agora. For the sake of this discussion, I will argue that both shifts in widespread knowledge and material consequences must come from an original source to count as a discovery. Yes, we know there are infinite permutations of probabilities that could form a single atom’s configuration space; and yes, we can invent more complexities. Because of all these uncertainties, the question remains about discovering the natural in all the ways that humanly matter. I would have to disagree with Patch on this, as I think it is more likely that at least one of the following scenarios occurs:
- The limits of our perceptual/measurement systems are reached, impeding further verification of our theories. Since knowledge must be justified, this breaks the discovery process.
- People in positions of power decide to destroy information about a discovery in fear of its implications. (Other people’s mental patterns are included in my definition of information).
- Humanity decides to not take human form.
One obvious drawback to this system of definitions is what counts as new. Most of human ingenuity is based on remixing patterns, so I would be curious about the other participants’ definitions.
Sammy
Now that the opening statements are posted, it’s time to start with the cross examination. The way to do this is to ask questions about the matters the other side has argued.
Cross Examination
Patchourisu
Well,
It appears that we have two possible definitions for “knowing everything” - One absolute, and one relative.
Whether me and Canadian Technocrat argued for the absolute one, knowing every piece of information lying on the universe (and even beyond), Nuswaree and y0 argued for the relative one, knowing every piece of information that is pertinent for mankind (or that mankind wishes to know or is able to know).
For that second point, though, I think we should measure the extent of Mankind’s perception. Is it directly by their senses, or do we add all the indirect measurement that man can know? Besides, where do we put the limit of Mankind’s will to know? I think that, where some men decides they don’t want to know a thing, some others wishes to know everything (or at least, way more). (remember this question “why”). Still, for this one, we can build made-up answers (like Mysticism and religion). “Why does it rain?” “Because the gods know so”. So, with those made-up answers, and if everyone agrees to them, I believe we can be able to “know everything”, at least on a relative sense. However, even if this knowledge satisfies our curiosity, I think it is not an absolute knowledge that matches reality on its fullest. (Is such a knowledge even possible, as we don’t even know what the fabrics of reality is?) Hence, we cannot build predictions out of them, we can just acknowledge the facts without building a full (or at least deep) understanding of them.
Nociav
To answer Patch’s first question, knowledge comes from both senses and indirect methods. Deduction and inference reveal knowledge as do plenty of other reasoning methods. I don’t quite understand Patch’s second question so i’ll have to skip it.
I’d now like to ask a question of my own to everyone. What do you think could we know? This, I believe is where we can really get into details and debate.
For me, I believe we should be able to discover most principles of the universe. By simply looking at how different principles meet, we can infer new ones. That’s how hawking radiation was discovered.
If the number of laws of the universe are significantly more expansive than what we know now, there may come a time where the resources needed to experiment more and more precise events to prove theories will be beyond humans.
If, however, all the laws of the universe number a little more than what we know now, perhaps.
Now, I would like to say that the absolute definition of knowledge (that we will know absolutely everything) is pointless. Knowing absolutely everything doesn’t provide a material advantage. Sure we know the exact properties of every atom but what does that change? Nothing. Knowing just the principles is enough in a practical sense.
Patchourisu
I agree that the latter definition is only interesting for sole curiosity purposes, and may not have practical interests. Though, do you think that it may push us to discover more and more?
Now, to answer your question !
What could we know… We could establish more and more precise laws of the universe, deepen our understanding of ourselves and how we behave, discover more and more of our biosphere and species that live with us, another world’s geographies and properties, and maybe extraterrestrials. Perhaps even other universes. And we could know what we could know tomorrow, since we don’t know what it will be possible to do and the applications of the objects of tomorrow!
Nociav
Perhaps but I don’t believe that moat people will share such a curiosity since it is pretty niche and those that share it won’t have the resources needed to put in the effort to track every single atom within reach.
I agree that we could discover more laws of the universe and perhaps more about the human brain but the research on the brain still leaves a lot to malleablity, basically, randomness, hindering our ability to know everything.
Species would be quite difficult as well. Theoretically possible but practically impossible since evolution, another random component, will be hard at work to create new species we will know nothing about.
The others are theoretically possible but practically impossible since the resources wouldn’t be spared. The exception is the possibility of universes. This unfalsifiability creates another problem in out quest to know everything.
I’ll keep quiet now so Canadian Technocrats and y0 can catch up.
Canadian Technocrats
I think much here hinges on our definition of “everything”, as Patchourisu already said.
Given the “absolute” definition the answer is a definite no, with the relative one it gets complicated, relatively fast.
I agree with Nociav point, the absolute definition is unpractical.
Given our current understanding if Physics, there is a limited amount of energy in the universe, and so there are potential phenomena we might never have the power to see or measure.
The Problem arrises, as I outlined in my opening statement, that we may never know what we dont know and therefor have to draw a line in the sand where “everything” is reached.
Where to draw that line however, is a big question on its own
Patchourisu
This is a great point indeed
I would usually draw that line to the observable universe and about the quantum rules and properties of the quantum verse. And even if outside phenomena exists, what we think of them may just be reveries or metaphysics.
Where you would draw the line, though?
Canadian Technocrats
The Issue is that this line we draw has to be different for different Fields of Study.
Most of the Discussion here hinged on Physics, the grand scale and the Quantum world, the Domain of Formulas and Math.
But when have we “discovered” all in Fields like Sociology, Ornithology or, for that matter, Vexillology?
I know that is a hand-wavy answer but to be honest I have no idea where to draw the line in the individual cases due to a lack of expertiese im allmost every one of them
Patchourisu
Yeah, this relativity of lines to draw with research and knowledge topics is a pretty good point, too
Sammy
After this awesome debate, now it’s the time to end with it with your closing statements!!! Conclude your opinions about the topic with a final text. You’ll have until Thursday!
Closing Statements
Canadian Technocrats
THIS IS THE END Statement from me:
To recap:
I think we successfully established that, as most of the times “stuff is complicated” and that definitions and semantics (see: “everything”) can add even more complexity through vagueness to a topic hard to define. Damn you, language!
The result (short-form):
Its complicated
The result (longer form):
The Definition of “everything” or “all” that we discover varies considerably from Topic to Topic, is sometimes only a hypothetical (see: Vexillology) or at all illusory (see: Economic). Where to draw the line could be a topic in and of itself, maybe for the open discussion.
On the Discussion itself (Meta):
It was great fun talking about this topic in a civil and productive way. I hope you had a good time as much as I had with it.
THIS IS THE END of the Ending-Statement
Nociav
This will be my final statement.
I thank y0, Red, and Patch for being good people to debate with. Although I feel as if I haven’t been the best, I still enjoyed it. I hope the same is true for everyone.
Red does an excellent job summarising. Things are complicated and language can be limiting at times. What we can know varies from topic. Some things are open ended and we can never know the right answer, as in the case of philosophy, others we may know everything about, the anatomy of humans for example. Since this variation is extreme, I come to conclude that we should answer this question in context of specific topics.
Patchourisu
Well, to conclude :
We got two definitions of “Knowing everything” - One which is absolute, and too abstract to get something out. We can’t know every aspect of a thing, and that would be pointless.
The other definition would be a relative one, knowing everything… That impacts us.
But still, this definition is complicated too. What does impact us and what doesn’t? Even if I believe that everything is connected somewhere, a line to draw would be interesting. In the field of physics, I can think of one. But there’s not only physics, as there’s plenty of other fields. Psychology, Biology, Vexilology, Arts…
And even, we may still discover other things and fields we don’t actually know for now.
So, even with this definition, we can’t grasp an answer, and the question keeps being vague, unknown and uncharted. I feel we’ve only scratched a bit of how deep this topic is.
But, about the debate
It was a pleasure debating with you, I feel we cordially reached common grounds to grow a little plant of knowledge!
Sammy
So… The agora has come to its end!!! Thank you all because it has been awesome, your levels of argumentation are amazing and I’m delighted to see this high level among UTEPers.
There are more agoras coming in the more than near future and everyone’s invited to participate. It’s a great opportunity to both show and improve your skills in debating and presenting your ideas. Through debate, critical thinking and research, is how we all learn and how everyone can contribute not only to UTEP but to the academia itself. We’re willing to see more and more debates like this, and you can be part of it!!!