Are Some Physics Questions Just Impossible to Answer With Our Current Brains?

[Nebula815]

Patiently and articulately stated.

The trouble with the question of the thread title, Nebula, and most of the others you ask, is that it is the result of unnecessarily positioning yourself relative to the issue(s) such that you merely generate more questions. In other words, regardless of what an amazing amount of information humans have gathered about any given phenomenon, you're going to be the guy who defines physics as too hard and our current brains too limited simply because there's yet another question that can be posed.

From what I have gathered here thus far, the questions I am asking are not regarded as physics. People say they are "philosophy," because physics can't answer them in the way I want. But then does this make them unanswerable? Do we humans need more powerful brains to do so? That is what I mean.

 

[JDStupi]

I'm sorry Nebula, but at this point I believe everybody is starting to get frustrated with the way you are conducting your argument/thread and it is probably going to die shortly. Anyway, may I ask why you made this thread? You ask if our brains can coneptualize answers to questions and then people give you answers and you deny them, say they're wrong and continue saying we don't know what's going on. Now, if you re-state the question to what it seems like your really asking "Can we humans ever give a precise qualitative description of the electromagnetic force?" then, NO we cannot. We think and communicate through language, language is limited to perception and experience and concepts formed from those two, it is limited to the three dimensional, macroscopic world as viewed by humans, so NO we cannot get a precise qualitative description of the electromagnetic force, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, so yes your right, we can't know it, if that's the only criterion for true knowledge, how about I ask if we can ever "really" get a "precise" knowledge of love using mathematics, we don't really know love and affection because I cannot describe it with mathematical relations, that is a flawed questionfrom the start, nobody would set out to describe Love and everyday emotions etc in terms of Mathematical/quantitative frameworks, likewise nobody will describe the electromagnetic force precisely with everyday language.

 

[zomgwtf]

From what I have gathered here thus far, the questions I am asking are not regarded as physics. People say they are "philosophy," because physics can't answer them in the way I want. But then does this make them unanswerable? Do we humans need more powerful brains to do so? That is what I mean.

The questions you have asked would be philosophical because it is a has already been stated a PARADOX. You ignore the math framework set up to describe the phenomena (in this case a force) and then claim that we 'can not know using our brains what the phenomena is'.

Since you dismiss mathematics as giving a good enough answer the only other way to solve this problem is through philosophy (metaphysics)... because you're going to run into where did that come what created that, how does that work, why does it exist, does it have purpose? Etc. etc. ad infinitum everytime you get an answer.

Instead I posed that YOU give what you ALREADY know about theories behind the forces (mathematical/philosophical/scientific) and why you think that they are not 'enough'. Instead of doing that you tell ME to give YOU a description... what's the point of THAT? So you can just tell me 'well what IS that'?

The problem isn't with the questions you ask, it's with the position you have taken.

@your comment on the book, it's mathematics and science... how is that so hard to understand? There ARE experiments that can be done to make observations on theories... like the effects it would have what would be produced etc. etc. even though we can not test the actually theory. The rest would be a mathematical framework.

 

[rewebster]

JDStupi--I believe your assumption/conclusion ("IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN") is invalid though. 200, or even, 100 years ago, do you think people could have realized the technology, or things that they are doing and have found out, like condensates, and are able to "give a precise qualitative description" of them as they are writing them out today?

 

[Nebula815]

I'm sorry Nebula, but at this point I believe everybody is starting to get frustrated with the way you are conducting your argument/thread and it is probably going to die shortly. Anyway, may I ask why you made this thread? You ask if our brains can coneptualize answers to questions and then people give you answers and you deny them,

People did not give answers to the questions. I was told the questions are not physics, are not important, can be explained mathematically purely, etc...

say they're wrong and continue saying we don't know what's going on.

I never said anybody is "wrong" I said no one can really answer the questions in the way I am asking, that is my point.

Now, if you re-state the question to what it seems like your really asking "Can we humans ever give a precise qualitative description of the electromagnetic force?" then, NO we cannot. We think and communicate through language, language is limited to perception and experience and concepts formed from those two, it is limited to the three dimensional, macroscopic world as viewed by humans, so NO we cannot get a precise qualitative description of the electromagnetic force, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, so yes your right, we can't know it, if that's the only criterion for true knowledge,

And that leads to my main point for all the questions: Is this due to our brains simply being too limited to conceptualize a qualitative answer or if we evolve more so over the next million years, do you think we will be able to? In other words, the concept can be understood through more than just mathematics, but our brains lack the ability to do so at the moment.

how about I ask if we can ever "really" get a "precise" knowledge of love using mathematics, we don't really know love and affection because I cannot describe it with mathematical relations, that is a flawed questionfrom the start, nobody would set out to describe Love and everyday emotions etc in terms of Mathematical/quantitative frameworks, likewise nobody will describe the electromagnetic force precisely with everyday language.

On love, this is interesting, because artificial intelligence computer scientists who are strict atheists might have a bone to pick with you!

 

[JDStupi]

Rewebster, I can see what your saying, and I suppose I shouldn't have said "It will never happen", but at the same time it still seems highly unlikely that a precise defintion of exactly what the nature of electromagnetic force and charges etc are will be acquired apart from with qualitative descriptions of the understanding gained from the quantitative framework. And I suppose I said that referring to "precise qualitative description" similar to the one he is insisting upon.

I do not think we will "know" qualitiatively what the electromagnetic force is exactly because no matter the evolutions we go through we will still only be experiencing it how it comes to us through sensation, I don't think it is neccessarily a problem of intellect. But I don't know exactly what type of qualitative description apart from the one we have you are asking for, I suppose it is all so speculative

"no one can really answer the questions in the way I am asking, that is my point" - True, nobody can.

The subjective experience of love is being described mathematically?

 

[Nebula815]

The subjective experience of love is being described mathematically?

I mean, for example, can a computer ever be programmed to love? Is intelligence something from a higher power or realm, something humans cannot create, or can a computer that is powerful enough, with proper software, also become self-aware, self-conscious, and have emotions and be able to fall in love? And thus the emotions are mathematical in that sense?

Are emotions from a soul or just solely due to the chemical processes occurring in the brain? In this sense, maybe love can be created via an ultra-sophisticated computer program or algorithm?

Or maybe only intelligence could be created with a powerful enough computer and algorithm, but emotions themselves, being chemical-related in humans and animals, would require that computer to have chemical stimulation...?

For example, a pure "brain" without a body never could become "horny" for a member of the opposite sex because it's just a brain lacking a body. So for the computer brain to love, would it too need stimulation from chemicals or something?

I'm not expecting anyone to answer these, I am just speculating here.

 

[rewebster]

Rewebster, I can see what your saying, and I suppose I shouldn't have said "It will never happen", but at the same time it still seems highly unlikely that a precise defintion of exactly what the nature of electromagnetic force and charges etc are will be acquired apart from with qualitative descriptions of the understanding gained from the quantitative framework. And I suppose I said that referring to "precise qualitative description" similar to the one he is insisting upon.

I do not think we will "know" qualitiatively what the electromagnetic force is exactly because no matter the evolutions we go through we will still only be experiencing it how it comes to us through sensation, I don't think it is neccessarily a problem of intellect. But I don't know exactly what type of qualitative description apart from the one we have you are asking for, I suppose it is all so speculative

"no one can really answer the questions in the way I am asking, that is my point" - True, nobody can.

The subjective experience of love is being described mathematically?

I think I give the impression that it is (very, very) possible --and not too far off in the future either.

As far as Nebula815, I really can't tell if he's pessimistic or 'just wondering'

 

[Nebula815]

I tend to lean more pessimistic with regard to us current humans, although I am not going to say it is outright impossible, however with a more evolved human, I am much more positive.