Science and the limits of conceivability

Magical Realist

Magical Realist

Valued Senior Member
Science has done a very good job over the past 5 centuries at defining the phenomena of the universe in logical and predictable terms. But has it reached the limit? What if there are aspects of reality that are simply inconceivable to us at this present stage? It wouldn't be all THAT surprising given our limitedness to what we can perceive with our mammalian senses and detect with our primitive instruments. On what is the possibility of conceivability grounded? Could we even know if something that is inconceivable to us exists? How would we know it when we see it?
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Science has done a very good job over the past 5 centuries at defining the phenomena of the universe in logical and predictable terms. But has it reached the limit? What if there are aspects of reality that are simply inconceivable to us at this present stage? It wouldn't be all THAT surprising given our limitedness to what we can perceive with our mammalian senses and detect with our primitive instruments. On what is the possibility of conceivability grounded? Could we even know if something that is inconceivable to us exists? How would we know it when we see it?
Click to expand...
By reliably corroborated observational evidence. Just as for the last 5 centuries. If we can't detect any evidence of something, there is no reason, scientifically, to think it is there. So I don't see any issue here.
 
Gullibility has to be factored in, unfortunately. "Just because it ain't so don't mean it ain't so." Direct quote from one of my hillbilly cousins.

I wish they'd handle snakes more often.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Direct quote from one of my hillbilly cousins.

I wish they'd handle snakes more often.
Click to expand...
Well... as a hillbilly Christan from Kentuky... I've personally eaten snake... an even handled all sorts of poison wit no I'll effects... so I guess that sorta makes you'r wish a mute pont :mad:
 
"moot", ya hillbilly.

And no, it doesn't because you are not everybody. All my cousins who died were deemed "experienced" by the pastor and had handled snakes for years. Then they were dead. Confidence in god meant that they didn't have the required equipment/meds to deal with a bite.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
"moot", ya hillbilly.

And no, it doesn't because you are not everybody. All my cousins who died were deemed "experienced" by the pastor and had handled snakes for years. Then they were dead. Confidence in god meant that they didn't have the required equipment/meds to deal with a bite.
Click to expand...
Oops... eggs on my face.!!!

I was readin real quick an read you'r post wrong an I had it in mind that you was talking about eating snakes... so I agree... handling snakes is very dangerous an can even be deadly... especially if God is you'r Doctor :oops:
 
Magical Realist said:
Science has done a very good job over the past 5 centuries at defining the phenomena of the universe in logical and predictable terms. But has it reached the limit? What if there are aspects of reality that are simply inconceivable to us at this present stage? It wouldn't be all THAT surprising given our limitedness to what we can perceive with our mammalian senses and detect with our primitive instruments. On what is the possibility of conceivability grounded? Could we even know if something that is inconceivable to us exists? How would we know it when we see it?
Click to expand...
Why 50 years? Man has been looking skyward observing for millennia.
The first microscope too?

The limit has certainly not been reached. The LHC has had a revamp and that was fired up in 2008.
The search is on for dark matter XENONnT in Italy.
We all now about Webb but there is Vera Rubin to come with Gaia, and Euclid changing our understanding.
Molecular biologists are using AI to unlock the secrets of the cell, protein folding being an example.

No limit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top