A leading astrophysicist once told me that it is his belief that there some things that man will never have the ability to understand, even if we learn to measure them. Do you agree?

Maybe. I've already come across many things I doubt I'll ever understand.

__________________
-Scott

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. -- Bertrand Russell

They are called unobservables. There are alot of them in the field of science.

__________________
Deutschland Das Nationalbewusstsein!

55th Stanza.
Wise in measure should each man be;
but let him not wax too wise;
seldom a heart will sing with joy
if the owner be all too wise.

Havamal~

Today we drink tomorrow we die.

Be weary of the machine so you don't become one yourself.

Isn't there a difference, though, in things we currently don't have the ability to observe, and things that we will never have the ability to understand?

I mean, we had a basic understanding of atoms and molecules, but could not see them. Now we can see some molecules, but still haven't been able to see atoms. They are currently unobservable with our level of technology. But the basic understanding is still there, and is simply being expanded on and added to.

I would agree with Rev Rex that there is a distinction. Some of our current 'understandings' of things are as yet unobserved, and these understandings are often built on assumptions (albeit usually built upon high degrees of probability). And, as the astrophysicist cited said, we have developed ways to even 'measure' what we do not yet understand. And I would assume that we could, as we have in the past, altered these metrics as we learn (and understand) more.

But RunicSage agrees with the astrophysicist, pointing out that these are 'unobservables'. I need a clarification I think. This statement assumes that some things that we currently know to really exist, proven so (not by faith alone), are not now, nor will ever be observable. Hmmm.

I'm not sure I agree with that. You say there are many such things in science; could you give a couple of examples that would help clarify? --Steve--

__________________
That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 255)

Certainly.

If we were not around to witness creation it becomes a unobservable because in order to study it we would have to have scientifical observation.

Then there are some things that are so out there that mere observances bring us no closer in understanding them.

I would say that the human mind is very limited in it's mortal consciousness and perception. Even with computers or other mechanical devices they too are limited because of the same limited mortal creatures who created them.

I really don't think human beings will ever find that strain of truth that reveals the whole cosmos or creation.

I will however say that there is no wrong in trying to because we should never stop the ingenuity of curiousity or questioning.

__________________
Deutschland Das Nationalbewusstsein!

55th Stanza.
Wise in measure should each man be;
but let him not wax too wise;
seldom a heart will sing with joy
if the owner be all too wise.

Havamal~

Today we drink tomorrow we die.

Be weary of the machine so you don't become one yourself.

Well in the start of the singularity that started our solar system there were things that were beyond the laws of physics that we condone and follow today.

Such events of the singularity were quite contrary to the laws of physics.

__________________
Deutschland Das Nationalbewusstsein!

55th Stanza.
Wise in measure should each man be;
but let him not wax too wise;
seldom a heart will sing with joy
if the owner be all too wise.

Havamal~

Today we drink tomorrow we die.

Be weary of the machine so you don't become one yourself.

I agree with this entirely and completely. Not striving to learn leads down the path of apathy, which is a dead end.


Okay, you lost me there. Einstein's theories of physics actually predicted black holes (something that Einstein himself wasn't happy about, because he didn't believe in them). And Black Hole theory is still in it's infancy, helped hugely by Dr. Hawking. So I guess where I'm lost is in what part of the theory is contrary to the laws of physics, and which laws we are talking about? (I WILL grant that a singularity would appear to go contrary to Newton's laws, especially for anything that occurs beyond the event horizon. However, quantum physics does explain and describe these happenings...not that there will actually be someone able to observe them for quite awhile. But you never know. )

Physical Parodox.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_paradox

__________________
Deutschland Das Nationalbewusstsein!

55th Stanza.
Wise in measure should each man be;
but let him not wax too wise;
seldom a heart will sing with joy
if the owner be all too wise.

Havamal~

Today we drink tomorrow we die.

Be weary of the machine so you don't become one yourself.

The thing is that there really isn't any paradox involved in singularities, and there is now math that fully explains them (though it doesn't fully explain why or how). It DID, when it was first proposed, but then extrapolations of the math were made, and new math was also described, that took care of the seeming inconsistencies. Many of the inconsistencies, though, were taken care of by the theory of relativity. For instance, for a person approaching the event horizon of a singularity, they will appear to go faster and faster until they cross the horizon. To someone watching from outside the gravitational pull of the horizon, that person would appear to slow down more and more until they appear to come to a complete stop at the horizon. The key, by relativity, is that both viewpoints are correct, because it all depends on the position of the viewer relative to the event. There is no contradiction, because the two people are in different relative places and situations. We can even see this in action in everyday life. We see an ambulance coming toward us with the siren wailing. To us, the pitch lowers as it passes us. But to a person in the ambulance, the pitch never changes. (Doppler effect) The difference is because the two people have different points of view. So it may appear that there is a paradox, but there really isn't...it is just a case of two very different viewpoints, in different circumstances.

I LOVE theoretical science!!!