There are certainly limits to knowledge. It's wrong to believe that technology can continue to develop indefinitely. The question is rather; where is this limit, at which level of development?

JES

There do not seem to be limits to scientific knowledge or human evolution.

@Stellan Gustafsson, where do you presume is the limit?

Dear Nwankwo,

I think the answer is: We (currently) don't know. Obviously, science has made tremendous progress over the past few centuries/millennia. Nevertheless, some scholars argue that the human mind - as a biological entity - has simply evolved to enhance our adaptive capacities in the natural environments our primate ancestors lived in, but not necessarily to enhance our capabilities of understanding the world/cosmos "as it really is". Thus, our humand mind and cognitive-perceptual apparatus may, indeed, have principle limits of grasping the ultimate nature of reality. But where precisely these limits lie - who knows? One is reminded of Plato's cave allegory here...

Let me just add that some scholars, nevertheless, argue that we may already begin to see some of these limits: Just think, e.g., of the decades-long stalemate in fundamental physics of uniting the quantum world with the cosmic-scale world of relativity. Or another one: If, indeed, a "singularity" happened close to or at what some physicists call the Big Bang: Will we ever be able to look (i.e., gather empirical evidence) beyond this point? There are many more such examples.

Best,

Julius

Dear Julius Riese : I would limit myself to quoting the following dialectical view of Frederick Engels on this issue and a link to an article on the Infinite:

“The perception that all the phenomena of Nature are systematically interconnected drives science to prove this interconnection throughout, both in general and in detail. But an adequate, exhaustive scientific statement of this interconnection, the formulation in thought of an exact picture of the world system in which we live, is impossible for us, and will always remain impossible. If at any time in the evolution of mankind such a final, conclusive system of the interconnections within the world - physical as well as mental and historical – were brought to completion, this would mean that human knowledge had reached its limit, and, from the moment when society had been brought into accord with that system, further historical evolution would be cut short – which would be an absurd idea, pure nonsense.

Mankind therefore finds itself faced with a contradiction; on the one hand, it has to gain an exhaustive knowledge of the world system in all in its interrelations; and on the other hand, because of the nature both of man and of the world system, this task can never be completely fulfilled. But this contradiction lies not only in the nature of the two factors – the world, and man – it is also the main lever of all intellectual advance, and finds its solution continuously, day by day, in the endless progressive evolution of humanity just as for example mathematical problems find their solution in an infinite series or continued fractionations. Each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact limited, objectively through the historical stage and subjectively through the physical and mental constitution of its maker." ( Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring) Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

And also the following link: The Limits of Mathematics, Special Issue 64 / April 2019

http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf

Regards, Abdul

Both.

“Is there a limit to scientific knowledge and discovery, or are there inherent limits in our ability to comprehend and understand the universe?”

- really scientific answer to this question is evidently possible only if the phenomena/notions “we”, i.e. “humans”, “knowledge”, “comprehend and understand” , “universe”, are really scientifically defined,

- for what is necessary to have scientific definitions of fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, all of which really are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream philosophy and sciences,

- and so despite that all these phenomena/notions in both passages above have some “understanding”, and are used in the mainstream science and everyday humans’ practice, really all that happens fundamentally only instinctively, having no any understanding – why they do that they do?; including in this case a next question appears – why this instinctive descriptions of many things in humans and environment, including “universe”, are in some cases adequate to the reality?

The really scientific answers to these questions – and so to the thread question – are possible, and are essentially done, only in framework of the really philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set;

- while the utmost general definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is:

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”.

Correspondingly the fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter” and "Consciousness” above become be scientifically defined – they both completely for sure are nothing else than some informational systems [besides, most of other fundamental phenomena/notions above are correctly defined also].

So it is nothing surprising in that some informational systems “humans” communicate mutually using some informational patterns/systems – and communicate with fundamentally different informational system “Matter”, despite all that happens only instinctively [all living beings, even bacteria, communicate mutually and with matter don’t knowing at that words “Information”, “knowledge”, “Logical Rules”, etc., and outside the conception humans really by no means differ from, say, bacteria].

Really – more see the linked paper – all living beings on Earth, including humans, are governed by versions of specific informational system “consciousness on Earth”, which, in turn is a version of generic specific system “Consciousness in the Set”

The generic specificity of any “consciousness” is in the principal ability to communicate with any of the absolute infinite “number” of the Set’s elements, and so in any/every consciousness’s “program shell” always just specific [at least] utilities “Curiosity” and “Self-development” constantly run in background mode,

- however any consciousness abilities at obtaining and analyzing of the obtained, information are principally limited.

So a brief answer to the thread question is as: [human’s consciousness is rather developed version of the “consciousness on Earth”] “there are no limits in subjects of knowledge, however in every case the knowledge is at least partially uncertain – up to complete illusions in some cases”.

More see the conception in the link above; here note only also that any/every material object, say, a particle, a star, etc., in Matter knows physics absolutely completely – what humans never will know, but Matter fundamentally differs from any consciousness just in that the material objects fundamentally don’t know anything else; and, thank heaven, doesn’t attempt to know.

Cheers

Dear Nwankwo Kalu,

The limits of the knowledge of fundamental physics is given in "the daon theory", but you have also spiritual knowledge which limits are difficult to define. If there's a meaning to our Existence then this must be of spiritual nature.

JES

@ Stellan Gustafsson, thank you for the comment. From what you've written here is a question of thought, How can we reconcile or integrate the limitations of fundamental physics with the notion of spiritual knowledge and the potential meaning of our existence?

@Sergey Shevchenko, thank you very much for the comment. Please, in your opinion how do we navigate and differentiate between the developed consciousness of humans and the uncertain or potentially illusory nature of knowledge, particularly when exploring the meaning of our existence?

Dear Nwankwo Kalu ,

First, we have to separate between material and spiritual questions. These are two well separated matter.

Physical laws can be defined, whereas spirituality is a question of love, empathy and spiritual growth.

JES

@Nwankwo Kalu

“…. Please, in your opinion how do we navigate and differentiate between the developed consciousness of humans and the uncertain or potentially illusory nature of knowledge,….”

- that is described/explained in the SS post on 1-st page, if briefly:

(i) – “we” really are versions of the specific fundamentally non-material informational systems “homo-two sapiens version of ‘consciousness on Earth’”, which is something like “computer+program shell” system [though, -see the linked in the SS post paper - really any system is some “computer+program shell” system],

- which uses the practically material body as a stable residence in the “Information” Set;

-(ii) – in the “The Information as Absolute” conception it is rigorously proven that everything is made from one stuff – “Information”, and just so infinitely diverse systems of really only informational patterns/systems exist – since elements of systems exchange by understandable data, signals, orders, etc. – i.e. again only by some information;

- and the just specific fundamental property of any version of “Consciousness” is in that she is able to communicate with any the Set’s element, if she doesn’t understand something it produce the specific pattern “I communicate, but I don’t understand”, and further, if some reasons are, studies the communicating element in the Set more in detail;

(iii) - because of any consciousness is principally limited system, she never understands what she studies absolutely completely certainly, and so her inferences are always partially uncertain, or even illusory;

(iv) – outside the conception, i.e. in whole humans’ history and for most of humans now, the point (iii) is fundamentally enhanced because that the humans really study environment and themselves having only instinctive/transcendent/subconscious imagination about the environment and themselves; and so in every case when humans address to any really fundamental problem the result completely logically inevitably is a transcendent/mystic mental construction; and

(v) – however in framework of the conception the transcendence really disappears – the phenomenon “Information”, despite that is absolutely fundamental, isn’t transcendent and is so completely rationally cognizable.

An example of the conception application is the SS&VT informational physical model [the links see, say, in the last SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Wilhelm_Wiens_1900_paper_energy_mc_squared_formula_and_Webers_electrodynamics/2], which is based on the conception; where more 30 transcendent problems in mainstream physics are either solved or well essentially clarified; again now the inevitable early illusory studying can be, in principle, always be scientifically rational.

That is another thing, that the “homo-two sapiens consciousness”, though is much more developed than, say “a bacterium consciousness”, has, nonetheless, rather weak abilities at operation in the Set, and so for her stable operation it is necessary to have the stable residence above;

- however the evidently observed real trend of development of “consciousness on Earth” version - from bacteria to homo-two sapiens versions is evidently trend “more and more outside Matter into some regions in the Set”, so to

“…..particularly when exploring the meaning of our existence?…”

- from the trend above it looks as quite rational to assume that the trend isn’t ended on the homo-two sapiens consciousness, it will continue in next and next more developed the consciousness versions; and, besides, while earlier the trend looks as some way of attempts and errors, now that rather probably could be more rationally controlled process.

So the scientific “ meaning of our existence” now is just in studying of corresponding problems – i.e. humans’ efforts and behavior, including scientific ones; which till now were/are completely instinctively concentrated practically on satisfaction of needs of practically material bodies [World is governed by material interest], really scientifically should be concentrated in satisfaction of the intrinsic just consciousness needs.

More see the SS posts and, of course, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

Cheers

Yes, too much alleged knowledge leads to perception biases.