No, the analogy is between one job of washing up (which will need to be done again in a few hours' time, and again and again for as long as you continue to eat) and learning one poem (which once done is done). Subsequent comments have blurred the point, but it remains valid.
Again with perfection. I'm not talking about creation, which is open-ended; I'm talking about the acquisition of knowledge, which you seem to want to be open-ended but which isn't proven to be and doesn't have to be.
"To me, hoping that the amount of knowledge and understanding is finite is like hoping that people will stop writing books or music. If it ever happened life would be very boring..." Assertion. That may be true for you, but it may not be for some people. Apart from the fact that the two things are apples and oranges, there is far, far more to life than the search for knowledge, or even than books or music (and you know how I feel about those). And good gods, what's wrong with re-reading?
There's a whole lot of confusion here between the individual and humanity in general, between finding knowledge and understanding and creative endeavour, between "understanding" and "perfection", between "the universe" and "people," and if I've caused it or contributed to it I'm sorry. What I am trying to say is that I believe it is possible that some day humanity in general will have learned everything about how this universe works. Is that the sum total of possible knowledge? No, I don't think it is, but it's this universe that the quote talked about and it's this universe that I believe is fathomable and this universe that I keep getting told isn't. I think that's not true.
Being the best you can be at something is an attainable goal, and that's what most people realistically strive for. Getting the lowest temperature you can get is an attainable goal, and that, I assume, is what the scientists are striving for. Adding something to the sum of human knowledge is an attainable goal...but if there is no way to understand a finite universe completely, then sooner or later we're going to hit a wall far more painful than the one you seem to be postulating, one that says "THUS FAR AND NO FARTHER" when you can see that there is farther to go. Personally, if the choice were between boredom and frustration (I don't think it is), I'll take boredom any day.
Science has to proceed on the basis that everything is eventually knowable, whatever the individual scientist may choose to believe. At least that's the impression I've gathered. And that's why I don't understand this point of view, not only that everything is not knowable but that somehow that's a happy. I don't get it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 03:17 pm (UTC)Again with perfection. I'm not talking about creation, which is open-ended; I'm talking about the acquisition of knowledge, which you seem to want to be open-ended but which isn't proven to be and doesn't have to be.
"To me, hoping that the amount of knowledge and understanding is finite is like hoping that people will stop writing books or music. If it ever happened life would be very boring..." Assertion. That may be true for you, but it may not be for some people. Apart from the fact that the two things are apples and oranges, there is far, far more to life than the search for knowledge, or even than books or music (and you know how I feel about those). And good gods, what's wrong with re-reading?
There's a whole lot of confusion here between the individual and humanity in general, between finding knowledge and understanding and creative endeavour, between "understanding" and "perfection", between "the universe" and "people," and if I've caused it or contributed to it I'm sorry. What I am trying to say is that I believe it is possible that some day humanity in general will have learned everything about how this universe works. Is that the sum total of possible knowledge? No, I don't think it is, but it's this universe that the quote talked about and it's this universe that I believe is fathomable and this universe that I keep getting told isn't. I think that's not true.
Being the best you can be at something is an attainable goal, and that's what most people realistically strive for. Getting the lowest temperature you can get is an attainable goal, and that, I assume, is what the scientists are striving for. Adding something to the sum of human knowledge is an attainable goal...but if there is no way to understand a finite universe completely, then sooner or later we're going to hit a wall far more painful than the one you seem to be postulating, one that says "THUS FAR AND NO FARTHER" when you can see that there is farther to go. Personally, if the choice were between boredom and frustration (I don't think it is), I'll take boredom any day.
Science has to proceed on the basis that everything is eventually knowable, whatever the individual scientist may choose to believe. At least that's the impression I've gathered. And that's why I don't understand this point of view, not only that everything is not knowable but that somehow that's a happy. I don't get it.