Well, obviously nothing for most people. And I don't necessarily have a problem with it stated that way...but in view of the long-term goal as I formulated it, saying that there will always be more unknown about this universe we're in seems to me to defeat the object.
The worst outcome I could imagine is that we maybe find out some of how to make a universe, and do it, and get it horribly wrong...and then find we can't learn the rest of what we need to know, because for whatever reason it's unlearnable. I don't know why that wouldn't bother anyone.
The conflict here seems to be between what I think of as the poetic view of the universe and what I think of as the scientific. (Which is ironic in itself given that "poet" means "maker.") I'm all for awe and wonder in its place, as long as it's accompanied by a refusal to settle for it. Ideally I'd have both--to understand and still to wonder. I don't see why they should be mutually exclusive, and that seems to be what some of the commenters here are saying; that once you understand something it's no longer wonderful. I don't think I've ever found that.
If I believed in a god, I would have to believe that sooner or later we would find that god, get to know him, her or it, understand what makes him, her or it tick, and ultimately surpass or at least equal him, her or it. That's what I think a god would expect of his, her or its creation; in the absence of a god, it still seems like a good goal to aim for, but only if there's some chance of achieving it. Reaching without being able to grasp just makes your arms tired.
Maybe there are other levels of being beyond this one, and maybe then we'll find our limits...but if we've already found them, if our brains are truly not sufficient to grasp this single universe and turn it all ways up and find the mainspring, then I can't help wondering what the ultimate point of them is. Inventing a better dishwasher doesn't cut it for me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Rounding off--a provisionally final attempt to explain myself
Date: 2011-02-22 08:53 am (UTC)The worst outcome I could imagine is that we maybe find out some of how to make a universe, and do it, and get it horribly wrong...and then find we can't learn the rest of what we need to know, because for whatever reason it's unlearnable. I don't know why that wouldn't bother anyone.
The conflict here seems to be between what I think of as the poetic view of the universe and what I think of as the scientific. (Which is ironic in itself given that "poet" means "maker.") I'm all for awe and wonder in its place, as long as it's accompanied by a refusal to settle for it. Ideally I'd have both--to understand and still to wonder. I don't see why they should be mutually exclusive, and that seems to be what some of the commenters here are saying; that once you understand something it's no longer wonderful. I don't think I've ever found that.
If I believed in a god, I would have to believe that sooner or later we would find that god, get to know him, her or it, understand what makes him, her or it tick, and ultimately surpass or at least equal him, her or it. That's what I think a god would expect of his, her or its creation; in the absence of a god, it still seems like a good goal to aim for, but only if there's some chance of achieving it. Reaching without being able to grasp just makes your arms tired.
Maybe there are other levels of being beyond this one, and maybe then we'll find our limits...but if we've already found them, if our brains are truly not sufficient to grasp this single universe and turn it all ways up and find the mainspring, then I can't help wondering what the ultimate point of them is. Inventing a better dishwasher doesn't cut it for me.