the unimportance of personal knowledge
One very interesting point made by the Universe from Nothing book echoes a lot of similar points made by scientists and philosophers, and even some clergy, over the centuries. That there are fundamental limits to human knowledge, and that reality is ultimately independent of human knowledge.
The author points out that if our universe continues on as currently expected, the "negative pressure" of the ubiquitous dark energy will accelerate the expansion of the universe to such an extent that other galaxies will no longer be visible or otherwise detectable by inhabitants of our own galaxy -- because they will be traveling away from us at greater than the speed of light. Furthermore, the echoing background radiation left by the Big Bang will no longer be detectable. We're talking a trillion years from now, but sentient astronomers in that far-off future will have no evidence of the Big Bang, no evidence of other galaxies, and the exciting cosmological discoveries we humans have made over the past century will be impossible to replicate.
Similarly, such a large portion of the universe's available hydrogen will have converted to helium via stellar fusion, that it will be impossible to tell a trillion years from now what the original chemical composition of the universe was, which will make understanding the Big Bang, even if it were hypothesizable at all, much more difficult.
So ... the set of observable knowledge fluctuates over time. It shouldn't take us a trillion years to realize this ;-) Because the set of observable knowledge depends on the knowledge we already have, as applied to our particular time & space. And the set of knowledge we already have depends on the perceptual and cognitive skills we have evolved to have, along with the technologies we have already developed. Just a few generations ago it would've been impossible for humans to know about the Big Bang, because we didn't have the prerequisite tools and knowledges.
The set of observable knowledge fluctuates over time, undergoes feedback loops (both positive and negative), and also differs from person to person, and culture to culture, which is why we all get into such heated debates about various topics, and why most Americans still think Creationism should be taught in public schools.
On a cosmic scale, what you think, or what I think, is irrelevant. Reality operates just the way it does regardless of what we think about it. It is our perceptions and cognitions about reality that change. So we can never have a complete, verifiable and unchanging understanding about everything -- tomorrow's understanding (or that of a trillion years from now) will be different, responding to different prerequisites and measurable inputs. So what's the point of arguing about it? ;-)
Well, if there is a point, it relates to at least a couple different things. (1) To the quality of life -- in that the better we understand the universe, the better able we are to meet our needs via materials, technologies, laws, etc. (2) To the pursuit of truth -- in that the better we understand the universe, the better we understand how anything relates to anything, including ourselves, the human condition, our place in the universe, our relationships to each other, to civilization, to other species, to the environment ... to the meaning of life ... some of us value truth more than we value our personal material needs, or the personal material needs of those we care about, which makes me wonder whether a devotion to the truth is maladaptive ...
Anyway, we argue about what we think because we hope that such arguments refine our thinking and point us toward better cognitive maps for both utilitarian and idealistic reasons. But it is the social cognitive process over the generations that matters, not the individual belief you or I hold and argue about. Memes coevolve with human societies according to natural selection, according to survival and replication. It doesn't matter what you or I think. It does matter which of our thoughts replicate. And thought replication does not always require congruence (especially not perfect congruence) with underlying reality.
The author points out that if our universe continues on as currently expected, the "negative pressure" of the ubiquitous dark energy will accelerate the expansion of the universe to such an extent that other galaxies will no longer be visible or otherwise detectable by inhabitants of our own galaxy -- because they will be traveling away from us at greater than the speed of light. Furthermore, the echoing background radiation left by the Big Bang will no longer be detectable. We're talking a trillion years from now, but sentient astronomers in that far-off future will have no evidence of the Big Bang, no evidence of other galaxies, and the exciting cosmological discoveries we humans have made over the past century will be impossible to replicate.
Similarly, such a large portion of the universe's available hydrogen will have converted to helium via stellar fusion, that it will be impossible to tell a trillion years from now what the original chemical composition of the universe was, which will make understanding the Big Bang, even if it were hypothesizable at all, much more difficult.
So ... the set of observable knowledge fluctuates over time. It shouldn't take us a trillion years to realize this ;-) Because the set of observable knowledge depends on the knowledge we already have, as applied to our particular time & space. And the set of knowledge we already have depends on the perceptual and cognitive skills we have evolved to have, along with the technologies we have already developed. Just a few generations ago it would've been impossible for humans to know about the Big Bang, because we didn't have the prerequisite tools and knowledges.
The set of observable knowledge fluctuates over time, undergoes feedback loops (both positive and negative), and also differs from person to person, and culture to culture, which is why we all get into such heated debates about various topics, and why most Americans still think Creationism should be taught in public schools.
On a cosmic scale, what you think, or what I think, is irrelevant. Reality operates just the way it does regardless of what we think about it. It is our perceptions and cognitions about reality that change. So we can never have a complete, verifiable and unchanging understanding about everything -- tomorrow's understanding (or that of a trillion years from now) will be different, responding to different prerequisites and measurable inputs. So what's the point of arguing about it? ;-)
Well, if there is a point, it relates to at least a couple different things. (1) To the quality of life -- in that the better we understand the universe, the better able we are to meet our needs via materials, technologies, laws, etc. (2) To the pursuit of truth -- in that the better we understand the universe, the better we understand how anything relates to anything, including ourselves, the human condition, our place in the universe, our relationships to each other, to civilization, to other species, to the environment ... to the meaning of life ... some of us value truth more than we value our personal material needs, or the personal material needs of those we care about, which makes me wonder whether a devotion to the truth is maladaptive ...
Anyway, we argue about what we think because we hope that such arguments refine our thinking and point us toward better cognitive maps for both utilitarian and idealistic reasons. But it is the social cognitive process over the generations that matters, not the individual belief you or I hold and argue about. Memes coevolve with human societies according to natural selection, according to survival and replication. It doesn't matter what you or I think. It does matter which of our thoughts replicate. And thought replication does not always require congruence (especially not perfect congruence) with underlying reality.