posthumanist quasi kantian moment
one way or another, however questions like this get answered, we can safely say one thing: the full fundamental truth of how everything works and the full range of what is existent so as to be catalogued in that everything is probably, in ...principle, sufficiently perplexing that no concepts known to you and I today are adequate to describe it, and such concepts as are adequate to do so would be unintelligible to our puny primate brains. so we understand as far as we can until a wall is hit, and maybe some H+ with a better brain in understands a little further. and some H++ a little better than that. and so on.
but there must become and evolve a very different universe before any evolved component exists in the universe such that has culminated through such evolution a consciousness capable fully conquering noumena pusuant towards completely understanding what such a thing as a universe fully is.
and, by definition, you'll never actually know if youre there yet. have you seen everything? or do you just think you have because youve seen everything seeable for your level of cognitive and experimental development? the true and objective completion of omniscience may well always be condemned to ignorantly wonder if it is still ignorant, forever trapped in an epistemic gödel paradox.
and dont get me started on the degree to which subjectivity and context might make 'complete truth' vary in its hermeneutics even more than incomplete truth or total fiction can.....
but there must become and evolve a very different universe before any evolved component exists in the universe such that has culminated through such evolution a consciousness capable fully conquering noumena pusuant towards completely understanding what such a thing as a universe fully is.
and, by definition, you'll never actually know if youre there yet. have you seen everything? or do you just think you have because youve seen everything seeable for your level of cognitive and experimental development? the true and objective completion of omniscience may well always be condemned to ignorantly wonder if it is still ignorant, forever trapped in an epistemic gödel paradox.
and dont get me started on the degree to which subjectivity and context might make 'complete truth' vary in its hermeneutics even more than incomplete truth or total fiction can.....