The end of science?

[Brickjectivity]

Do you think we’ll ever reach the end of scientific knowledge, before all life in the universe dies?
And where will this knowledge get us......will all life in the universe eventually die anyway?
Or is it too early to tell?
And do you think many present day scientists have thought about the end (or not) of science?

If all knowledge is researched and packed into books the research and doubting must continue. It involves continual reassurance. They have to keep checking or the knowledge becomes uncertain. Its like hunting where its one thing to read about it in history books and another to have a brother who hunts.

 

[leibowde84]

Do you think we’ll ever reach the end of scientific knowledge, before all life in the universe dies?
And where will this knowledge get us......will all life in the universe eventually die anyway?
Or is it too early to tell?
And do you think many present day scientists have thought about the end (or not) of science?

Easy answer ... not even close.

 

[sealchan]

Do you think we’ll ever reach the end of scientific knowledge, before all life in the universe dies?
And where will this knowledge get us......will all life in the universe eventually die anyway?
Or is it too early to tell?
And do you think many present day scientists have thought about the end (or not) of science?

I doubt it but I think that specific areas of science might go through a process of maturation where they become more and more "engineering" than science. Other areas of science may develop theories that will require computational analysis in order to create testable models and so such science might become a computational systems science.

New forms of engineering in turn open up new areas of scientific exploration and keep it all going.

 

[paarsurrey]

I doubt it but I think that specific areas of science might go through a process of maturation where they become more and more "engineering" than science. Other areas of science may develop theories that will require computational analysis in order to create testable models and so such science might become a computational systems science.

New forms of engineering in turn open up new areas of scientific exploration and keep it all going.

Does one mean that science has now assumed and is related to more to the philosophical/computational/mathematical part and the practical/experimental aspect has been taken over by the engineering.
Regards

 

[sealchan]

Does one mean that science has now assumed and is related to more to the philosophical/computational/mathematical part and the practical/experimental aspect has been taken over by the engineering.
Regards

I think in science there are big questions that drive research and these big questions become more refined until an important experiment makes a break-through and the big questions more or less become answered. But the answers always generate new questions and new opportunities for human technology.

I think that on the whole there will always be these big questions that science is asking, but that as these questions are asked in the context of science, the sort or work being done evolves.

Consider the science of DNA...first there were questions about how cells reproduced and supported a consistent role within the larger organism as well as how the fertilized egg was able to develop into the full grown organism...this gave way to the identification of DNA as the mechanism. Now science has the big questions answered in this regard, but we also have the engineering aspect coming in in the development of methods for analyzing and cataloging the specific contents of many different samples of DNA across many different species. So the discovery of DNA has led to a new sort of cataloging work (like early biology's emphasis on cataloging species) with supporting technologies. Specific pieces of DNA are linked to specific medical and mental conditions and now engineering comes in in order to support gene therapy and drugs as a way to deliver medical treatments to patients (I think of medicine as a form of engineering providing technical support solutions for the human body).

At some point the focus on DNA may shift to a more computational systemic approach as scientists want to study how these organic molecules work together or how they might have evolved in the past against the background of molecular interactions in less ordered environments. I would imagine such studies would be useful in trying to understand disease and dysfunction in the cell as well given that imbalances in the production of a certain organic molecule would lead to systemic changes in the organisms body that would be practically very difficult to discover through frequent sampling of tissue. Experiments based on computer modelling of complex molecular interactions might be crucial in our efforts to treat disease.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think science is more likely to turn us all into cyborgs.

I, for one, would welcome a cyborg replacement for my aging and beginning-to-fail back.

And for my slowly degrading hearing. Eyesight too.

Heck-- my strength and stamina isn't what it was, now that I'm 60. I'd welcome a cyborg body, and would not hesitate for even a second. Biology sucks, sometimes, especially when it's more obvious failure of "design" becomes apparent.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

The universe surely contains a finite set of physical ‘happenings’, so given enough time, science will pluck away at the set one by one, until the set is fully understood? So your imaginings may become a reality!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The universe surely contains a finite set of physical ‘happenings’, so given enough time, science will pluck away at the set one by one, until the set is fully understood? So your imaginings may become a reality!

That would depend on whether or not the universe is an infinite manifold, or a finite one.

If the universe is infinite but bounded by a finite envelope? Then we would never be able to plumb it's depths before it ran out of energy.

Of course-- if the light-barrier is never broken, then humans are essentially bounded by the distance light can travel, within the lifetime of the universe.... at most. Practically, not even that much.

 

[tayla]

Do you think we’ll ever reach the end of scientific knowledge, before all life in the universe dies?
And where will this knowledge get us......will all life in the universe eventually die anyway?
Or is it too early to tell?
And do you think many present day scientists have thought about the end (or not) of science?

Probably, when the oil runs out and modern global civilization collapses, much of modern science will be lost; too expensive and energy intensive requiring sophisticated equipment and tools. Probably those survivors will be back at a time similar to 1700 CE (AD) except having modern seeds and tools and other knowledge. Science probably won't advance again without cheap oil.

 

[exchemist]

Probably, when the oil runs out and modern global civilization collapses, much of modern science will be lost; too expensive and energy intensive requiring sophisticated equipment and tools. Probably those survivors will be back at a time similar to 1700 CE (AD) except having modern seeds and tools and other knowledge. Science probably won't advance again without cheap oil.

Time you read a newspaper, methinks.

There is everything to suggest that oil will be left in the ground because we no longer want it, as we move to non-fossil fuel energy sources. There is no reason at all to think global civilisation will collapse due to oil running out.

If civilisation does collapse, it is far more likely it will be due to climate change, brought about by our failure to stop using oil!

 

[paarsurrey]

Time you read a newspaper, methinks.

There is everything to suggest that oil will be left in the ground because we no longer want it, as we move to non-fossil fuel energy sources. There is no reason at all to think global civilisation will collapse due to oil running out.

If civilisation does collapse, it is far more likely it will be due to climate change, brought about by our failure to stop using oil!

So, there is a way out.
Regards

 

[exchemist]

So, there is a way out.
Regards

Increasingly I think so, yes. I was surprised and impressed to learn that over 25% of Britain's electricity already comes from renewable sources and there have been several periods in the last couple of years in which no coal-fired generation was running at all. Nobody shouts about it but it is happening, fast.

Hybrid vehicles are becoming commonplace and I see electric car recharging points springing up all over London. The UK is not known for being in the forefront of "green" initiatives, so this all makes me think there really is serious momentum behind the change. And we are starting a suite of initiatives to reduce use of plastics, after an eye-opening TV series showing the damage to the oceans.

I used to think we'd never get the politics of this through, but the younger generation are dead set on change. It is very encouraging. Makes me feel even more of a dinosaur, though, as I spent my career in the oil industry!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Time you read a newspaper, methinks.

There is everything to suggest that oil will be left in the ground because we no longer want it, as we move to non-fossil fuel energy sources. There is no reason at all to think global civilisation will collapse due to oil running out.

If civilisation does collapse, it is far more likely it will be due to climate change, brought about by our failure to stop using oil!

Hopefully we will get off of fossil fuels in time. Of course basic economics guarantees that we will not run out of oil. As the supply gets more limited the price will go up. That will drive new methods of extraction of existing reserves and the ability to use what used to be oil that was too hard to recover. Fracking is an example of this. The development of fracking caused oil prices to drop, at least temporarily. Now in some places extraction is paused because the price of oil is too low. I have great hope in various renewable resources, solar and wind mainly, but I would not mind the development of nuclear energy. Though it has drawbacks to it is far safer than coal for example, in fact it is arguably the safest of fuels. Fear of the waste is the number one problem with nuclear, but there are safe places to store it. The people living in near those safe areas simply have what are mostly baseless fears.

 

[exchemist]

Hopefully we will get off of fossil fuels in time. Of course basic economics guarantees that we will not run out of oil. As the supply gets more limited the price will go up. That will drive new methods of extraction of existing reserves and the ability to use what used to be oil that was too hard to recover. Fracking is an example of this. The development of fracking caused oil prices to drop, at least temporarily. Now in some places extraction is paused because the price of oil is too low. I have great hope in various renewable resources, solar and wind mainly, but I would not mind the development of nuclear energy. Though it has drawbacks to it is far safer than coal for example, in fact it is arguably the safest of fuels. Fear of the waste is the number one problem with nuclear, but there are safe places to store it. The people living in near those safe areas simply have what are mostly baseless fears.

Yes I feel much the same. Though nukes are very expensive, when you take into account waste processing and decommissioning costs, plus all the stuff you need to go through to persuade people you are not going to kill them or make their children grow tentacles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I feel much the same. Though nukes are very expensive, when you take into account waste processing and decommissioning costs, plus all the stuff you need to go through to persuade people you are not going to kill them or make their children grow tentacles.

Perhaps we should hype the tentacles. I can see the commercial now. Little Jimmy comes into the kitchen to talk to Mom:

"Bobby Henderson next door has tentacles, why can't I get some?"

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It is possible life on earth began more than once

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...sily-that-it-started-not-once-but-many-times/

The article provides no sources. This is philosophy.

 

[exchemist]

The article provides no sources. This is philosophy.

It is speculation.

But a quite reasonable one. After all, we have evidence that there were many body plans in evolution that died out, as shown by the Burgess Shale fauna and possibly the enigmatic organisms from the earlier Ediacaran period. So it seems quite plausible that there could, equally well, have been a number of rival biochemistries right back at the start, only one of which now survives.

But if what you mean is that it is not a hypothesis that is falsifiable by observation of nature, then I would have to agree. Without evidence, this speculation is not part of a theory of science, any more than my own 6th form speculations about life that used silicon instead of carbon in its biochemistry and liquid ammonia instead of water as the solvent.

Ockham's Razor would tell us to park the idea, until such time as someone finds an organism that does not make use of ADP/ATP in its metabolism, or something equally radical.

 

[ChristineM]

The article provides no sources. This is philosophy.

Yes, considering it is pure conjecture with no evidence of such, that is not surprising, Which is why i stated "possible".

 

[Al Ibn Al Amra]

Never thought that it got an end though .