Questions on Philosophy of Science

[Deepak Kapur]

Let's go in distant future. Let's assume that science has discovered all the fundamental particles/concepts that explain this universe completely.

 

My questions are as follows:

 

1. Won't these fundamental particles have to be taken as a 'given' (with no further explanation possible)?

 

2. Is this the ultimate future of science...to reach at something, which has to be taken as a given?

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Deepak Kapur said:

Let's go in distant future. Let's assume that science has discovered all the fundamental particles/concepts that explain this universe completely.

 

My questions are as follows:

 

1. Won't these fundamental particles have to be taken as a 'given' (with no further explanation possible)?

 

2. Is this the ultimate future of science...to reach at something, which has to be taken as a given?

You can never make such an assumption, so this scenario can never arise. 

This is because It is never possible to prove a scientific theory true. So we can never state with certainty that there is no more to discover.

 

[StringJunky]

It's matter of principle that science preseves some state of philosophical uncertainty in its confidence level. It's a matter of fact that certain aspects of nature will always be fuzzy in the degree of accuracy that can be attained.

Edited October 25, 2022 by StringJunky

[Deepak Kapur]

22 hours ago, exchemist said:

You can never make such an assumption, so this scenario can never arise. 

This is because It is never possible to prove a scientific theory true. So we can never state with certainty that there is no more to discover.

 

1. But, if ToE is formulated...won't it mean that we have reached something, which has to be taken as a 'given'.

2. If there is always something more to discover, doesn't it mean that 'the never ending exploration' is to be taken as a 'given'?

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Deepak Kapur said:

1. But, if ToE is formulated...won't it mean that we have reached something, which has to be taken as a 'given'.

Why would it? Why wouldn't a theory of everything be like any other theory, constantly being tested and upgraded as new information emerges?

2 minutes ago, Deepak Kapur said:

2. If there is always something more to discover, doesn't it mean that 'the never ending exploration' is to be taken as a 'given'?

Stop thinking of it as an assumption (a given), because it's not. Theory is a powerful tool specifically because it's NOT a proof. A theory is always being challenged, and it always has to show that it's still the explanation with the most evidence to support it. 

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Deepak Kapur said:

1. But, if ToE is formulated...won't it mean that we have reached something, which has to be taken as a 'given'.

2. If there is always something more to discover, doesn't it mean that 'the never ending exploration' is to be taken as a 'given'?

Re your  (1) no, any ToE will remain subject to the possibility of refinement, modification or rejection, in case there may one day be new observational evidence that does not fit with it. Science aways stays open-ended, as we can never know there are no more novel observations to be made.

Re your (2), never ending exploration has always been a given in science: it is intrinsic to what science is.