Can You Know EVERYTHING In The Universe?

Dr Mani
Dr Mani
Jul 23, 2017 · 5 min read

Once upon a time, long, long ago, a very wise person could possess all the knowledge available in the Universe.

That was a long, long time ago.

In 2010, then-Google CEO Eric Schmidt said “Every 2 days we create as much information as we did up to 2003.”

Yep. We created, collectively as a human race, as much information EVERY 48 HOURS as we had previously done… beginning from the dawn of man!

Try that one on your pianola as you ponder the question again:

Can you (or anyone at all) KNOW everything in the Universe today?

The answer, obviously, seems to be…

NO WAY!

But the provocative hypothesis, introduced in the very first chapter of a book I’m now reading, is that it IS indeed possible, even likely.

To know how, we’ve got to explore the foundations of scientific theory itself.

What Is A Scientific Theory?

Science, in practice, is often the habit of formulating a hypothesis to experimentally test out a prediction.

To some, that’s the entire purpose and reason for science. They define ‘science’ as limited to making predictions that can be tested through experiments — and proven, or otherwise.

This is called ‘instrumentalism’, and a variation of it called ‘logical positivism’ has prevailed in science until the first half of the twentieth century.

But that’s a VERY restrictive definition of scientific theory. There’s so much more to a theory — and here’s one way to appreciate that.

The Scope Of A Scientific Theory

Imagine there’s a huge diary (say 25,000 pages long!) that contains ALL the recorded weather patterns and conditions across your country since history began.

Now imagine that scientists have evolved a formula, derived from analyzing this data, that explains each of these recordings satisfactorily.

Which would you rather have — the book, or the formula… and why?

If you said, “The formula — because I can compute any entry in the record”, then I’ll ask you: “But isn’t it easier to just open the book to the right page and LOOK IT UP?”

It is. So if only “predicting” a data point is the promise of the formula, it would be a poor substitute.

But the formula can do more.

For instance, it can help you compute weather conditions in the FUTURE.

Or verify and pick up errors in the historic record (which might have crept in due to incorrect observations, or inferior quality recording instruments).

In other words, the formula is preferable because it can do MORE than help compute information that’s already in the archived records.

A scientific theory is like that.

While traditional roles of scientific theories have involved testing hypotheses by experimentation, it isn’t limited only to that.

Newtonian theory that defined a ‘static universe’ came into conflict with Einstein’s relativity theory which suggested a more ‘dynamic’ one.

When experiments were devised to test out the predictions of Einstein’s theory, they proved conclusively that this offers a better explanation of the observed world around us than the older classical physics theory did.

So relativity (and later quantum) theory became accepted over the classical theory… but NOT only because of experiments confirming their predictions.

There was another important ingredient in the “winner”

Scientific Theories Help Us Understand

They provide EXPLANATIONS for what happens in the world.

And those explanations are key elements of any scientific theory — because they help us understand WHY things happen the way they doeven when we cannot see the underlying phenomena responsible for them.

  • We can’t “see” gravity — but we see how it pulls stuff down.
  • We can’t “feel” a magnetic field — but realize it points a compass north.

Explanations that help us make sense of the observed, experimentally-verified data go to strengthen a scientific theory, and make it widely acceptable.

And when observations are made that can’t be suitably explained by a theory, science seeks to modify the theory — or replace it with something better.

So, New Scientific Theories Keep Cropping Up

They’ll continue to.

Which makes the task of “knowing everything” seem more and more unlikely.

Let’s say you’re interested in a subject area. Study it intensively. Learn about all the current theories. Stay abreast with new developments and fresh theories.

You’ll still be unaware of current theories (and new ones) in other fields or areas that are unrelated to your field.

As numerous new theories are spouted to explain things, you are forced to specialize in an ever narrowing segment.

And even within those segments, as knowledge grows vaster, fragmentation occurs leading to SUB-specialization.

Then, how can we possibly know “everything”?

It’s because of a very interesting…

Paradox of Scientific Theory

When a new theory is postulated, it doesn’t always layer on to an existing theory.

A new theory may completely REPLACE all older theories in the field. For example, when Nicholas Copernicus suggested that the Sun was the center of our planetary system, it didn’t layer onto the older Ptolemian theory of an Earth-centric universe… it totally destroyed it.

Today, astronomers and astro-physicists don’t study the intricate details of all the theories of Ptolemy and Brahe. They just assume those are irrelevant today in light of the later discovery — and build upon the Copernican model.

Similarly, a new theory may COMBINE several theories together. Maxwell’s equations unified the electrical field and magnetic field theories into a single electromagnetic theory.

A theory may also SIMPLIFY things which were previously complicated. Superstring theory, based on a higher dimensional mathematics (11 to 12 dimensions) offers much simpler calculations than other GUTs (Grand Unified Theories of ‘Everything’) that came before it.

Extrapolate this out and we may arrive at a point where there are just a handful (or even ONE!) theory that explains EVERYTHING… which combines all others into itself, and simplifies it so much that anyone can understand the Universe!

What a provocative idea!

It sets the tone, right at the very beginning, for this book, “THE FABRIC OF REALITY” by David Deutsch. I think I’m going to enjoy reading the rest of it.

A quote from it:

“Scientific theories explain the objects and phenomena of our experience in terms of an underlying reality which we do not experience directly. But the ability of a theory to explain what we experience is not its most valuable attribute. Its most valuable attribute is that it explains the fabric of reality itself.”

David Deutsch — The Fabric of Reality (Penguin Science). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Dr Mani

Written by

Dr Mani

Believing in a future where every child in the world has access to affordable, high quality heart healthcare. @drmani on Twitter https://www.DrMani.com

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade