The nature of science, the construction of the scientific process, is only ever to makes statements of improved probabilities. It has no capacity to make statements of absolutes. The moment you think science is saying "this is the truth" is the moment you lose the capacity, as a scientist, to look at evidence to the contrary, which is the opposite of the entire construct of science.

Even in it's statements of probabilities, science doesn't always take steps forward. Sometimes they are sideways, sometimes they are backwards. In general however, it does seem to progress (if allowed, and not controlled). But a step forward, doesn't mean you will ever reach the end. If every step I take is one half the way towards my goal, how many steps will it take to reach the end? Well... infinite steps (the dichotomy paradox). In a system that can't make statements of "1", but only "0.95" or whatever, you can never reach the end. Each step is always less than the "1" needed to get between here and there.

So yes, as your model approaches the asymptote of Reality, eventually you will get there.

But the universe will end first.

I'm not saying it is impossible to understand Truth. I'm saying the tool of science is not one that will be making any statements of what that is. It simply isn't in its capacity. That's not its function. That's not a part of its design.

It's a tool. It's a path, a debate, a dialectic. It's not the Truth. The Truth Is, exactly and precisely, What It Is. Science can never make exact and precise statements, thus it can never tell us the Truth. The best we can hope for in science, is to be less wrong than we were the day before.

The nature of science, the construction of the scientific process, is only ever to makes statements of improved probabilities. It has no capacity to make statements of absolutes. The moment you think science is saying "this is the truth" is the moment you lose the capacity as a scientist to look at evidence to the contrary, which is the opposite of the entire construct of science.

Even in it's statements of probabilities, science doesn't always take steps forward. Sometimes they are sideways, sometimes they are backwards. In general however, it does seem to progress (if allowed, and not controlled). But a step forward, doesn't mean you will ever reach the end. If every step I take is one half the way towards my goal, how many steps will it take to reach the end? Well... infinite steps (the dichotomy paradox). In a system that can't make statements of "1", but only "0.95" or whatever, you can never reach the end. Each step is always less than the "1" needed to get between here and there.

So yes, as your model approaches the asymptote of Reality, eventually you will get there.

But the universe will end first.

I'm not saying it is impossible to understand Truth. I'm saying the tool of science is not one that will be making any statements of what that is. It simply isn't in its capacity. That's not its function. That's not a part of its design.

It's a tool. It's a path, a debate, a dialectic. It's not the Truth. The Truth Is, exactly and precisely, What It Is. Science can never make exact and precise statements, thus it can never tell us the Truth. The best we can hope for in science, is to be less wrong than we were the day before.

The nature of science, the construction of the scientific process, is only ever to makes statements of improved probabilities. It has no capacity to make statements of absolutes. The moment you think science is saying "this is the truth" is the moment you lose the capacity as a scientist to look at evidence to the contrary.

Even in it's statements of probabilities, science doesn't always take steps forward. Sometimes they are sideways, sometimes they are backwards. In general however, it does seem to progress (if allowed, and not controlled). But a step forward, doesn't mean you will ever reach the end. If every step I take is one half the way towards my goal, how many steps will it take to reach the end? Well... infinite steps (the dichotomy paradox). In a system that can't make statements of "1", but only "0.95" or whatever, you can never reach the end. Each step is always less than the "1" needed to get between here and there.

So yes, as your model approaches the asymptote of Reality, eventually you will get there.

But the universe will end first.

I'm not saying it is impossible to understand Truth. I'm saying the tool of science is not one that will be making any statements of what that is. It simply isn't in its capacity. That's not its function. That's not a part of its design.

It's a tool. It's a path, a debate, a dialectic. It's not the Truth. The Truth Is, exactly and precisely, What It Is. Science can never make exact and precise statements, thus it can never tell us the Truth. The best we can hope for in science, is to be less wrong than we were the day before.

The nature of science, the construction of the scientific process, is only ever to makes statements of improved probabilities. It has no capacity to make statements of absolutes. The moment you think science is saying "this is the truth" is the moment you lose the capacity as a scientist to look at evidence to the contrary.

Even in it's statements of probabilities, science doesn't always take steps forward. Sometimes they are sideways, sometimes they are backwards. In general however, it does seem to progress (if allowed, and not controlled). But a step forward, doesn't mean you will ever reach the end. If every step I take is one half the way towards my goal, how many steps will it take to reach the end? Well... infinite steps (the dichotomy paradox). In a system that can't make statements of "1", but only "0.95" or whatever, you can never reach the end. Each step is always less than the "1" needed to get between here and there.

So yes, as your model approaches the asymptote of Reality, eventually you will get there.

But the universe will end first.

I'm not saying it is impossible to understand Truth. I'm saying the tool of science is not one that will be making any statements of what that is. It simply isn't in its capacity. That's not its function. That's not a part of its design.

It's a tool. It's a path, a debate, a dialectic. It's not the Truth. The Truth Is, exactly and precisely, What It Is. Science can never make exact and precise statements, thus it can never tell us the Truth.

The nature of science, the construction of the scientific process, is only ever to makes statements of improved probabilities. It has no capacity to make statements of absolutes. The moment you think science is saying "this is the truth" is the moment you lose the capacity as a scientist to look at evidence to the contrary.

Even in it's statements of probabilities, science doesn't always take steps forward. Sometimes they are sideways, sometimes they are backwards. In general however, it does seem to progress (if allowed, and not controlled). But a step forward, doesn't mean you will ever reach the end. If every step I take is one half the way towards my goal, how many steps will it take to reach the end? Well... infinite steps (the dichotomy paradox). In a system that can't make statements of "1", but only "0.95" or whatever, you can never reach the end. Each step is always less than the "1" needed to get between here and there.

So yes, as your model approaches the asymptote of Reality, eventually you will get there.

But the universe will end first.

I'm not saying it is impossible to understand Truth. I'm saying the tool of science is not one that will be making any statements of what that is. It simply isn't in its capacity. That's not its function. That's not a part of its design.

It's a tool. It's a path, a debate, a dialectic. It's not the Truth. The Truth Is, exactly and precisely, What It Is.

The nature of science, the construction of the scientific process, is only ever to makes statements of improved probabilities. It has no capacity to make statements of absolutes. The moment you think science is saying "this is the truth" is the moment you lose the capacity as a scientist to look at evidence to the contrary.

Even in it's statements of probabilities, science doesn't always take steps forward. Sometimes they are sideways, sometimes they are backwards. In general however, it does seem to progress (if allowed, and not controlled). But a step forward, doesn't mean you will ever reach the end. If every step I take is one half the way towards my goal, how many steps will it take to reach the end? Well... infinite steps (the dichotomy paradox). In a system that can't make statements of "1", but only "0.95" or whatever, you can never reach the end. Each step is always less than the "1" needed to get between here and there.

So yes, as your model approaches the asymptote of Reality, eventually you will get there.

But the universe will end first.

I'm not saying it is impossible to understand Truth. I'm saying the tool of science is not one that will be making any statements of what that is. It simply isn't in its capacity. That's not its function. That's not a part of its design.

The nature of science, the construction of the scientific process, is only ever to makes statements of improved probabilities. It has no capacity to make statements of absolutes. The moment you think science is saying "this is the truth" is the moment you lose the capacity as a scientist to look at evidence to the contrary.

Even in it's statements of probabilities, science doesn't always take steps forward. Sometimes they are sideways, sometimes they are backwards. In general however, it does seem to progress (if allowed, and not controlled). But a step forward, doesn't mean you will ever reach the end. If every step I take is one half the way towards my goal, how many steps will it take to reach the end? Well... infinite steps (the dichotomy paradox). In a system that can't make statements of "1", but only "0.95" or whatever, you can never reach the end. Each step is always less than the "1" needed to get between here and there.

So yes, as your model approaches the asymptote of Reality, eventually you will get there.

But the universe will end first.

I'm not saying it is impossible to understand Truth. I'm saying the tool of science is not one that can take us there. It simply isn't in its capacity. That's not its function. That's not a part of its design.