In this blog post, we explore from various perspectives whether science can develop infinitely or whether there are limits and end points.
Humans, the primates called hominids, have gone through numerous evolutionary stages, from our primitive ancestors to Homo sapiens. Assuming that Darwin’s theory of evolution is true, and considering that our ancestors were monkeys, we can see that early humans and modern humans have obvious differences in appearance. Despite these physical changes, however, the human nature of curiosity about nature has been maintained throughout tens of millions of years of history and continues to this day. This curiosity led to the birth of science. Humans, who used simple stone tools and fire as a means of survival, have achieved modern civilization dominated by computers and machines through the development of science, and there are high expectations for the future development of science. However, as a scientist, I must ask myself whether there is a point of no return in the development of science that has coexisted with humans for tens of millions of years.
Before we can fully address this topic, we need to understand the nature of the discipline of science. Strictly speaking, science is a system of orderly theoretical knowledge obtained through observable methods of observing nature. In other words, it is the assignment of an interpretable order and theory to existing natural phenomena. Therefore, the development of science can be defined as the process of deducing and discovering natural phenomena that have not been identified in the existing scientific realm. Rather than discovering individual facts or organisms, the study of new orders within those objects is closer to the definition of development. People who do not have a deep understanding of science may think that the development of science has continued from the past to the present and will continue indefinitely in the future. However, I argue that the realm of science in which humans can develop is finite, and the discipline of science will reach a point where it will stop developing one day.
The first reason why the development of science is bound to have an end point is the theoretical limitations inherent in the nature of science. Science has a limit to the extent that it cannot grasp all the principles of the world. In other words, science itself has an absolute meaning that it cannot interpret all the flows and phenomena of nature. To prove this, we can refer to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. The core of this mathematical theorem is that within a formalized system, as long as the system is not contradictory, there is at least one sentence that is true but cannot be proven. Although this mathematical theorem cannot be used as a direct basis, if we apply it to science, we can see that a similar phenomenon exists in science. There is already enough evidence to support the idea that science cannot be absolutely perfect, even in the scientific theories that have already been defined. For example, we can find similar properties in quantum mechanics. For any particle in a wave function, we can only define one of the position or velocity, and it is impossible to determine both at the same time. This shows that there is no perfect determinism in science. In addition, chaos theory explains that there are bound to be unpredictable natural phenomena that cannot be given order. The natural phenomena covered in astronomy and evolutionary biology are stories from the distant past, and there are only abstract theories that infer the past based on the present state, without specifying the exact basis. All of this proves that science cannot be perfect and cannot define all the laws of the world. Currently, science is developing by identifying systems within the realm of interpretation, but it is predicted that one day it will face an insurmountable barrier and stop developing.
Even if the first premise is wrong and humans reach absolute truth through science, there is another barrier in the form of the finiteness of discoverable natural phenomena. This is the second premise for the end of science. As explained earlier, science is the systematic understanding of natural phenomena. The key here is “nature” itself. Nature, which has existed for a longer time than humanity, has not changed its flow or laws for hundreds of millions of years, and the realm of nature itself has not expanded or contracted. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, seasons exist, and plants and animals survive by breathing oxygen, as they did in the past and as they do now. Nature does not change. Then, under the assumption that science can interpret all things in the universe, the realm of nature is constant and will only expand to the realm of nature that humans have discovered. Ultimately, the moment science perfectly interprets all the phenomena of the world, the development of science will come to a standstill. This is because there will be no more natural phenomena to discover and define. From that point on, science will transform into a discipline that circulates within the existing framework without seeking anything new. This leads to the prediction that science will lose its independent value as a discipline and be absorbed into philosophy. Signs of this are already appearing in various places. An example of this is the concept of “ironic science.” This is a new scientific definition based on existing scientific theories and speculation, and is more similar to literature or philosophy than true science. For example, there is the string theory of quantum mechanics. Although it is theoretically possible to explain all the physical forces of nature, no clear evidence has been presented for more than a few decades. As science advances, it is expected to gradually lose its fundamental value and transform into another form of study, eventually ending. If both the first and second reasons are true, they are mutually contradictory, so no matter which one is true, science will eventually end.
The third reason is the limitations of human intelligence. Humans are the most intelligent life form on Earth. Humans are the only life form that can speak and write, but we cannot assume that human intelligence is infinite simply because we have superior intelligence. No matter how superior the human brain is and how much intelligence it develops through evolution, there is a limit to human intelligence. To understand this, let’s take another example. No matter how much calculus is explained to a common pet dog, it will never solve a differential equation. Nor is it likely that animals can understand and interpret the laws of nature. Although human cognition is the most advanced of all living things, there is no conclusive evidence that human intelligence is infinite. If we encounter a higher life form (or an alien) that is more advanced than us, we will be able to feel the limitations of human intelligence even more keenly. If there is no evidence that human intelligence is infinite, there is no basis for the same principle that all things in the universe can be interpreted by humans. Rather, the idea that the vast universe can be perfectly interpreted by the small object that is the human brain may be an absurd imagination. Science is a discipline that defines an orderly system of natural phenomena, but it is questionable whether the complex world of the universe can be completely defined by simple order and system. The fact that modern science is becoming more difficult to understand as time goes by, and that it requires more money and time than in the past to train professional researchers, are clues that we are reaching the limits of intelligence. It is possible to predict that science will stagnate when it reaches a point where it cannot advance with human capabilities.
The fourth and final reason is economic reality. Since the end of the Cold War, governments around the world have reduced their financial support for science. For example, government support for superconducting colliders, which are required for physics, has been discontinued because the benefits are greater than the losses, and particle physics, such as quantum mechanics, is currently at a standstill. This is because there are few applications of particle physics and the expected profits from it are minimal. Physicists argue that more research funds and equipment are needed to advance the field, but no one will provide financial support if there is no benefit from the research. The moment financial support for science is completely cut off, science will also stop advancing.
The development of science is a sensitive topic for scientists, and there are constant counterarguments to the claim that the development of science will eventually reach its end point. Let’s take a look at some of the representative counterarguments. First, there is an opinion that the current claims will be invalidated by the emergence of new scientific fields, just as the emergence of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics invalidated the claims of physicists in the 19th century, who claimed that all the laws of physics had been proven. However, this counterargument is nothing more than a simple inductive approach to the flow of science that has no basis in science. It claims that this has been the case in the past, is the case now, and will be the case in the future, but this overlooks the fact that, from a historical perspective, the rapid development of modern science and technology is by no means a given. This is an unusual phenomenon that has emerged from a combination of social, intellectual, and political factors. Science has never been as active as it is now in any other era. Can this progress of humanity continue without end? It is more likely that it will reach saturation and become normalized rather than continue.
The second counterargument is that scientific theories are constantly being revised and evolved through trial and error, so there is no theoretical limit to science. As Karl Popper argued that science is always open to refutation, the knowledge discovered by humanity is also open to correction and alteration, so there is no limit to scientific theories, and even if science is absorbed into philosophy, the development of science will continue. However, the nature of science is not like this. To understand this, it is necessary to discuss the nature of science and philosophy in depth. Science was called natural philosophy and was part of philosophy until the 17th century, but it was transformed into a discipline that established hypotheses and proved their truth or falsehood through experiments and observations, and thus separated from philosophy. Since then, science has established itself as an independent discipline, while philosophy has remained as a discipline that creates new theories by presenting arguments. Since then, philosophy and science have coexisted in mutual cooperation. When philosophy presents arguments against existing theories, science has developed based on these arguments through empirical modifications and improvements. If the development of science stops in this relationship, only philosophy will remain, and a vicious cycle will be repeated in which only theories without empirical evidence are created. If science develops in the form of modifying existing theories, it can only be defined as philosophy or ironic science, not true science.
The third counterargument is that applied science has limitless potential, such as in the development of nuclear fusion energy, and that if the public recognizes this, the economic limitations on scientific progress will soon be broken down, even if they exist. The argument is that economic limitations are meaningless in terms of stagnating science. I partially agree with this point. My view is that when pure science reaches the peak of its development, pure science will decline and an era of active development in the field of applied science will begin. The important point is that pure science and applied science are two distinct fields. Pure science aims to understand nature perfectly, while applied science is about processing nature into a form useful to humans. Even if there is an abundance of financial support for science, this capital will all be focused on applied science, with little likely to be invested in pure science. Over the past 50 years, the United States has invested $20 billion in the construction of nuclear fusion power plants, but has not supported the development of the colliders needed for pure physics. Of course, the development of applied science requires a certain level of pure science, so there will be some funding, but pure science is destined to hit an economic ceiling. This is because the application of science does not require a complete understanding of all things in the universe.
In this essay on the subject, I presented the view that science will ultimately come to an end, and I provided the basis for this view. Science has dominated our lives to the extent that we can say that we are living in the age of science, and it has been coexisting with humans for a long time. It is difficult to imagine a world without the development of science. However, just as all living things eventually die and return to the earth as a handful of soil, the end of science seems to be an inevitable fate. The principle of the world is that there is an end to everything that is born. However, scientists should not view this pessimistically, but accept it as the natural course of history. When the age of science ends, another era will begin, and whether it will be the age of religion or the age of philosophy is impossible to predict. It would be wiser to accept and prepare for our inevitable fate. I hope that this article will help scholars who will contribute to the development of future science to form the right values for the study of science.
