I wrote this originally as a response to another question posed on Quora as to whether or not but I was wondering if someone could reexamine this and find any possible possible gaps in logic or knowledge.
I used it as an answer to a question about whether or not it was possible to create a complete scientific (i.e. empirical) model of physical reality that encapsulated an explanation of all physical phenomena.
The answer concludes that such a formulation would be impossible by contradiction.
Assume that there is a scientific model capable of explaining any physical phenomena. That would mean such a model would include any physical event at any given point in time. In other words, it would account for every physical event that has happened, is happening and will happen. The problem with this model is that when it comes time to empirically test it using experiment the model would already be able to predict the experiment that will occur and the results of that experiment which would make it an unfalsifiable hypothesis since any experiment would always assert the hypothesis' correctness. Of course if no experiment is performed then it is not empirically proven and therefore not a scienctific theory. That means that if there is a complete empirical model of physical reality it would have to be accepted as empirical even though it can never be tested empirically. A contradiction.
I feel like I may have reinvented the wheel here but working through this has definitely got my wheels turning. Can anyone find any holes in this or point out if this work has already been done by others?