Sorry if I seem to be redundant about this or if my exposition is not clear enough.

May you help me clarify about what to rationally expect for the 'final explanation' that science could give us when its job is considered done?

I mean, an extrapolation of science's road for the future to come can makes us think that this final answer will be something like this 'outline':


brules(1) = Universe

meaning that the whole complex Universe we see is the logical result of applying some basic-rules ('brules') to some very simple 'stuff' (expressed by the '1')

That idea seems problematic for science because there seems to be no way to 'explain' the 'basic-rules' and the '1', from this general point of view.

The other alternative 'outline' seems worst:


brules(0) = Universe or 0 = Universe

where '0' would express the 'absolute nothing'.

Both alternatives for the 'final explanation' seems to suggest the need of the 'unknown' or 'indefinite' as religious people claim.

FYI I am not religious inclined person.

Please help clarify this subject.

closed as primarily opinion-based by Swami Vishwananda, Eliran, curiousdannii, Conifold, Mark Andrews May 23 at 23:17

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    We can rationally expect that no 'final explanation' is forthcoming, and the "theory of everything" is a nice but naive ideal. Explanations, as well as what counts as one, are purpose and background specific, and this means an inexhaustible source of scientific tasks. The 'unknown' or the 'indefinite' are no explanations though, and neither is "because God", so that does not help either. Indeed, the idea of "ultimate explanation" is incoherent, as the Agrippa's trilemma shows. – Conifold May 23 at 0:13
  • So we are doomed to be fools chasing our tails!!! – fante May 23 at 0:26
  • That one is "doomed" not to be omniscient does not mean she is a fool, there is big space in between. Science gives us what we need, not what we want, except, maybe, sometimes. – Conifold May 23 at 0:29
  • "Ultimate goal of science?" To understand the world (physical, natural, social, etc.) we live in. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA May 23 at 14:30
  • [put on hold], really? I asked this question on this 'Philosophy' forum because in a debate with other people they show me the above argument outline. We got to a point where I just couldn't figure out of any 'logical' and 'rational' arguments to fight back. That is why I made this request for 'advice' or help. – fante May 24 at 11:54

Science is about describing and predicting phenomena. So science will be "done" when it can accurately and precisely describe and predict all phenomena that can be scientifically determined.

If the rules and any additional assumptions can be shown to meet those requirements, plus can be shown to be irreducible, then we'd be finished. It's probably fair to say that some scientists might be disappointed if the rules themselves weren't sufficient but that would have no bearing on the science itself.

And it would be completely fine (although, again, maybe disappointing to some), if there were unknowns on the proviso that it can be shown that they are unknowable scientifically.

  • I can't accept the slogan: Wellcome to the Theist world point of view! – fante May 23 at 14:24
  • In my comment above, I really was being sarcastic. I really appreciate your answer and explanation. – fante May 24 at 12:04

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.