The 'Everything' Conumdrum

Space, Time and Stuff 2.

Stephen Hawkings supposedly said that soon we will know the answer to everything, or something like that. I have the utmost respect for Stephen as one of our greatest ever scientists, but my immediate response on hearing, or seeing, those words was to ask, ‘How can we ever know the answer to everything before we know what everything is?’

Now, there are lots of interpretations of the meaning of ‘everything’ simply depending on what we’re talking about—belongings, feelings, etc. But if we’re talking about the universe and how ‘everything’ works, then I think the basic spatial interpretation is fine.

I believe there’s a conundrum about a ‘spatial everything’.

Everything, by definition, has a boundary. If, after a few more years, we think we’ve discovered everything in space, then outside that ‘everything’ must be nothing, and the nothing must be infinite, because if it isn’t then our everything isn’t everything and we would have to redefine it. Then something new is discovered and we redefine ‘everything’. Now, outside that everything must be nothing, and that nothing must be infinite, because …

Etc, etc, etc.

Thinking about that conundrum has led me to believe that infinity isn’t such a ridiculous idea, though the idea of an infinite ‘nothing’ does tend to give me a headache. Of course, if infinity exists, then learning the answer to everything depends on infinity being consistent throughout, which surely is something we can’t really assume.

Assumptions are such a part of human life and human thinking.

Let’s examine the concept of ‘everything’ in terms of knowledge.

For starters, knowing everything would surely be boring. What would there be left to do? My sarcastic side often thinks that would be the main justification for an all-knowing, all-powerful god to create a universe. Anything to relieve the boredom.

Surely the same conundrum applies here. How can we ever be sure we know everything? For starters we would have to know we had explored every part of space, which brings us back to the first conundrum. Then we have to know we had explored the microscopic world completely. And does the same conundrum apply here in reverse?

Much of our supposed knowledge is based on assumptions that may appear to be true? But are they? I would suggest that when we stop questioning, even those things we are sure of, then we’ve forgotten what the scientific method is about.

So much of our concepts of space and the universe are based on the idea of a beginning. Why? Isn’t that an assumption?

Many of those concepts are also based on the belief that time exists and isn’t just a measurement. Again, isn’t even that an assumption?

We even seem to have theories based largely on the assumption that other theories are correct. This isn’t wrong in that we need to keep thinking and extending ideas. But we also need to remain aware that theories are just that, and we always need to be questioning.

I believe we’re now in a time where disproving many theories has become almost impossible. Has this meant that we now search for ‘evidence’ that supports the theory rather than questioning or attempting to disprove the theory? And I’m talking about the physical world. When we consider the human world, the social and emotional, we are talking about something even more dubious. Will we ever know everything about the social and emotional world? Does the conundrum exist even here?

Certainly, there are many concepts in these worlds that are simply human ideas and have no basis in the physical world – good, bad, etc. The list may not be infinite, but it is rather long.

So, I’m not sure that we’ll ever know everything. I don’t know the context of Stephen’s words but would assume he was talking either about physics or cosmology—the way the universe works.

Perhaps there may be truth in that, but if space is actually infinite, how will we ever know?

Yep, just my thoughts. Nope, not much research.