Nature Abhors a Limit

It seems to me that one of the more consistent and dominant traits of Nature, when thought of in its aggregate, and in the contexts of both space and time, is the infinite, or, perhaps more accurately, the potential for the infinite.  However, there doesn’t seem to be much discussion about this, with respect to the natural world around us in particular, except as it relates to the universe as a whole.

I am told, by some very smart people, that human knowledge – the entire sum of all that we know – is doubling at an exponential rate.  For example, in 1982, the inventor, philosopher, and futurist, R. Buckminster Fuller estimated that, by 1900, the combined world knowledge was doubling at a rate of every 100 years; then, by 1945, it was every 25 years.  Today, some of those very smart people are saying that, with the help of computer technology and the like, this could now be occurring at a rate of every 12 hours.

I have no idea if this is accurate or not, and am definitely not smart enough to imagine how these estimates are derived or how these theories might be tested, but the idea that all human knowledge might double after some period of time, and that, over time, that this period of time would likely be dramatically reduced, does not seem to me that much of an intellectual stretch.

When I was in high school, we learned about the existence of atomic particles – a nucleus, composed of protons and neutrons, with electrons in orbit around it.  Since then, we have developed a new field of science, called particle physics, which has come about through experimentation employing huge pieces of machinery called particle accelerators, the largest of which is The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is 27 kilometers in circumference.  These experiments have lent credible certitude, within the scientific community, to the existence of a whole host of other subatomic particles.

As these experiments continue, and as scientists work to learn more about this field of study, no one seems to believe that we are coming close to exhausting all that there is to know about it.  Indeed, each discovery seems to suggest that we are just on the brink of learning what this research might eventually reveal.

In the opposite extreme, the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope in December of 2021, has expanded our “viewable” image of our universe out thousands of light-years from earth.  Scientists tell us that the “observable universe” might be as large as 93 billion light-years, based upon the time it takes light to travel to earth from the further-most point, since the time of the Big Bang.  However, all of this information seems to suggest to me the possibility of an infinite, or “near infinite”, size of the cosmos, both in terms of matter and energy.

All of this understanding and learning that we somewhat take for granted today may have been heresy among the learned people of our planet at one time.  Even among some of the great minds of, say, just a hundred years ago, much of what we know, or seem to know, would have seemed more like metaphysics, than physics.

And yet, among so many of these great minds today, there seems to be a reluctance to consider a being – a sapient, or sentient, entity, if you will – that might possess this same characteristic that we find in nature; i.e., that of infinite, or near infinite (as our ability to actually conceptualize the infinite seems impossible) qualities of knowledge, presence, and power.  I’m sure that they are wont to say that such consideration belongs more legitimately within the province of “religion”, as if there exists some monopoly of thought there that restricts such consideration anywhere else.  Plus, one would have to concede that many of the “representatives” within that domain have behaved in such a way that one would not want to be associated with them in any way, even marginally.  To do so seems to carry a kind of taint or corrupting influence that might sully one’s scientific reputation.  Still, to refuse to consider this, simply because it might be socially unacceptable seems to me to be….well….unscientific.

I’m not suggesting here that scientific people should get religion and start going to church.  I’m simply saying that we should not limit an investigation into some possible field of intellectual inquiry just for fear that it might become stigmata...real...or otherwise.  And, if such ridicule and condescension does take place, why would the scientific community participate in it, as so many did, during the more political days of the pandemic?