Over the millennium, humanity has amassed an enormous knowledge and an incredible understanding of world.
Starting
with a simple thing like discovering how to chip a rock to make a tool,
we have advanced our learning so today we have sciences, arts,
humanities, engineering, theology, production management and on and on.
While
lesser animals rely on strength, or physical dexterity, or speed, or
instinct, or at times cunning and simple intelligence, humanity relies
on its deep, rich and multi-layered store house of knowledge, and our
ability to expand, deepen and utilize that knowledge.
But if we
look at what we know, and compare that to what still remains to uncover,
how far along are we? How much don't we know, that is left to find out?
I
would and will argue that enormous amounts remain to discover. In fact,
amounts so enormous that we should display, and should feel compelled
to show, significant humility about the scope of our knowledge, and how
much could remain to know.
So what don't we know? What are key and
significant gaps in our understanding? Let's examine that. But to
start, a definition of "know" is in order.
Pragmatic Approach: Criteria for Mankind Knowing
For
our criteria, we will gently side step the couple thousand years of
philosophical debate on "knowing", and turn to a pragmatic definition.
For this discussion, mankind will know something when 1) widespread
concurrence exists about that something's features, structures and
mechanisms and 2) significant understanding exists on how that something
comes about, how it operates and what impact and uses it has.
As
an example, humanity knows about steel. We know its chemical
composition, its properties, how to make it, and how to use it in
buildings, vehicles and machines. Every day, in dozens and hundreds of
interactions and activities, humanity demonstrates that at a practical
and pragmatic level, we possess a working knowledge of steel.
As a
counter example - and this will be our first major unknown - humanity
does not understand spatial singularities. No consensus exists about
their properties, what structure they have, and how they function. We
have theories, but they stand now as incomplete and unverified.
So let's turn to the critical unknowns, starting with spatial singularities.
Singularities
Black
holes. Though not an object of serious study, or even any study, a
century ago, these objects now garner intense and spirited focus. A
black hole, of course, contains matter so dense that no object inside
its grasp - i.e. inside its event horizon - can escape.
Big Bang.
Though not even conceived a century ago, the Big Bang now reigns as the
prevailing theory for the origin of our universe. The theory postulates
that our actuality emerged from an incredibly hot, dense state that
expanded not into space, but created space itself as it expanded.
What
underlies, and bedevils, both these astronomical phenomena?
Singularities. A singularity represents a "location" in space where
density becomes infinite. And that leaves us in a bind. General
relativity, the reigning theory on gravity, allows the mass in a
singularity to collapse to a conceptually incomprehensible size of
nothing. And quantum mechanics, the reigning theory of matter, can not
handle gravity at the strength present in singularities.
And that
underscores the issue - we don't understand singularities. Our best
current theories lack equations to describe them, and conceptually we
lack a consistent vision or image of what happens inside them. Now we do
have understandings (some) of black holes that surround singularities
and of the Big Bang after its postulated emergence from a singularity,
but the actual entity itself - the singularity - we have only tentative
approaches at explanation, none confirmed.
Now does this matter?
Steel matters - we build things from it. But we don't use singularities
for much. A singularity appears to be just that, a singular outlier
within the general span of physical existence.
But accounting for
that peculiarity, that outlier, may involve significant revisions in
mainline theories in physics. And singularities do not stand alone in
putting stress on the current physics paradigms. Dark matter, dark
energy, the fine-tuned nature of physical constants - these phenomena
also represent nagging outliers, not yet incorporated in our theories.
In
the late 19th and early 20th centuries, physics underwent a conceptual
"revolution" as theories emerged on relativity, quantum theory, the
structure of atomic particles and the like. Singularities, and its
brethren outliers, could trigger a similar upending. And while we might
not use singularities themselves in our technology, the altered theories
of physics that explain singularities could be, likely will be, useful,
even revolutionary, in terms of scientific and practical impacts.
Consciousness
We
are aware of our world, and aware of our desires, and aware that we are
aware. Compared to just about anything, we are sure of our awareness
and consciousness. It is with us all the time, and in fact in some sense
is us.
But what is it, and how does it occur? One can envision
physically following light entering the eye and measuring the chain of
neurons that fire in the brain. But in those measurements of wavelength,
and ions, and voltages, where is consciousness? Where is the sensation
of red, for example? And that so far stands as a stumbling block. Your
consciousness - your experience of red, or joy, or desire to climb Mr.
Everest - your consciousness is decidedly a first person experience. No
third-person measurement can yet be done that allows others to partake
in your experience.
Consider computers. We can program them for
monstrously complex calculations. But we can not program them to be
conscious. Consider a bat. We understand how it uses sound echoes for
location and flight, but we have essentially no concept of what the bat
experiences as it uses echo-location. Consider someone without sight.
They can study the physical processes of vision, but no amount of study
provides them the experience of sight. Similarly no amount of
explanation allows the sighted to experience the mental mappings of
sound, smell and touch the sightless use to navigate the world.
This
ephemeral nature of consciousness, this inability to measure it
objectively, this sense that consciousness floats out there not a
physical thing, these features have rendered - and continue to render -
consciousness an enigma. While we each individually can sense our own
consciousness, collectively we have not yet built a common theory for
what it is, what causes it, and how to detect, measure, fix, alter or
augment it.
But what significance lies in this lack of
understanding? After all, our lack of understanding of consciousness in
no way prevents each of us from having consciousness.
But imagine a
bit. Imagine if by understanding consciousness we could build a
collective consciousness, in a beneficial and moral manner, so that we
could share not just words, but the basic qualia of feeling. If
individuals could feel each other's feelings, individuals might, most
likely would, become more caring, more ethical, more humane.
Image
if computers could be conscious. Certainly we face great philosophical
and practical concerns with granting machines consciousness, but again
let's project mankind could and would execute this in a beneficial,
ethical and controllable manner. With computers as conscious allies
(think of Data on Star Trek), humanity might benefit.
Image if
computers gain consciousness on their own, independent of humans. An
understanding of consciousness would help in managing such a scenario.
Even
on a more near-term and pragmatic level, an evolving understanding of
consciousness would help us understand ourselves, assist in mental
illness and wellness, and satisfy a curiosity about what makes us work
and what makes mankind unique.
The Initiation of Life
On
our world, life flourishes in abundance. Plants, insects, sea
creatures, land animals, bacteria, mankind, and more and more, thrive in
every possible location on Earth.
And we understand significant
parts of this life. We have identified cellular mechanisms and metabolic
processes and evolutionary chains and reproductive systems, to touch on
just part of our knowledge.
But we do have a piece that by and
large remains elusive - how this all started. Certainly comprehensive
theories exist, and certainly experiments demonstrate that complex
organic compounds arise from simple compounds, under favorable
conditions. But unlike steel, or bridges, or legislation, or
regulations, items we can in practice produce, for good or bad, no
understanding exists on how to produce life from non-life.
Basic
questions such as the role of asteroids, the possibility of imported
organics from other planets, the conditions present on Earth during
various formative eras, and whether several strains of different types
of life (not using DNA/RNA for example) emerged, remain only partially
answered.
Again, what is the practical significance? Life exists,
in abundance. Our lack of understanding on its initiation does not
diminish, alter or impact the current cornucopia of life in existence
now. Might this just be a nice to know?
Possibly. But
understanding how life started, and by extension how to initiate life,
likely will garner major practical benefits. Understanding how to
generate life could provide new foods, new fuels, new medicines, and
other possibilities not even imagined.
On a larger level,
understanding how life starts would provide a sense of how rare or not
rare life is. We have a deep curiosity about that. Understanding the
mechanisms of life's initiation would satisfy that curiosity, and by
extension would impact our theological and metaphysical tenets. If life
is hard to come by, that has one set of implications, and if not,
another, likely a profoundly different set of implications.
The Future of the Human Form
Since
the dawn of culture, humanity has altered its living condition with its
intelligence and technology. Clothes, crops, buildings, machines,
medicines, electronics, vehicles, energy production, all represent ways
in which mankind has used its resources and expertise to ease and
improve its life and living condition.
But the human form has
remained basically unaltered. Our key body components - bones, muscles,
organs - do not differ substantially in location, function or
configuration from humans living six, or sixty, or even six hundred
millennia earlier. We still eat animal and plant life. We still give
live birth. Our life expectancy, though longer, still measures decades,
not centuries. Despite medicines, we still succumb to disease and
infirmity. We retain the benefit, but also the limitation, of five
senses. Our brain enables language, but still not telepathy. We can
envision the future, but still can not perform calculations in our head
with more than a handful of numbers to a handful of significant digits.
We
stand now at a cusp. We are entering an era where technological
advances will enable alteration of the human form. Mankind has never
possessed that capability.
And we don't know the outcome of our use of that capability.
We
could alter the human form through genetic engineering. We could
augment our bodies with electro-mechanical implants and additions. We
could advance our intelligence through integration of electronics. We
could transfer our essence into a virtual world. We could even, not
likely but possible, discover other intelligent life, and through that
discovery in some unforeseen way leverage that to alter our human form.
Mankind
could emerge in a form from science fiction, or as something beyond
anything we can imagine, or maybe not so dramatic but significantly
smarter, stronger and longer lived.
Multiple paths exist. But we
don't know which one, or ones, we will, or even will be able to, follow.
I would say we don't even have forecasts, or even approximations.
As
before, how does this concern us now? These possibilities remain
unachievable for today, or even for a generation, or several
generations.
These concern us now because the research on these
possibilities has started now, or will start soon. To the degree these
possibilities raise ethical or cultural questions, those questions need
consideration now. For example, if we develop mental augments, will the
cost make the augments only available to the wealthy?
When these
developments do emerge, they of course could, likely will, radically
transform humanity. The possibilities boggle the mind. In ten thousand
years, will we need sex for reproduction? Will we be more silicon than
carbon? Will we have lives that extend centuries? Will we have direct
mind-to-mind communication?
And though these possibilities only
exist for now as concepts, or subjects of research, the possibilities
and technologies behind them have achieved a certain critical mass. They
are likely enough we must include them in our discussion. The great
religions and philosophies of the world prescribe life styles and
actions to achieve salvation or attain fulfillment or gain eternal
existence. In view of the potential for mankind to control its basic
form, and possibly attain these otherwise supernatural goals via
technology, do we need to fundamentally reinterpret those religious and
philosophical prescriptions? Or maybe even discard them?
The Nature of the Spiritual
Billions
of individuals hold to a faith in a reality and order beyond that which
we experience. The great religions and spiritual philosophies -
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, among others - teach of Gods
and existences beyond our daily actuality.
But despite the span
and depth of these teachings, does humanity "know" the nature of those
transcendental realms? Do we share a common vision of their essence and
workings? We must answer no - we do not share a common objective view of
the spiritual.
When a mother gives birth, we witness an almost
miraculous, and certainly glorious, occurrence. But despite any wonder,
we all see and hear the same event, and all agree that a new child has
arrived. When a natural disaster occurs, though tragic and unfortunate,
all can see and witness the devastation. Every day, uncountable common
experiences occur in our actuality which people know and agree on in
common.
Despite faith, and revelations, and spiritual texts, and
inner spiritual feelings, and miracles, that is not the case for the
spiritual. This does not claim the spiritual does not exist. Very
simply, to the degree it exists, humanity does not have what would count
as knowledge of it, as defined here.
This lack of a common vision
stems from more than just the different perspectives of differing
religions and philosophies. With the spiritual, we encounter,
individually and collectively, a conceptual barrier. Current dogmas
envision God as infinite, timeliness, unbounded and describe our
spiritual realm as transcendent and eternal. Mankind, in contrast, is
temporally bound, physically-constrained, finite, limited. Mankind thus
lacks the required experiences and intellectual framework to visualize a
supreme being and a supernatural dominion as they actually are. To draw
an analogy, for us to understand the spiritual parallels in difficulty
to that of having a butterfly understand a space ship.
Again, as
before, what is the issue? The great religions continue on, and the
peoples of the world continue in their faith, knowing and accepting that
the spiritual involves great mystery and many unknowns.
However,
religions and philosophies, almost by definition, strive for the truth.
So for the religions and philosophies, there is an issue. Though they
realize that a true understanding of the spiritual likely lies beyond
world-bound humanity, they still endeavor by their very nature for as
deep and broad a vision of the spiritual as achievable.
And
organized religion is not without stress. For many individuals, modern
science and secular culture provide for a more logical belief system.
For them, God and the spiritual become unnecessary, non-existent. And
while some, even many, secular adherents exhibit a bias against
religion, individuals can come to a non-God belief conscientiously,
after evenhanded reflection and deep thought.
The issue of the
unknowability of the spiritual thus presents a pragmatic issue. In the
face of secular belief systems, how do religions present a compelling
and holistic vision, when fundamental parts of that vision reach into
the unassailable spiritual realm? This challenge will grow, since the
depth and breadth of purely secular views expand daily. While some may
not have concern if religion dwindles, religion has and in the future
will likely play a critical role in culture, and may hold important
pieces of the truth.
Other Unknowns
Other serious philosophical and scientific unknowns exist:
- Do we possess free will?
- Why did the universe being with such low entropy?
- How do we interpret quantum mechanics?
- Does other intelligent life exist?
- Is time real?
Type these items into a search engine, and the results will show a diversity of answers, and none a definitive answer.
The Implications
Let's summarize then, starkly, what remains unknown.
Lacking
an understanding of singularities, we don't know how existence started.
Lacking an understanding of consciousness, we can't explain the core of
our essence. Looking into the past, we don't know how life started.
Looking into the future, we don't know what we will become. Looking
above, we have no firm grasp on the supernatural.
We don't know if
we make free choices. We don't know why we benefited from an astounding
orderly, low entropy universe. We don't have a metaphysical grasp of
the quantum stuff of which everything consists. We don't know if we are
alone in the universe. And we remain uncertain about the nature of this
river called time.
Thus we don't know a good many fairly fundamental things - actually we don't know a great many fundamental things.
Now,
no doubt, while fundamental, these unknowns do not act as showstoppers,
certainly not on a pragmatic level. Even with these unknowns, what we
do know allows us, day-in-and-day out, to produce steel, grow food, run
governments, generate electricity, and otherwise perform the hundreds of
daily activities needed to support a world of billions.
So while we can't answer the big questions, we successfully answer the little questions. What's the issue then?
We have several, then.
Though
day-to-day our knowledge sustains billions, few would argue the current
world condition is perfect, or even much better than minimally
satisfactory. Thus, room for improvement exists, much, much room, and
thus at a practical level, answers to the big questions would most
likely provide insights to do the daily activities
better.
Further,
I might argue that our ability to perform the hundreds of daily
activities for survival rests on a knife edge. Certainly even without
answering the big questions, mankind will (likely) continue to advance.
But incremental technological improvements may not prove sufficient to
keep mankind from slipping on that knife edge. New fundamental knowledge
will likely prove crucial for mankind to progress on a less tenuous
basis.
Then we face the more ephemeral, but nonetheless troubling
and potentially dangerous, issue of conflicting worldviews. A worldview,
to review, embodies the core beliefs with which an individual or
collection of individuals, filters, interprets and organizes events and
objects.
And different worldviews exist, no doubt. Differences
exist on the reality of a deity, on optimism on mankind's future, on an
individual's continuation after death.
For the most part, individuals respect and tolerate these differences.
But
in important ways we don't. We can be vehement, intolerant,
condescending, belittling, and otherwise arrogant towards worldviews we
judge uninformed or inferior to our own. Even without reference to the
worldview of others, we can be oblivious, or complacent, or close-minded
about our own world views.
At the extreme, we can go to conflict, verbally and physically, to the point of death and war, over differences.
But
if so many questions, not just trivial questions, but fundamental
questions, stand as unanswered, can we be so content and sure in any
world view to look down on the worldview of others as ignorant? If so
much remains unknown, how can we "know" that our way of looking at the
world is so correct to disdain others?
I would answer we can't, we
can't be sure, and we can't know. With so many fundamental unknowns,
our worldviews are tentative, provisional.
What does this imply?
This implies that we should have humility. And understanding. And
patience. And openness. As deeply held, and deeply considered, as our
world view might be, others hold to equally considered worldviews.
Neither they nor we can definitively "prove" our world view correct,
since the correctness of a world view almost certainly depends on the
answers to the fundamental questions covered here. And we don't know
those answers.
We thus should maintain wonder and curiosity. The
tentative nature of our knowledge, and thus our worldviews, requires we
look less sideways to compete or defeat other world views, and look more
forward and outward with wonder and curiosity to improve our own world
view.
David Mascone has degrees in Engineering and Business. He has
interests in science, philosphy and theology. His leisure activities
include sports, hiking, science fiction and little league umpiring. His
intellectual focus is finding consistency and synergies between the
great masterpieces of human intellect, including religion, science and
art.
