[ QUOTE ]
I have a question, out of curiosity; do you think that the limitations on our being able to understand the universe are simply cognitive and contingent, or that it's actually in principle impossible for us to understand the universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine it's possible, but I don't really know.

[ QUOTE ]
That's a colloquial sense of 'logical'--not a formal sense. In that sense, aren't physical phenomena logical since there are clear patterns and we can make very accurate predictions? How could that be the case if nature wasn't logical, in the loose sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

The colloquial sense is probably best here, yes. I believe that "physical phenomena" as we perceive them are actually conceptual constructs based on inference, while you seem to believe they have an external existence. That changes the flavor of the question somewhat. But really that's beside the point.

Consider my previous example of a race that can't understand fractions. Their understanding would still allow them to achieve a formidable level of technology relative to most species. They might have language and weapons and agriculture without being able to conceive of a "number between numbers." They might infer based on the power their understanding grants them (relative to other species) that it must be "true" or valid. And in a way they are right. Pi=3 is closer to the truth than pi=2, after all.

How would we expect them to recognize that their view of the world is incomplete? Mainly through the fact that their calculations would show some margin of error. If they were to investigate this margin of error, they would find apparent randomness. 1.5 would be either 1 or 2 depending on the circumstances. They might come up with a strange theory that there is a number that is "both 1 and 2," but remain unable to actually conceive of such a number in any useful way. Eventually they might even come up with some technological means to implement fractional mechanics - but their inability to grasp the concept would still fundamentally limit their understanding.

Our predictions are accurate, but all of our physical predictions have some margin of error. The actual margins of error are irrelevant; if we understood the "true" mechanics of the universe there would be no margin of error at all. In trying to identify the source of these margins of error we have (from what I understand) stumbled onto apparent randomness. Exactly what we would expect if there is a basic gap in our understanding. This is what I mean when I say that "physics is actually starting to validate what I'm saying."

[ QUOTE ]
"The idea I'm trying to communicate is that we can't understand reality, and that our notions of truth are clumsy and inaccurate. What cannot be represented conceptually is the "actual reality," which I believe is far more complex than any "true vs untrue" dichotomies."

I understand the belief, but tell me *why* you believe it. What are your grounds for believing it--what kind of reasons can you give me for why I should believe it?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a few reasons.

Implausibility is one. It strikes me as highly unlikely that our understanding is as supreme as we make it out to be. To me the human race, for all its achievements, is just the highest order of primates currently alive on Earth. In comparison to the other species on the planet, we are really something. But take a look at them - it would be absurd to suggest that any other species is capable of understanding the universe on any fundamental level. Why do we believe it of ourselves? Considering that we are the product of a relatively simple reproductive mechanic, I do not think it is realistic to assume that nothing is beyond our understanding.

Then there are the limits of my own understanding. No matter how hard I try, I can't imagine any effect without a cause. Therefore, any theory that involves "something from nothing" is beyond me. The "big bang" or any other universe-creation concept, including theories of randomness, qualify here. I can "understand" these theories from a structural standpoint, but I can't actually grasp them. While I can understand the implications of true randomness, the concept itself is alien and baffling to me. It seems to me that there "must" be some underlying order, and I just can't let go of that idea.

The next bit isn't easy to explain on a message board. Due to my philosophy I take a sort of "dialectical" approach to theory, imagining greater and greater synthesis of apparently disparate elements of reality. By extrapolating this "chain of truths," I arrive at a point where "everything is both true and false." The mechanics of this are a bit involved and idealistic so I won't go into them.

Finally, some elements of my direct personal experience are very hard to integrate into my world view. This is objectively the weakest support, but it has a lot of visceral strength for me. (I'm talking about altered states of consciousness mainly)