In this blog post, we explore whether science can develop infinitely or if there are limits and an end point from various perspectives.
Human beings have undergone numerous stages of evolution, from our primitive ancestors known as primates to the Homo sapiens of today. Assuming that Darwin’s theory of evolution is true, and considering that our ancestors were monkeys, we can see that early humans and modern humans have distinct physical differences. However, despite these physical changes, humanity’s inherent curiosity about nature has persisted throughout millions of years of history and continues to this day. This curiosity led to the birth of science as an academic discipline. Humans, who once relied on simple stone tools and fire for survival, have achieved a modern civilization dominated by computers and machines through the advancement of science, and there are high expectations for how science will progress in the future. However, as scientists, we must ask ourselves whether there is an end point to the development of science, which has coexisted with humans for millions of years.
Before delving into this topic, we must first understand the essence of science as a discipline. Strictly speaking, science is a systematic body of theoretical knowledge obtained through the observation of nature in a measurable manner. In simpler terms, it is the process of assigning order and theory to natural phenomena that humans can interpret. Therefore, the development of science can be defined as the process of inferring and discovering natural phenomena that have not yet been understood within the existing scientific domain. Rather than discovering individual facts or organisms, studying new orders within those things is closer to the definition of progress. People who do not deeply understand science may think that scientific progress has continued from the past to the present and will continue indefinitely in the future. However, I argue that the realm of science that humans can develop is finite, and that the discipline of science will eventually reach a point where progress stops.
The first reason why there must be an end point to the development of science is the theoretical limitations inherent in the nature of science as a discipline. Science has limitations in that it cannot grasp all the principles of the world. In other words, science as a discipline has the absolute meaning that it cannot interpret all the flows and phenomena of nature. To prove this, we can refer to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. The core of this mathematical theorem is that within a formalized system, as long as the system is free of contradictions, there must be at least one statement that is true but cannot be proven. Although this mathematical theorem cannot be used as direct evidence, when applied to science, we can see that a similar phenomenon exists in science. There is sufficient evidence in existing scientific theories to support the idea that science cannot be absolutely perfect. For example, similar properties can be found in quantum mechanics. For any particle in a wave function, we can only define either its position or its velocity; it is impossible to determine both simultaneously. This indicates that there is no perfect determinism in science. Furthermore, chaos theory explains that there must exist natural phenomena that are unpredictable and cannot be ordered. The natural phenomena dealt with in cosmology and evolutionary biology are stories from the distant past, and only abstract theories based on the present state exist, with no clear evidence. All of this proves that science cannot be perfect and cannot define all the principles of the world.
Although science is currently developing by understanding the interpretable realm, it is possible to predict that it will eventually face an interpretable barrier and cease to develop. Even if the first argument is incorrect and humans reach absolute truth through science, there is another barrier in the form of the finiteness of discoverable natural phenomena. This is the second argument for the end of science.
As explained earlier, science is a systematic understanding of natural phenomena. The key here is “nature” itself. Nature, which has existed longer than humanity, has remained unchanged in its flow and laws for hundreds of millions of years, and the realm of nature itself has not expanded or contracted. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, seasons exist, and animals and plants breathe oxygen to survive, just as they did in the past. Nature does not change. Therefore, assuming that science can interpret all things in the universe, the realm of nature is constant, and only the realm of nature discovered by humans will expand. Ultimately, when science perfectly interprets all phenomena in the world, its development will inevitably stagnate. This is because there will be no new natural phenomena left to discover and define. From that point on, science will transform into a discipline that circulates within existing frameworks rather than pursuing new discoveries. This leads to the prediction that science will lose its independent value as an academic discipline and be absorbed into philosophy. Signs of this are already appearing in various places. One example is the concept of “ironic science.” This involves using existing scientific theories as a basis for making new scientific definitions based on conjecture, which is more similar to literature or philosophy than to true science. An example is string theory in quantum mechanics. While it theoretically claims to explain all physical forces in nature, no clear evidence has been presented even after decades of research. As science progresses, it gradually loses its fundamental value and is expected to transform into another form of academic discipline, ultimately facing its demise. If both the first and second grounds are true, they are mutually contradictory, meaning that regardless of which is true, science will inevitably follow the path toward its end.
The third reason is the limitations of human intelligence. Humans are the most intelligent life forms on Earth. Humans are the only life forms capable of speech and writing, but we cannot assume that human intelligence is infinite simply because we are intelligent. No matter how advanced the human brain is or how much intelligence develops through evolution, there are clear limits to human intelligence. Let’s look at other animals as examples. No matter how much you explain calculus to a common pet dog, it will never solve a differential equation. Additionally, animals have no ability to understand or interpret natural laws. While human cognitive abilities are the most advanced among existing life forms, there is no definitive evidence that human intelligence is infinite. If we were to encounter a more advanced life form (or extraterrestrials) than ourselves, we would feel the limitations of human intelligence even more keenly. If there is no evidence that human intelligence is infinite, then by the same logic, there is no basis for believing that the universe is interpretable by humans. In fact, the idea that the vast universe can be perfectly interpreted by the small object that is the human brain may be nothing more than a wild imagination. Science is a discipline that defines an orderly system of natural phenomena, but it is questionable whether the complex world of the universe can be perfectly defined by simple order and systems. The fact that modern science is becoming more difficult to understand as time passes and that more time and money are required to train specialized researchers than in the past are clues that we are reaching the limits of intelligence.
When science can no longer advance through human capabilities, it is possible to predict that science will stagnate. The fourth and final reason is economic reality. Since the end of the Cold War, governments around the world have reduced their financial support for science. For example, government support for superconducting colliders, which are required in physics, was discontinued because the losses were expected to outweigh the benefits, and as a result, particle physics, such as quantum mechanics, is currently in a state of stagnation.
This is because particle physics has few practical applications and the expected profits are minimal. Physicists argue that more research funds and equipment are needed to advance this field, but without tangible benefits, no one will provide financial support. When financial support for science is completely cut off, science can no longer progress.
The development of science is a sensitive topic for scientists, and there are constant counterarguments against the claim that the development of science will eventually reach its end. Let us examine a few of the most representative counterarguments. First, just as the claims of 19th-century physicists that all laws of physics had been proven were invalidated by the emergence of relativity and quantum mechanics, there is an opinion that the current claims will also be invalidated by the emergence of new scientific fields. However, this counterargument is nothing more than a simplistic inductive approach to the flow of science. It assumes that because something has been true in the past and is true today, it will necessarily be true in the future. This overlooks the fact that the rapid development of modern science and technology is not inevitable from a historical perspective. It is an exceptional phenomenon resulting from the interplay of social, intellectual, and political factors. No era in history has seen science develop as vigorously as it does today.
Will this development of humanity continue indefinitely? It is more likely that it will reach a state of saturation and normalize. The second counterargument is that scientific theories are constantly being overturned, revised, and evolved through trial and error, and therefore science has no theoretical limits.
As Karl Popper argued that science is always open to refutation, the knowledge discovered by humanity is also subject to revision and alteration, so there are no limits to scientific theories. Even if science is absorbed into philosophy, scientific progress will continue. However, the essence of science is not so provisional. To explore this further, it is necessary to engage in a deep discussion of the nature of science and philosophy. Until the 17th century, science was called natural philosophy and was part of philosophy, but it was transformed into a discipline that establishes hypotheses and proves their truth or falsity through experimentation and observation, thereby separating itself from philosophy. Since then, science has established itself as an independent discipline, while philosophy has remained a discipline that creates new theories by presenting arguments. Since then, philosophy and science have coexisted in mutual cooperation. When philosophy raises arguments against existing theories, science develops by empirically revising and improving them. If science’s development were to halt in this relationship, philosophy would remain, giving rise to a vicious cycle where theories without empirical evidence continue to emerge. If science were to develop by revising existing theories, it would inevitably be defined as philosophy or ironic science rather than true science.
The third counterargument is that applied science has unlimited potential, such as nuclear fusion energy development, and that even if there are economic limitations to scientific development, these will soon be overcome as the public becomes aware of this potential. This argument asserts that economic limitations are meaningless in terms of hindering scientific development. I partially agree with this point. My view is that when pure science reaches its peak, it will decline, and an era of active development in applied science will begin. The important point is that pure science and applied science are two distinct fields. Pure science aims to understand nature perfectly, while applied science processes nature into forms useful to humans. Even if financial support for science becomes abundant, this capital will be concentrated on applied science, and the possibility of investment in pure science is low. Over the past 50 years, the United States has invested $20 billion in the construction of nuclear fusion power plants, but has not provided support for the development of colliders necessary for pure physics.
Of course, some level of pure science development is required for the advancement of applied science, so there will not be a complete lack of support, but pure science is destined to face economic limitations. This is because the application of science does not require a perfect understanding of the universe. In this essay, I presented my view that science will inevitably come to an end and provided evidence to support it.
The modern era is truly the age of science, as science dominates our lives and has coexisted with humans unchanged throughout history. It is difficult to imagine a world without scientific progress. However, just as all living things eventually die and return to the earth, the end of science also seems inevitable. It is the law of nature that everything that is born must come to an end. Nevertheless, scientists should not view this pessimistically but accept it as the natural course of history. When the age of science comes to an end, another era will begin, whether it be the age of religion or philosophy—no one can predict. Accepting this inevitable fate and preparing for it is the wiser choice. Through this article, I hope that scholars who will contribute to the future development of science will form a proper understanding of the value of science as an academic discipline.
