Is there a limit to what humans can with?

Human knowledge must be limited, and even if you are learning every day, your life is limited, and how can you learn all the knowledge in the world? Secondly, human knowledge is more important than human reason, and human reason must be limited, so the knowledge that people can accept must be limited, for example, does God exist? This is the problem that reason cannot solve!

Reason is a tool for human beings to understand the world, and reason itself is limited, so the result of knowing the world, that is, knowledge, must also be limited, in a word, human beings are ignorant in the face of nature, no matter how much knowledge you think you have learned, that knowledge is nothing but the creation of a linguistic concept of the human self, and has nothing to do with the essence of nature. Human beings can only learn from the experience of nature, and experiments summarize the so-called laws of nature to serve social progress, and human beings cannot create nature!

Do you know it, human beings only use half of their minds! This half is used in the material world, and the other half is in faith in God the Creator, where the answer is in knowledge and wisdom. When you really enter, you find out:

Oh, I see. God created the heavens and the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, and all the animals, plants, and people on the earth. In order for people to understand the material world in which they lived, God gave people eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and hands.

So people can perceive and understand the material world with sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. Many people do not believe in God because they cannot see, hear, or touch God. The fault of these people is that they are trying to know God with the wrong organs.

God is a spirit and does not belong to the material world, so he cannot be known by the organs that know the material world. The organ that God has given man to know about Him is the mind. The heart is a spirit, so it can be used to know God.

Many people have intuition, which is the message of God that the mind receives. If you seek God with your heart, you will be able to feel His presence and communicate with Him. If you don't perceive God with your heart, you can't feel His presence.

It's like you can't feel a sound with your nose, you can't feel a smell with your hands.

In addition to knowing God through the heart, one can also know God through His creation. If I point to a table and tell you that it is not man-made, but that it is something that exists or is randomly created by various chemical elements, you will not believe it, you will say that the table is man-made. In the same way, each of the nine planets of the solar system orbits in an orderly manner; The plants and animals on the ground are interdependent and form a harmonious ecosystem.

Can you believe that all of this was not created by God, but by randomness? As the Bible says, "Since the creation of the heavens and the earth, the eternal power and divinity of God have been clearly known, and though they cannot be seen by the eyes, they can be known through the things that are made, so that there is no excuse." ”

Not necessarily, the capacity of the human brain is very large, as long as you seriously discover your potential.

Yes and no.

Yes is supposed to be limited in one's wisdom.

It is not that human wisdom is infinite.

Because the real world is the world of ideas. As we all know, the current level of science of mankind can be said to be changing with each passing day and is very developed. According to the Marxist philosophy we learned from middle school political textbooks, we seem to be able to continue to explore until the mysteries of the universe are exhausted, because "the world is materialistic".

However, the famous physicist Popper had the view that "all knowledge that mankind has is speculation and hypothesis", which is very shocking. Could it be that such a highly renowned physicist still worships absurd idealism?

First of all, it is necessary to clarify what kind of idealism Popper's "idealism" is. I believe that we have all learned the definition of "idealism" from middle school political textbooks, which looks very ridiculous, such as "if you close your eyes, you will be grateful" and "as long as you feel that there is no cliff in front of you, you will not fall to your death". Is such a view "idealism"?

If idealism is really so shallow and absurd, how can it dominate the philosophical world, and even famous philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Heidegger in modern times are so-called "idealists"? ActuallyThe "idealism" of idealism refers to "the world is the world of facts, not the world of things."

The phrase "the world of things" comes from Wittgenstein, and I think it's very concise. In other words,The universe we recognize is the universe in our consciousness, that is, a "collection of ideas." As for the nature of the universe, we cannot assert that:

We can only get as close to the truth as possible, but we can never "know the full truth" because it is beyond human power. “The idea of the universe does not mean that we can give up the exploration of scienceOn the contrary, it has inspired scientists to continue to explore the world with what Kant called "reason". Einstein, Popper, Copenhagen, they were all such "rationalists".

To sum up, because "the universe is the universe of ideas", the knowledge we have is only hypothetical and speculative.

This is a matter of considering the definition of knowledge.

The knowledge that Popper refers to should be "scientific knowledge" that focuses on "projecting an infinite population with a finite sample" (falsifiable). And the examples you give are not this kind of knowledge.

Because only this kind of knowledge can deepen human knowledge and understanding of the world, and the production and lifestyle of human beings will also change.

A thousand years ago, many people would say, "I thought that the earth was flat (the sun, moon, stars, revolving around the earth, etc.), but also hypothetical?" “

In the process of learning knowledge, human beings are developing, progressing and growing.

"Limited life" and "infinite knowledge" refer to the scope and factual basis of the relative relationship between these two items. As for whether or not to learn is a calculation of whether or not to make a row, if a young person thinks that it is better to play happily, and stop studying, then the result is a waste of life. What's the use of dying to study, even if you spend all your time studying?

Why, because there is no practice. Therefore, this sentence is a relatively dialectical reading.

The purpose of human life is to pass on knowledge and pass it on.

If you don't learn, you don't have any knowledge at all, like you.

Learning is not just about using your values to slowly change when you are studying, and you don't know how to ask again, thank you for adopting.

The mysteries of nature are parts that can never be explored and that people have limited knowledge.

Based on long-term experience, I seem to have found that people are in this situation when it comes to knowing things: the more shallow the knowledge, the more they want to talk about it; On the contrary, the abundance of knowledge makes people very indecisive in judging certain things.

…But when he later observed that wasps, mosquitoes, and flies did not make intermittent cries by breath, as birds do, but by the rapid vibration of their wings, and made a constant buzzing sound, his curiosity grew stronger than that he was at a loss as he was in the knowledge of how to produce sounds, for his whole experience was not sufficient to make him understand and believe that the cricket, though it could not fly, made such a harmonious and loud sound with its wings and not with its breath. Later, when he thought that there was almost no other way of sounding than the above-mentioned means, he became aware of all sorts of organs, trumpets, flutes, and stringed instruments, all sorts of them, up to the iron reed, which was carried in the mouth, played in a peculiar way with the mouth as a resonator, and the breath as a medium of sound.

At this time, he thought he knew everything, but when he caught a cicada, he fell into an unprecedented state of ignorance and amazement: no matter whether he saw the cicada's mouth or held the cicada's wings, he could not even reduce the extremely sharp chirp, and he could not see the cicada's vibrating body or any other part. He turned the cicada over and saw a few hard and thin cartilages under his chest, and thought that the sound was from the vibration of the cartilage, so he broke it to stop the cicada.

But it all came to naught; Even when he pierced the cicada shell with a needle, he didn't suffocate the cicada along with the other sounds. In the end, he still couldn't decide if the sound came from the cartilage. From then on, he felt that his knowledge was too poor, and asked him how the voice was produced, and he frankly said that he knew some methods, but he believed that there were hundreds of ways that were unknown and unimaginable.

I could try to cite many other examples of the richness of nature in the creation of things in ways that we cannot conceive of before sensations and experiences reveal to us. Therefore, if I cannot accurately determine the cause of the comet's formation, then I deserve some kind of forgiveness, and I have never claimed to be able to do so, because I know that it will be formed in some way different from any of our assumptions. It is difficult to understand where the cicada in the palm of our hand comes from, so it should be forgiven for not understanding the cause of the comet in the distant sky.