You raise many excellent questions here. I don't have time just now to devote to responding in a way they deserve, so for now let me just ask this:

What would it take to convince you that you don't exist?

 

You raise many excellent questions here. I don't have time just now to devote to responding in a way they deserve, so for now let me just ask this:

What would it take to convince you that you don't exist?

I think I know where you are going with this. If you can try to prove that you don't exist, then you must have already existed in order to even attempt to do that.

But that I believe is still an agreement, a consensus, that we all know what it means to 'exist' already. If we didn't already know what it meant to exist, we couldn't try to prove or disprove it.

I think that what happens is that when we talk about this we don't come with a fresh mind, we come with a biased mind. One that has already told us what it means to exist. There's nothing to prove or disprove if you don't know what you are trying to prove or disprove.
That kind of makes existing self-fulfilling. That is, nothing can exist unless there is some sort of agreement about what it means to exist.
You'll note some of the lines that come up when we get deep into this.

So we have things that we say exist and other things that we say don't exist. There could be some qualification about what it means to exist, rather than just a arrogant "I exist".

Does 'ai' think it exists?
'ai' exists in a different way than we exist. We can't say the 'ai' bot does not exist, and that requires some sort of analysis and agreement.
When we say "I exist" we are doing the analysis and agreement by ourselves, but I don't think we can say that without some prior knowledge.

I guess there is a lot to this though.

 

Hi,

You are correct on most of that if not all of it, I'm sure. But let me add a little here.

You say you know you exist (that can be questioned too I believe, but let's not go there), and you say nothing else is really known, and all you need to know is that you exist.

However, does knowing you exist get you down the road when you have to go to the store to buy food?

No.

No. Why not? Because you have to 'know' other things. It may not be the bottom line philosophical 'knowing', but it functions for you.
This functioning is necessary for survival and other things. Therefore, there is a sub philosophy that we deal with in everyday life.
But more to the point, knowing that you (or I) exist does not get us anywhere.

There's a difference between knowing and believing, the question about how to get to a store involves beliefs not knowledge.

It does not do anything for us. In fact, even though it might be the rock bottom truth, it is almost the same thing as 'lumping', except that it seems to have the opposite effect.

When we lump some things together, we lose the identity of the pieces. This can be very good, but only when we do not ever have to consider the pieces. But we do not arbitrarily lump things together for a non-functional reason.
For example, in circuit theory we have the lumped element model. It makes things EXTRAORDINARILY simple, and we'd be in trouble if we didn't do that because we'd spend a lot more time on simple circuits like RC low pass filters. It serves a great purpose to do that.
However, when we are dealing with frequencies with wave lengths comparable to the size of the components themselves, we can't use the lumped element model, we have to pay much more attention to the detail of the components themselves. We don't just chuck in the lumped element model for the heck of it, because if we did that, we would not be able to calculate what is really happening in the circuit. We'd lose functionality.

Whether philosophy, philosophical analysis etc. has any utility is subjective. Does ballet "do anything for us"? does surreal art "do anything for us"? does reading Dickens "do anything for us" the answer depends on who you ask.

In other words, we might consider what they call Bayesian Reasoning and Fuzzy Logic.
It's not too hard to 'believe' that 70 degrees F is cooler than 80 degrees F, and depending on what we are doing, we might rate them in terms of Fuzzy Logic. 70 might be 0.2, and 80 might be 0.3, or whatever, highly dependent on the application of course.

I think this falls under practical philosophy. It's the philosophy of everyday life. We are actually forced into believing this kind of thing, because without it we can't function in an intelligent way. If the only thing we believed as "I exist" then everything else would come by pure chance, flip a coin to see which way we turn on the way to the store, roll the dice to see what move we make on the game board.

Another way to think about it maybe is that "I exist" is only needed in philosophical discussions, and everyday life almost never has to go there. Everyday life runs on working assumptions.

Physics was initially named Natural Philosophy, at the time of Newton for example.

Well take your last proposition "Everyday life runs on working assumptions" that is itself a philosophical statement, it isn't a scientific one because it isn't testable scientifically, one needs to define the terms used and that is subjective.

Philosophy is the recognition that our perceived reality (each one of us) cannot be explained using science, it is the recognition that scientific reasoning and scientific knowledge has limitations on what it can do for us.

 

I think I know where you are going with this. If you can try to prove that you don't exist, then you must have already existed in order to even attempt to do that.

But that I believe is still an agreement, a consensus, that we all know what it means to 'exist' already. If we didn't already know what it meant to exist, we couldn't try to prove or disprove it.

I think that what happens is that when we talk about this we don't come with a fresh mind, we come with a biased mind. One that has already told us what it means to exist. There's nothing to prove or disprove if you don't know what you are trying to prove or disprove.
That kind of makes existing self-fulfilling. That is, nothing can exist unless there is some sort of agreement about what it means to exist.
You'll note some of the lines that come up when we get deep into this.

So we have things that we say exist and other things that we say don't exist. There could be some qualification about what it means to exist, rather than just a arrogant "I exist".

Does 'ai' think it exists?
'ai' exists in a different way than we exist. We can't say the 'ai' bot does not exist, and that requires some sort of analysis and agreement.
When we say "I exist" we are doing the analysis and agreement by ourselves, but I don't think we can say that without some prior knowledge.

I guess there is a lot to this though.

Unless we can define knowledge, define what it means to say "I know X" then we can't say we know what we are talking about when we make statements like that.

If we don't know what we are talking about then how do we deal with that as part of our perception of the world?

Sit down and listen to this when you get the opportunity, pour a drink and listen to what these different people think about all this:

 

Unless we can define knowledge, define what it means to say "I know X" then we can't say we know what we are talking about when we make statements like that.

If we don't know what we are talking about then how do we deal with that as part of our perception of the world?

Sit down and listen to this when you get the opportunity, pour a drink and listen to what these different people think about all this:

Ok I'll try to check that out.

What I tend to think is that we can't assume anything, like the idea of the "Evil Genius" that sits behind our eyes and governs everything we see and know. If you think in that way the EG might be the only thing that actually exists.

Also, to exist already implies time, and we don't know what time really is. If time stopped 1 minute after I wrote this we would not know it. We could be rock solid for eons as measured in another universe. Perhaps beings from that universe can look in on us and say something like, "Oh there they go, frozen in time again. Wonder how long it will take for their time to start cranking again".
I do realize this is the farthest image of what is probably true, but if we don't assume anything then anything is possible.

I'll check that vid out and see what they say now. I'll reply again later.

Ok I listened to part of it and immediately I see a production, not a presentation of facts alone. They are trying to make everything sound valid right from the beginning, and it's more like a TV show than anything else. That kind of puts me off right away. I don't want to hear a repeat of history taking so much time. Maybe I'll find a shorter thing to read.

The way I view it is that they HAVE to assume that is the bottom layer. They have no choice. They are after a functional starting point. They need that starting point in order to feel like they have something concrete. To me, it's like sailing in a boat on the surface of the ocean and we can't see anything under the water, so we have to assume that the surface is the base, the lowest part of everything. We NEED something to be able to describe everything else.
Wasn't his statement more like "I think therefore I am" ?
I take that to mean that I think therefore that proves that I am.

 

Ok I'll try to check that out.

What I tend to think is that we can't assume anything, like the idea of the "Evil Genius" that sits behind our eyes and governs everything we see and know. If you think in that way the EG might be the only thing that actually exists.

Also, to exist already implies time, and we don't know what time really is. If time stopped 1 minute after I wrote this we would not know it. We could be rock solid for eons as measured in another universe. Perhaps beings from that universe can look in on us and say something like, "Oh there they go, frozen in time again. Wonder how long it will take for their time to start cranking again".
I do realize this is the farthest image of what is probably true, but if we don't assume anything then anything is possible.

I'll check that vid out and see what they say now. I'll reply again later.

Ok I listened to part of it and immediately I see a production, not a presentation of facts alone. They are trying to make everything sound valid right from the beginning, and it's more like a TV show than anything else. That kind of puts me off right away. I don't want to hear a repeat of history taking so much time. Maybe I'll find a shorter thing to read.

That's the most astonishing reaction to an episode of In Our Time, I've ever seen in my life! This is radio not television!

The way I view it is that they HAVE to assume that is the bottom layer. They have no choice. They are after a functional starting point. They need that starting point in order to feel like they have something concrete. To me, it's like sailing in a boat on the surface of the ocean and we can't see anything under the water, so we have to assume that the surface is the base, the lowest part of everything. We NEED something to be able to describe everything else.
Wasn't his statement more like "I think therefore I am" ?
I take that to mean that I think therefore that proves that I am.

I'm sure they wouldn't disagree with some of what you're saying. But you really should try to listen to the discussion, the host is representing us - the general listener - and he pushes them to explain this and that and explain the issues in non-specialist terms. It really is excellent.

Here's one on theoretical physics for example:



and our old friend e



and how about this, Noether whom several here have mentioned including @nsaspook if I recall.




I come from an era where topical discussions were very common on the radio, and that forum has many advantages over a visual medium like television.

 

Maybe because in Einstein's time there was no tech to manipulate the world in nano scale yet:

 

That's the most astonishing reaction to an episode of In Our Time, I've ever seen in my life! This is radio not television!

View attachment 363270



I'm sure they wouldn't disagree with some of what you're saying. But you really should try to listen to the discussion, the host is representing us - the general listener - and he pushes them to explain this and that and explain the issues in non-specialist terms. It really is excellent.

Here's one on theoretical physics for example:

View attachment 363271

and our old friend e

View attachment 363272

and how about this, Noether whom several here have mentioned including @nsaspook if I recall.

View attachment 363273


I come from an era where topical discussions were very common on the radio, and that forum has many advantages over a visual medium like television.

Hi,

I think maybe I had the wrong idea of what you were trying to show, and I can see you don't know much about my background in math and physics and the history of the knowledge of mankind.

I thought you were presenting information on what it meant to 'exist' or something like that, while the video appeared more like a history lesson and glorification of past people who did work in physics and related.

Here is an image I found online. This looks like the same set I have. This is a set of books that includes the writings of various notable authors from the past. I've read most of them some years back. Descartes is in there too (see volume 31).

All I was really getting at was "Assume nothing" which is your current sig line. We search for knowledge, but what it seems we are really searching for is something we can call knowledge so we have a ground to stand on when it comes time to explaining something. This tells me the rule really is "assume nothing", not "assume almost nothing". "Assume almost nothing" works for us most of the time though, so we use it.
When we get into very deep ideas we are FORCED to come up with ideas that appear to be unchangeable, but that's not how things worked out judging by history. We've got a VERY short history of knowledge compared to the presumed age of the universe. We've got a very long way to go.

So back to the main question of the thread: Is quantum mechanics wrong?
It works to a certain degree just like a lot of other things so we use it. There is probably some threshold where something changes that we just don't know about yet, that's what history teaches us. Once we learn that, if we ever do, we will know or at least again presume to know what is going on.
There are so many things that are strange to us as compared to our general everyday experiences maybe it should not be too surprising that even when we go to extremes to figure something out since it's still just an extension of our everyday experiences, we will run into roadblocks.
A particle field that extends out to infinity? How can that be, I've never seen or felt anything more than a couple feet away except for the reflection of light from some other object, and even then, I am seeing a delayed version of that reflected light.
We need a theoretical ground to stand on, so we invent ideas. The ideas work most of the time so we use them.

It's hard to talk about some ideas in philosophy that's probably the best conclusion we can come up with

 

Hi,

I think maybe I had the wrong idea of what you were trying to show, and I can see you don't know much about my background in math and physics and the history of the knowledge of mankind.

I thought you were presenting information on what it meant to 'exist' or something like that, while the video appeared more like a history lesson and glorification of past people who did work in physics and related.

Here is an image I found online. This looks like the same set I have. This is a set of books that includes the writings of various notable authors from the past. I've read most of them some years back. Descartes is in there too (see volume 31).

All I was really getting at was "Assume nothing" which is your current sig line. We search for knowledge, but what it seems we are really searching for is something we can call knowledge so we have a ground to stand on when it comes time to explaining something. This tells me the rule really is "assume nothing", not "assume almost nothing". "Assume almost nothing" works for us most of the time though, so we use it.
When we get into very deep ideas we are FORCED to come up with ideas that appear to be unchangeable, but that's not how things worked out judging by history. We've got a VERY short history of knowledge compared to the presumed age of the universe. We've got a very long way to go.

So back to the main question of the thread: Is quantum mechanics wrong?
It works to a certain degree just like a lot of other things so we use it. There is probably some threshold where something changes that we just don't know about yet, that's what history teaches us. Once we learn that, if we ever do, we will know or at least again presume to know what is going on.
There are so many things that are strange to us as compared to our general everyday experiences maybe it should not be too surprising that even when we go to extremes to figure something out since it's still just an extension of our everyday experiences, we will run into roadblocks.
A particle field that extends out to infinity? How can that be, I've never seen or felt anything more than a couple feet away except for the reflection of light from some other object, and even then, I am seeing a delayed version of that reflected light.
We need a theoretical ground to stand on, so we invent ideas. The ideas work most of the time so we use them.

It's hard to talk about some ideas in philosophy that's probably the best conclusion we can come up with

Philosophy essentially deals with questions about knowledge, truth, belief and so on. Its important to state too, that what we call "science" involves beliefs, and so by definition cannot be decoupled from philosophy.

Philosophy discusses the issues and questions that arise in all intellectual disciplines, mathematics, physics, art, music, literature, history, science fiction, theology, metaphysics etc.

Many questions we can ask in science are actually philosophical questions, like "is the universe deterministic?" or "do laws exist?"

Now as to the question about QM, I argue that every theory in science is wrong, because every theory has to make some assumptions and one cannot conflate assumption and truth.

I'm not sufficiently well read on QM, but I think Penrose means that QM cannot be used to describe gravitation, so it cant be "right" just as Newtonian Mechanics is not right.

We have those books, my wife's Dad had them and she inherited them. I've only thumbed a few volumes though. I have a sizeable personal library of science, math, theology and philosophy but sadly I've all but stopped reading, something I really want to fix.

Oh and I was an outspoken atheist until my mid twenties when I first grasped the inadequacy of the scientific method to explain the universe.

 

Philosophy essentially deals with questions about knowledge, truth, belief and so on. Its important to state too, that what we call "science" involves beliefs, and so by definition cannot be decoupled from philosophy.

Philosophy discusses the issues and questions that arise in all intellectual disciplines, mathematics, physics, art, music, literature, history, science fiction, theology, metaphysics etc.

Many questions we can ask in science are actually philosophical questions, like "is the universe deterministic?" or "do laws exist?"

Now as to the question about QM, I argue that every theory in science is wrong, because every theory has to make some assumptions and one cannot conflate assumption and truth.

I'm not sufficiently well read on QM, but I think Penrose means that QM cannot be used to describe gravitation, so it cant be "right" just as Newtonian Mechanics is not right.

We have those books, my wife's Dad had them and she inherited them. I've only thumbed a few volumes though. I have a sizeable personal library of science, math, theology and philosophy but sadly I've all but stopped reading, something I really want to fix.

Oh and I was an outspoken atheist until my mid twenties when I first grasped the inadequacy of the scientific method to explain the universe.

Hi,

Oh that's interesting, about both the QM vs Gravity and about the failures of the scientific method, which I find myself calling the scientific belief.

QM and Gravity start to break apart once distances become very small and Gravity starts to dominate over atomic forces. That's pretty amazing already considering atomic distances are extremely small to being with.

From what I have gathered over the past decades, the scientific method can 'sort of' explain the universe if we accept an idea from the scientific method, as strange as that sounds. The idea is that there could easily be advanced civilizations that are far, far, far advanced in knowledge than we are in that they can master things in the universe much better than we can. There would have to be advanced beings in that civilization, and they would be responsible for either the things in the universe or the universe itself as well as the things in it. That 'would' explain everything, but of course we'd have to know who they were and make some sort of direct contact with them that would add to our own scientific knowledge.
This would be the functional equivalent of "God". That's one reason why I like to say that every scientist who believes in an advanced society must believe in at least the functional equivalent of God. I don't think this flies in the face of atheists, but it depends on their core beliefs beyond that.
I don't really want to get into a discussion of God vs No God though (ha ha) because everyone has their own basic beliefs and I respect that.

 

Hi,

Oh that's interesting, about both the QM vs Gravity and about the failures of the scientific method, which I find myself calling the scientific belief.

QM and Gravity start to break apart once distances become very small and Gravity starts to dominate over atomic forces. That's pretty amazing already considering atomic distances are extremely small to being with.

GR is founded on a core axiom called the principle of equivalence - used to basically assert that the laws of mechanics are mathematically identical in an accelerated frame and a stationary frame in a gravitational field. I think Penrose argues that this principle has no analog in QM, it doesn't exist so in that sense QM cannot be correct and QM cannot be used to derive GR.

From what I have gathered over the past decades, the scientific method can 'sort of' explain the universe if we accept an idea from the scientific method, as strange as that sounds. The idea is that there could easily be advanced civilizations that are far, far, far advanced in knowledge than we are in that they can master things in the universe much better than we can. There would have to be advanced beings in that civilization, and they would be responsible for either the things in the universe or the universe itself as well as the things in it. That 'would' explain everything, but of course we'd have to know who they were and make some sort of direct contact with them that would add to our own scientific knowledge.
This would be the functional equivalent of "God". That's one reason why I like to say that every scientist who believes in an advanced society must believe in at least the functional equivalent of God. I don't think this flies in the face of atheists, but it depends on their core beliefs beyond that.
I don't really want to get into a discussion of God vs No God though (ha ha) because everyone has their own basic beliefs and I respect that.

From everything I've see nature, physics is causal, so the presence of the universe has/had a cause but the universe can't have caused itself to exist nor do our conservation laws allow for it to spontaneously appear laws and all.

This is a hard fact of life and no amount of science can ever help to resolve it, only something not-science can be of help with this question - why does the universe exist?

 

GR is founded on a core axiom called the principle of equivalence - used to basically assert that the laws of mechanics are mathematically identical in an accelerated frame and a stationary frame in a gravitational field. I think Penrose argues that this principle has no analog in QM, it doesn't exist so in that sense QM cannot be correct and QM cannot be used to derive GR.



From everything I've see nature, physics is causal, so the presence of the universe has/had a cause but the universe can't have caused itself to exist nor do our conservation laws allow for it to spontaneously appear laws and all.

This is a hard fact of life and no amount of science can ever help to resolve it, only something not-science can be of help with this question - why does the universe exist?

Hi,

Well have you considered the existence of a very advanced civilization that could easily be a million years ahead of us?

 

Hi,

Well have you considered the existence of a very advanced civilization that could easily be a million years ahead of us?

Not seriously, invoking a presumed effect as being a cause doesn't explain anything.

The only way out of the quagmire is to postulate an uncaused cause. An agency that can cause but is itself not an effect of some prior cause.

This is a profound thing to understand, the existence of the universe cannot be explained scientifically by any material process (even extra terrestrials).

 

Not seriously, invoking a presumed effect as being a cause doesn't explain anything.

The only way out of the quagmire is to postulate an uncaused cause. An agency that can cause but is itself not an effect of some prior cause.

This is a profound thing to understand, the existence of the universe cannot be explained scientifically by any material process (even extra terrestrials).

Hi,

When someone says something that spans such long time periods and such unknowns to begin with, I can't see how they can come to any solid conclusion that eliminates one possibility over another. The only explanation I can think of is that their human desire for understanding overshadows their actual understanding, but they accept it anyway because there is a very strong need to have concrete explanations even if they appear to rule something out.

You can look back in physics to see this unfold with very important ideas. Huge populations of very smart individuals believe something is all too true, but then something changes that when someone else comes along and shows them a different way. Even then they find it hard to let go of the old. This played out many times in the past.

We are insignificant when it comes to the universe and the knowledge we have today. We can't be sure of anything. We can accept some things as being true, but we can't be sure they might not change in the future. That's the bottom line. A simple explanation for that is that none of us here or there can actually predict the future.

You say, "Assume nothing", but you don't actually believe it

I'm not sure what you mean by:
"...invoking a presumed effect as being a cause doesn't explain anything."

 

...the existence of the universe cannot be explained scientifically by any material process...

You are arguing from within the current understanding and so you conclusions stand with that limitation.

Think of Lord Kelvin arguments regarding the age of the sun.

 

You are arguing from within the current understanding and so you conclusions stand with that limitation.

This is a definitional problem. Like arguing that if we look hard enough we might possibly prove that e is rational but by definition we can prove that is not possible no matter how long we try.

The behavior of the universe is governed by the laws of physics, but until laws exist, until the universe exists no science can take place.

The definition of science means that we cannot craft a theory about the origin of the universe and the origin of laws - not a scientific theory anyway.

The definition of science means we cannot use science to explain the presence of science.

We logically cannot use laws to explain the existence of laws.

Think of Lord Kelvin arguments regarding the age of the sun.

Kelvin's reasoning was sound, based on his assumptions about the energy source he reasoned correctly it seems. His assumption was wrong and that's why his result was wrong.

But the problem of origins is very different, the presence of the universe cannot (logically) be explained in terms of that universe.

 

Hi,

When someone says something that spans such long time periods and such unknowns to begin with, I can't see how they can come to any solid conclusion that eliminates one possibility over another. The only explanation I can think of is that their human desire for understanding overshadows their actual understanding, but they accept it anyway because there is a very strong need to have concrete explanations even if they appear to rule something out.

You can look back in physics to see this unfold with very important ideas. Huge populations of very smart individuals believe something is all too true, but then something changes that when someone else comes along and shows them a different way. Even then they find it hard to let go of the old. This played out many times in the past.

We are insignificant when it comes to the universe and the knowledge we have today. We can't be sure of anything. We can accept some things as being true, but we can't be sure they might not change in the future. That's the bottom line. A simple explanation for that is that none of us here or there can actually predict the future.

You say, "Assume nothing", but you don't actually believe it

I'm not sure what you mean by:
"...invoking a presumed effect as being a cause doesn't explain anything."

What I meant is invoking extra terrestrial intelligences can't explain anything, all it does is push back the cause in time, we're still left with what caused extra terrestrials (their own existence is just an effect of some prior cause) to exist.

The deep point here (IMHO) is that we can't expect the explanation for the presence of the universe and its laws, to be expressed in terms of that universe, a thing can't be an explanation for itself.

The explanation for the presence of the universe therefore -logically - cannot - be a scientific one, it must be of a very different nature altogether.

 

What I meant is invoking extra terrestrial intelligences can't explain anything, all it does is push back the cause in time, we're still left with what caused extra terrestrials (their own existence is just an effect of some prior cause) to exist.

The deep point here (IMHO) is that we can't expect the explanation for the presence of the universe and its laws, to be expressed in terms of that universe, a thing can't be an explanation for itself.

The explanation for the presence of the universe therefore -logically - cannot - be a scientific one, it must be of a very different nature altogether.

Hi again,

I think I understand you about existence and the universe, but I still get the feeling you are still thinking "inside the box".
You are talking about this universe and possible creatures that might live inside it, and that they can't solve something about the universe they are inside of. But do we know that to be true? We don't have a clear concept of what "advanced" really means.
Even if we do believe that, then what about entities from another universe? Can they solve problems that involve this universe?

I guess all I am saying is, "Assume Nothing", but when I say Nothing I really mean Nothing, at least at the heart of everything. We are forced to assume some things for everyday life, but that's a different platform to me.

I guess it would help if you could explain what you yourself mean by "Assume nothing", is that everything or just some things, or just not that one thing about existence?

 

Hi again,

I think I understand you about existence and the universe, but I still get the feeling you are still thinking "inside the box".
You are talking about this universe and possible creatures that might live inside it, and that they can't solve something about the universe they are inside of. But do we know that to be true? We don't have a clear concept of what "advanced" really means.
Even if we do believe that, then what about entities from another universe? Can they solve problems that involve this universe?

I guess all I am saying is, "Assume Nothing", but when I say Nothing I really mean Nothing, at least at the heart of everything. We are forced to assume some things for everyday life, but that's a different platform to me.

I guess it would help if you could explain what you yourself mean by "Assume nothing", is that everything or just some things, or just not that one thing about existence?

Sure, assume nothing is just a catchy slogan, taught to me when I first learned "programming" (that is as the word was used then) on mainframes at the age of 22 from seasoned experts who'd been writing software for twenty years. It simply means keep an open mind, always be open to ideas no matter how radical or uncomfortable they might be.

The guys who used the phrase basically meant, don't assume that your code was run as you might expect, don't assume the data was as you might expect, get the facts, impersonal, objective facts before formulating opinions. A bit like Sherlock Holmes's slogan:



Above all keep an open mind, don't allow your assumptions to become an obstacle to the entry of new truths into your mind, nothing is ever as it seems.

 

The behavior of the universe is governed by the laws of physics, but until laws exist, until the universe exists no science can take place.

Actually, The universe behaves as it likes, and the laws of physics DESCRIBE the behaviour and have been refined through time to be increasingly accurate. Quite possibly science will one day achieve (through increasingly powerful accelerators?) descriptions of the behaviour of those parts that are currently beyond reach.

The definition of science means that we cannot craft a theory about the origin of the universe and the origin of laws - not a scientific theory anyway

"Science: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained"

Science as a discipline of inquiry doesn't include innate limits that limit self description or preclude completeness, such as mathematics has run into. There is no conflict arising from the scientific investigation of the origin of science.