## Mathemathical proof that we're idiots, that we'll never achieve knowledge past the point of ignorance, and that the Sciences are a waste of time (w.i.p)

a.k.a. "The Theory of Nothing" (shorter name w/ some humor). Enjoy. Or, maybe not:

Assume:

- infinity (n = ∞), and hence: eternity (t = ∞)

Let:

I = knowledge / information (as available in our 3-dimensional universe),

n = one unit of information (eg. a "bit")

t = one unit of time (eg. a "second")

n, t ∈ ℝ

Then:

$\sum \infty $_{n = 0}∑^{∞}_{t = 0}I_{n,t}≨ I_{n = ∞, t = ∞}

∴ $\sum \infty $_{n = 0}∑^{∞}_{t = 0}I_{n,t}≃ 1/∞ I_{n = ∞, t = ∞}("≃" or "=" to be determined)

∴$\sum \infty $("≃" or "=" to be determined)_{n = 0}∑^{∞}_{t = 0}I_{n,t}≃ 0

∵ $\mathbb{R}\; \not\ni \; \infty $ , $1/\infty \; =\; 0$ ( $\infty \; -\; n\; =\; \infty ,\; \infty \; -\; t\; =\; \infty $ )

∴ $I$_{n = ∞, t = ∞}- ∑^{∞}_{n = 0}∑^{∞}_{t = 0}I_{n,t}= ∞

$\u220e$

**In words**: We're *inside* the black box. And we will never even remotely get to know its properties. All that we know, and all that we can infer, measure, calculate, or deduct in the entirety of our past+present+future will forever be only exceptions to the rule that: We know practically *nothing* of our surroundings, and we will never get to know a larger fraction of the total information. Indeed, relatively speaking we have never known more or less than we do now, which is -- and always will be -- nothing.

Of course this implies that any "Scientific fact" (be it "survival of the fittest", "gravity", or even this proof itself) is nothing but a special case -- an infinitesimally small fraction -- of a much more rigorous fact. So much "more rigorous" that the "Scientific fact" in question reduces to nothing over time. This is not opinion, if it was most people would probably disagree. This is just a verbal account of what the proof, well... proves.

**Note**: This proof could probably be made more elegant, hence the "work-in-progress" note. I'm a bit insecure if my notation is understandable, so "mouse-over" the sentences for a verbal interpretation/explanation. As for the math/logic, I believe that the above is fairly robust but please try to break it. No doubt You would like to.

**Disclaimer**: This must not and should not be taken as evidence, neither for nor against, "Intelligent Design". It does not imply anything about that matter at all, and can simply not be used as an argument by either side in a discussion of such matters (although, no doubt some will try). This is math and logic, not religion.