# Why all Science is wrong (and always will be wrong)

A short mathematical explanation of the limits to Science

First, to be accurate the word "wrong" should really be replaced by the words "just not right". The word "wrong" was chosen for brevity.

(This very small essay is more or less a work-in-progress, being edited and reworded once in a while. As per August 2021 it has been so for an unknown period, at least a few years.)

The scope of Science as such is universal meaning that Science (if "animated") could be said to have an ambition to "understand" the full Universe and everything in (and, if possible, about) it. In other words; to collect all available "scientific knowledge" or "information".

If we liken this "ambition" to a trip from "Point A" to "Point B" we would probably also think that a sane traveller would like to consider the factual properties of such a trip in order to know a little about the probability of actually completing said trip. And, not least, the feasibility of even embarking on it.

So, let there be math:

Let In = the n'th bit of information (eg. some knowledge obtained through Science at a given point in time)
, and
let I = all existing information (an infinite amount). Then:

In = 1/∞ I n = 0 In = 0

ℝ ∌ ∞ , ℝ̄ > ℝ n = 0 In ≨ I , I - ∑n = 0 In = In = 0

It should be extremely clear from the above that our "traveller" does not have any chance what so ever of making the trip to "Point B". Our traveller will forever be stuck at "Point A" no matter how much effort is spent, and no matter how long the journey is perceived to be.

### In travelling terms

As a thought experiment, let's imagine that the entire "scientific ambition" was to do a foot trip from the lobby of one specific casino in Las Vegas all the way around the Earth. Then, in spite of using his/her whole life travelling the traveller would end up having travelled only inside that very same casino lobby. Of course the traveller would probably have gained a wealth of information from the very rigorous, and ever-changing experience that a life-long examination of a casino lobby would be, but what and how much would the traveller really get to know about the Earth as-a-whole from this trip?

Not much. It would probably not be wrong to suggest: nothing. Also, it would probably not be wrong to suggest that the only things the traveller would ever experience would be exceptions-to-the-rule and not anything really, fundamentally, "true" or "real". Or, that he would have spent is whole journey in an isolated, very remote and distorted, version of reality - not in the real world itself.

• Would the traveller know about weather, seasons, day and night, time?
• Would the traveller know about lakes, seas, mountains, valleys, sky, trees, fields, wildlife?
• Would the traveller even know that there are surfaces that are not even and smooth, or made of shiny plastic? What (and how much) would the traveller really know about matter/materials?
• What kinds of flora and fauna would the traveller see? And, not see? What (and how much) would the traveller really know about the various species?
• Would the traveller know that you could walk on something not being a floor (or any surface not fully and entirely horisontal, obstacle-free, regularly cleaned, and well-lit), or know about any of the sports or crafts, or, well... Sciences? What (and how much) would the traveller really know about "laws of nature"?
• Tongue-in-cheek: What would the traveller assume about temperature ranges and climate? Would ranges outside of normal AirCon operation be acceptable or even possible? Who or what would be considered responsible for glitches and fluctations?
• Would a demolition crew assembling outside the building ever catch the attention of the traveller, or would an approaching flood, storm, war?
• Would the traveller know about anything at all (that is, even perfectly normal everyday events) outside that lobby? Would anything not found inside even exist? A tomato? A child? Darkness? Soccer? Wind?
• Would any of the things (say, everyday casino lobby interior and decor, events, inhabitants, or occupations) that the traveller would consider "normal" actually be normal or even "usual" in any greater sense of these words?

And then, ultimately the traveller died anyway having spent all his/her energy and ressources travelling. So nobody else had any benefit. Let's hope that at least our traveller enjoyed the journey.

So...

### In more general terms

The compound mass of all scientific knowledge gathered throughout all times will always remain an infinitely small part of all knowledge. This equals zero knowledge. Zero. In other words: everything Science will ever find are random exceptions, saddle points, and corner-cases no matter how robust the results will seem 'at the moment'.

The case here is not really that you cannot trust Science on a day-by-day basis, more that as seen in a much longer (and wider) perspective that (a) Science will never be able to tell "the full story", and (b) whatever Science will ever "prove" will be disproved somewhere else, sooner or later.

It would not be wrong to say that the full amount of information that Science will ever discover is equal to zero information. And it takes a very brief bit of math to say just that.

Relative to infinite information any given piece of information / knowledge is, in fact, zero information. Also, this ''moment'' -- even if it should last millions of human years -- will always be an insignificant and infinitely small moment in the great scheme of things. Relative to infinity any random duration of time is zero.

Given infinity there is no truth, neither here nor out there. Neither today nor any other day.

This is math. A.k.a. Science. Which implies...

### Postscript

All of the above is posted for entertainment value only. This is not a Scientific paper.