Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
The fact that we don't know something does not automatically imply that it is unknowable. We can and will gain a greater understanding of the big bang over time, that's the entire point of projects like the LHC at CERN, to recreate the conditions surrounding the big bang so we can study them...the LHC isn't quite getting us back to the Plank epoch but that will be the next step. Also, I don't think that simply because a dimensionless universe is outside our current experience that we are unable to understand it, yes time is central to our experience from day to day but if we weren't capable of stepping back and looking at problems in a manner more general than our common experience would allow we wouldn't have the level of development in mathematics and physics that we enjoy today.
But that is the problem, mathematical equations are not a time machine, they are an ASSUMPTION. Further, how does anyone know that CERN recreates the Big Bang when the Big Bang itself is entirely a hypothetical at this point, especially considering that it has yet to be proven conclusively because the current models break down as we wind the clock back to the instant just after this speculated event. Again then, your problem is that you seem to take scientific theory as facts of reality, and that is where I pulled the anthropomorphism card, because HUMAN beings took the observations, human beings speculated the calculations, and human beings postulated the inferences, but none of these can hardly be said to be purely or abstracted facts. There simply is no such thing, the human mind interprets and shapes all aspects of how we perceive reality, science is therefore no more or less objective than any other human art form, as sophisticated as it may be, we shouldn't be so smug as to assume we can know anything in the absolute sense.
All this science is based currently on human technology which skews the results and observations according to the lens of the observer, in this case of CERN and computers, the human programming determines the outcome, so it entirely an anthropomorphic situation.
I have seen no evidence that such limitations even exist; 'limitations' are usually nothing more than a lack of imagination.
Wait, maybe you should read that again, because surely you didn't intend to mean what it says. Of course there are limits, because imagination is not real, but reality is, and subsequently by nature REALITY is the limit. For example, there are limits to our observations of distant stars and galaxies by the sheer physical distance and scale. So we device wonderful calculations and technology to speculate on what the raw data of light energy coming to the earth, but the technology is determining the outcome, the results are not entirely objective, but subjective to the human calculations. Computers are not objective, they are human creations and are subjective to the human perspective then, computers can only do what humans tell them.
Particle physics may not be the easiest subject in the world to understand and I know that the level of statistical analysis required in this field puts it outside the reach of many people's understanding, but it's hardly magic, it follows scientific processes to perform and validate experiments and arrive at objective conclusions.
thank you for the synopsis but I was not asking a literal question about CERN projects, I am well aware of what kinds of experiments they are conducting and what they are hoping to find, you missed my point. That was an existential question. CERN is a human creation based entirely on technology. If sometimes my computer doesn't even work well enough to check my email, how can we all be so sure and trustworthy that the computers at CERN or somehow divine and make no mistakes? USER ERROR is the common plague of computing, so why take such divine faith in the results? THAT IS NOT SCIENCE my friend, that is snake-handling at its finest
In the context of particle physics, they're generally just used to perform the statistical analysis required to acquire the required level of certainty about experiments. If you have a concern it should be with the mathematics, not the computers that just crunch the numbers. Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that a computer is anthropomorphic, rather their computational class is limited by the exact same things that limit the computational class of human brains, namely the conditions imposed by the laws of physics. We can devise far more powerful computational classes on paper, the laws of physics as we currently understand them just make building them out of our reach.
Wrong, computers are not limited by the rules of physics, they are limited by the ingenuity of their programmers. Please stop forgetting that computers are not self-existing entities, they only compute what we tell them, hence they are anthropomorphic machines, that are created by humans to reflect the human mind which is inputted as data. The decisions the computer makes about the data is entirely based on the programming which is done by who, oh right, people
But we can see the effects of the big bang, namely the universe itself. We can see how particles react to each other and we can reconstruct other particles that don't exist today or at least don't exist in quantities and locations that we can detect them. It's not a field of pure speculation and assumption, but a very rigorous field dominated by hard working scientists who have carefully and rationally observed the universe to develop falsifiable hypotheses and then tested those hypotheses using the most exacting scientific standards.
No we can't, we observe certain aspects of reality and we make logical inferences and conclusions about the data we record, however, simply stated, we do not witness the effects of the Big Band, or of Black Holes, or any other speculative science. All the science and work they do is speculative interpretation of the data they collect, the data is humanized by the humanity of the observer, it is never raw. Raw data is simply the universe as it exists, once people start making interpretations we move out of the realm of pure fact and delve into speculation. I am not necessarily saying the speculations are incorrect, rather I am just trying to point out that they are human creations.
If want to dismiss something as being anthropomorphic, then philosophy and metaphysics are the fields you should be targeting. They have relied on human experience and human prejudice to a point that is almost embarrassing. In fact, I would argue that they are largely nothing more than fanciful assumptions based on the very limited and flawed experience of a small number people who would be considered uneducated and ignorant by modern educational standards. At least scientists have the common decency to present falsifiable hypotheses, the same cannot be said of those who dreamed up philosophy and metaphysics.
I wasn't being dismissive at all, just realistic. I LOVE SCIENCE by the way, the nerdier the better, but I accept openly that all we learn in science is as subjective and anthropomorphic as any other human created art form, be it music, architecture, culture, dance, and yes, science. The original scientists before the 20th century Iconoclast movement understood this intuitively, it is only lately that scientists have been silly enough to think themselves more than they are.