Religion
In reply to the discussion: Why is the Universe Comprehensible? [View all]eomer
(3,845 posts)A particle has been suggested, a graviton, but no such particle has yet been detected. I don't really know much about this subject but was under the impression that we don't know what causes gravity, how it works.
I take your point about the highest means for us to know anything, but would say that that actually is an argument for our not comprehending things rather than for comprehending them. I don't think I agree that we know gravity as well as we know many other things but I would say that all the other things we might know better, we still don't know them well enough to say we comprehend them; that would be hubris. At one time we thought we knew that space was Euclidean, independent of time. We thought we comprehended it. We didn't, not really. In my opinion we should assume that all the things we sort of comprehend, we don't, not really.
I'm not sure this is in disagreement with you, maybe you see this more or less the same. And hopefully we won't confuse a difference of semantics for a difference of more substance. Let's be clear whether we're talking about the definition of "comprehend" or something else.