Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein.
Keep on playing.
Keep on playing.
I believe that every able-bodied human has the capacity to understand everything that is necessary for him to understand, and that the reason this is true is that the most "true" interpretation of reality is that which is directly experienced and therefore independent of rationale and abstraction. I believe that this is the only sort of information that can be absolutely known (i.e. known through direct and perfect means, which is different than knowing through indirect means such as evidence or 'proof').
Quote from: Plato, Apology link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing#In_Plato
[This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing (anything). On the other hand, I equally ignorant do not believe (that I know anything).]
(Emphasis mine.)Entropy within may have one know those state termed "knowledge." (A "knowledge" of that proves "wisdom.")
I used to think things like "I know nothing," until I realized how stupid it was. Now, I basically ignore anyone who adamantly states that you can't really know anything.
I personally distinguish between two kinds of knowledge: 1) That which can be known directly through experience, and 2) that which can be known indirectly through evidence/proof.
To use an example, the former would be like feeling the warmth of the sun on your face and knowing that it is warm out, while the latter is like looking at a thermometer and seeing that it's 85 degrees outside and concluding that it is warm outside. When you directly feel the warmth of the sun on your face, there is no rationale required to know and understand what is there; more specifically, direct experience occurs when a subject unifies with an object such that they are indistinguishable (this is even reflected in our language when we say things like, "I am warm"). In contrast, rationale is an absolute necessity to make sense out of a thermometer reading, and the only way you can assert it is warm is if you know that there are temperatures much lower than 85 degrees by having evidenced them; 'ratio' is the root word of 'rationale.'
Inasmuch as logic is a closed system with recognizable boundaries and rules, it's not only possible to know something, but it's possible to know something absolutely and perfectly in an absolutely perfect, logical way. But, no matter how perfectly logical it is, it will always be different than the knowledge gained through direct experience.
Edit: I see you edited your post to something semantically fun. Give me some time on that one.