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.
Nothing (that is, "no thing") is "experienced" but "perceived."
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.
One does not "[feel] the warmth"; one's body absorbs infrared light. (That you would refer to the later as the former illustrates that you are privy most wholly to that really born of conception within Homo sapien mind and not that therewithout.)
Complex response: Absorbing infrared light is an interpretation based upon the amount of evidence we've acquired from the technology we have. Before we knew what infrared light was, it was interpreted differently, The problem, however, is we don't know where the limit of evidence and rational interpretation ends, so it's still an arbitrary interpretation, albeit relatively less arbitrary than if we were limited to the same evidence available to mankind pre-science.
Let me also point out that your experience self-evidently comes prior to your explanation of it. Accordingly, there *must* be some information or knowledge that you take away from that experience so that you can fit an abstract model to it. The model is a deconstruction of a thing that you experienced in a more comprehensive way (your model can never be more comprehensive than your experience of an event and the evidence you pull from it; if it were, it'd be a priori unsound as it would imply the existence of unknown assumptions).
Simple response:
Quote
warmth
wôrmTH/Submit
noun
the quality, state, or sensation of being warm; moderate and comfortable heat.
wôrmTH/Submit
noun
the quality, state, or sensation of being warm; moderate and comfortable heat.
Yes, you feel warmth. Warmth is inherently relative, and so you know when you feel warm and not cold. Science routinely oversteps its bounds when it tries to explain subjective feelings solely in terms of what's externally observable. It's bad science.