Can science explain everything? Why the question is poorly formulated

The question is poorly formulated

Can science explain everything?

It depends on what you mean by “everything” and “explain.”

Science is extremely good at answering how things work — but it doesn’t answer (and doesn’t try to answer) why they matter, what we should do, or what the meaning of life is.

It’s not a failure of science — these are questions from different domains (ethics, philosophy, aesthetics).

And besides, there are mathematical and physical limits that science will never overcome (Gödel, Heisenberg, the problem of consciousness).

When I understood this, I stopped expecting science to solve everything — and started appreciating what it actually does.

---

What science does exceptionally well

Before talking about limits, I need to acknowledge the absurd things science can do.

Science describes how the world works:

• Why do objects fall? Gravity
• How did life’s diversity arise? Evolution
• What is matter made of? Atoms, subatomic particles

It makes testable predictions:

• General Relativity predicted black holes (confirmed decades later)
• Quantum mechanics predicted particle behavior (works perfectly)
• Chemistry predicts how molecules will react

It builds technology:

• GPS works because of Relativity
• Smartphones work because of quantum physics
• Vaccines work because of immunology

Result: Science is absurdly effective within its domain.

But what is its domain?

---

What science doesn’t do (and doesn’t need to)

This is where we go wrong. We expect science to answer questions it never tried to answer.

1. “Why does something exist instead of nothing?”

Science describes how the universe has worked since the Big Bang.

But why did the Big Bang happen? Why are there laws of physics? Why does something exist?

These are metaphysical/philosophical questions, not scientific ones.

Science presupposes that a universe with laws exists — but can’t explain why this is so.

2. “What should we do?”

Science can tell you:

• How empathy works (mirror neurons, oxytocin)
• How violence works (testosterone, amygdala)

But it can’t tell you: “You should be empathetic” or “Violence is wrong.”

That’s ethics. Science describes facts — ethics prescribes values.

3. “What is beautiful?”

Science can study:

• Why certain visual patterns please (symmetry, golden ratio)
• How the brain processes art (activated areas, dopamine)

But it can’t tell you: “This music is beautiful” or “This painting is art.”

That’s aesthetics. Subjective experience resists scientific reduction.

4. “What is the meaning of life?”

Science can explain how you exist (biology, evolution).

But it can’t tell you why your existence matters.

That’s existential/philosophical.

---

A powerful example: love

I’ll use love to illustrate the difference between “how” and “why.”

What science explains:

• When you fall in love, the brain releases dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin
• Activation of the nucleus accumbens (reward system)
• Reduced activity in the amygdala (less fear/judgment)

Science describes how love works in the brain.

What science DOESN’T explain:

• Why this matters to you
• Why it’s worth suffering for love
• What it means to say “I love you”

You can know all the neurochemistry of love — and still feel love as something profound, mysterious, meaningful.

Meaning isn’t reducible to physical processes.

Science describes the mechanism. Philosophy, art, and lived experience give meaning.

---

Internal limits of science (mathematical and physical)

So far I’ve talked about domain limits (ethics, aesthetics aren’t scientific).

But there’s more: science has intrinsic limits — things it will never be able to overcome.

Limit 1: Gödel’s Theorems (logical limits)

In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved something devastating:

Any sufficiently complex formal system contains truths that cannot be demonstrated within the system.

Translation: there will always be true statements that you’ll never be able to prove using the system’s rules.

Implication for science:

Science is based on axioms (basic assumptions). It cannot prove its own axioms — it must assume they’re true.

Example:

• Science assumes an objective world exists
• Science assumes nature’s laws are consistent

But it can’t prove these things within the scientific method itself.

Gödel showed that formal systems always have logical limits.

Limit 2: Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (physical limits)

Werner Heisenberg discovered in 1927:

You can’t measure a particle’s position and velocity at the same time with infinite precision.

The more you know about position, the less you know about velocity (and vice versa).

This isn’t a technological limitation. It’s a fundamental limit of nature.

Implication for science:

There are things physics will never measure with total precision — not because better instruments are lacking, but because nature itself doesn’t allow it.

Limit 3: The Hard Problem of Consciousness

David Chalmers (1995) formulated the “hard problem”:

How and why do we have subjective experiences (qualia)?

Qualia = how things “seem” to you. The “red” you see. The pain you feel.

Classic example:

Imagine a scientist named Mary. She knows everything about color physics — wavelengths, how cones in eyes work, neurons that process color.

But Mary lived her entire life in a black-and-white room. She never saw red.

Question: When Mary leaves the room and sees red for the first time, will she learn something new?

If yes, it means there’s something about “red” that isn’t captured by scientific description — the subjective experience.

Science can describe how neurons fire. But it doesn’t explain why this “feels” like something.

---

Science isn’t the only valid form of knowledge

And that’s okay.

Because there are other ways to know the world:

Art reveals truths that science doesn’t capture:

• A poem about loss teaches you something that neuroscience of sadness doesn’t
• Music makes you feel emotions in ways scientific description doesn’t reach

Lived experience has epistemological value:

• You know what pain feels like — not because you read papers about nociception, but because you felt it

Moral intuition doesn’t need to be “scientifically proven”:

• “Torture is wrong” doesn’t need scientific experiment to be valid
• It’s ethical truth, not empirical

Different tools for different questions.

---

Questions I had (and the answers)

“So can religion ‘explain’ things science can’t?”
Religion offers meaning and values, not causal explanations. If you want to know how it works, use science. If you want to know why it matters, use philosophy/religion/art. They’re different domains.

“Will science one day explain consciousness?”
Maybe it’ll explain how neurons generate behavior. But the “hard problem” (qualia) might be irreducible to physical processes. Still an open debate.

“Why doesn’t science answer ‘why’?”
Because “why” presupposes purpose, and nature has no inherent purpose. Rocks fall because of gravity, not to fall. Purpose is human.

“Are there unanswerable questions?”
Probably yes. Gödel proved there will always be non-demonstrable truths. There may be questions that no method (scientific or not) can answer.

---

Why recognizing limits is beautiful

Because it shows intellectual maturity.

For a long time, I thought science should explain everything. When I found something it didn’t explain, I thought: “it’s just a matter of time.”

But it’s not.

Some limits are fundamental:

• Gödel: logical limits
• Heisenberg: physical limits
• Consciousness: (perhaps) metaphysical limits

And recognizing this doesn’t diminish science. On the contrary — it celebrates what it actually does.

Science doesn’t need to explain everything to be valuable.

It explains how the world works — and that’s already absurdly impressive.

For the rest (meaning, ethics, subjective experience), we have philosophy, art, lived experience.

And mathematics works where intuition fails.

---

💡 Summary in 3 points:

1. Science answers “how” things work, not “why” they matter (ethics, aesthetics, meaning aren’t scientific)
2. There are mathematical (Gödel), physical (Heisenberg) and philosophical (consciousness) limits science will never overcome
3. Recognizing limits doesn’t diminish science — it shows different questions require different tools (epistemological pluralism)

---

Enjoyed exploring the limits of knowledge? I wrote about another deep philosophical topic. Check out the post about Is mathematics discovered or invented? — it’s about the boundaries between human creation and objective truth.

Leia também Mathematics Discovered Or Invented Platonism Formalism

---

References:

• GÖDEL, Kurt. “On Formally Undecidable Propositions” (1931)
• HEISENBERG, Werner. Uncertainty Principle (1927)
• CHALMERS, David. “The Hard Problem of Consciousness” (1995)
• HAWKING, Stephen. Perspectives on Theory of Everything and Gödel’s limits

---

Personal note: I want to study more about the Lucas-Penrose incompleteness argument (human consciousness isn’t computable). Roger Penrose argues human mind transcends algorithmic computation because of Gödel. Controversial, but fascinating. That’s for another post.