Quote Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
There are analogues to Gödel's theorem (and the Halting Theorem and other related theorems) for finite systems, though. What it fundamentally comes down to is that even though a part of a system can, to a degree, model the whole system, and a system can sometimes completely model a smaller system, no system, whether finite or infinite, can completely model itself. And we, the ones who are doing the modeling, are a part of the entire Universe.

In particular, psychology is one scientific field that will never end. One might imagine that a "perfect science of psychology" could exactly predict how a person would act. But a person with knowledge of that perfect science of psychology could determine what the science would say about how they would act, and could then choose to deliberately act in a different way. There might be some superhuman entity that's capable of a more detailed science that any mere human can comprehend, who could perfectly predict mere humans, but then that opens up an entirely new field of study, the psychology of those superhumans.
I mean, I don't disagree that we can and will create new meaningful fields. I do think its reasonable to argue that such things may not be natural sciences though.

Like, we can consider the properties of a universe whose parameters we can imagine but whose instantiation would be bigger than our own. Depending on the rules we set, there may be tricks allowing us to study those questions within our own, smaller universe. But the study of that universe is no longer the study of this universe. Psychology, mathematics, etc all toe this line.

Another way to frame this is, will our investigations eventually become completely independent of the grounding of our particular universe?