Debate:Will our understanding of physics ever reach either a dead end or a point of invariably acceptably small error?

Proposition
I propose that our understanding of physics may reach a point at which further refinement is not possible, but that unless that point is reached, there will continue to be practical reasons to seek increasingly accurate theories/models etc. PacWalker 07:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think there will always be questions we have no answer for, and might never have answers for. Questions like why the big bang happened or what's behind the event horizon of a black hole. SuperDude,Where's my car? 12:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are right there; to clarify, I mean that we may reach a point where the limitations in our theories lie only in such things as physical processes/limitations absolutely preclude us from knowing (presumably including above examples). PacWalker 13:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The end of the world or science
How'd be know we did reach this point?--Arisboch (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm... You know, this might require me to desperately avoid showing my stupidity kick a football punt on this for now... ok so I can't think of an answer, honestly, and now that I get to pondering that I'm thinking that probably wouldn't be something which could be known. Good point. PacWalker 13:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No.
It's entirely possible that physicists will develop a genuine grand unified theory that accurately models every mechanism in the universe.

But having that model will not naturally upscale to explain every phenomenon. Nor does every implication of this hypothetical universal laws self-derive. The potential complexity of those derivations is essentially boundless, thus there's always going to be some scientific work to be done. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Having nothing more to add, I'm treating this debate as a poll and adding my vote to the No section. Fonzie (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I 2nd that.--Arisboch (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This has turned in to a far simpler discussion than I expected, and well yeah I have also come around to the no view. PacWalker 01:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)