-----------------------------
What I'm talking about is the idea that since we can't know everything, given the assumption that we can , there is nothing to know. If that doesn't make any sense yet, don't worry; just keep reading.
Consider the following statement:
It is impossible to know both the position and velocity of a particle. Now, does that mean that there is still a position and velocity out there that we can't know; or alternatively, does it mean that there is no actual position and velocity? It depends on the assumptions. Consider the (basically pre-modern) assumption that we can know some things but not everything. Now look at these statements:
A. We can know some things but not everything.
B. We cannot know both the position and velocity of a particle (at the same time).
C. Therefore there is probably an actual position and velocity that we cannot know.
--------------
Now consider the (basically modern) assumption that the human mind can know everything.
D. We can know everything.
B. We cannot know both the position and velocity of a particle (at the same time).
E. Therefore there is no actual position and velocity (at least not at the same time).
---------------------------------------------------------
The same thing works for so-called "chaos theory."
With pre-modern assumptions:
A. We can know some things but not everything.
F. The immense number of interacting factors in the universe, many of them very small, is too much to know (for instance, there are too many little things going on like birds and butterflies that minutely alter windcurrents).
G. Therefore the universe includes an immensely complex micro-determinism that includes too many factors for us to know it fully.
----------------
Now, with modern assumptions:
D. We can know everything.
F. The immense number of interacting factors in the universe, many of them very small, is too much to know (for instance, there are too many little things going on like birds and butterflies that minutely alter windcurrents).
H. Therefore the universe is chaotic and dis-ordered.
-------------------------------------------------------
The point is that modernism has by no means been left behind. If "post-modernism" resembles this, there's nothing "post" about it: it's modernism gotten even worse. (Note that this only works if I am correct in summing up the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and chaos theory into statements B and F respectively. If I'm not, email me at dbusnipe@yahoo.com and set me straight.)