According to quantum complimentarity, there is a quantitatively articulated formula of an epistemic limit, which is the uncertainty principle. I say an epistemic limit as opposed to the, because contrary to the hoopla hitherto over quantum indeterminancy, there are others. In fact, literally an infinitude of others. N. Taleb noted, to paraphrase, that we can't know squat with absolute certitude about the behavior of billiard balls either. Consider the so-called butterfly effect with respect to Chaos. Even time cannot be measured with absolute precision, since a Cesium clock, say, must also be measured relative to something else, and all stochastic perturbations due to Noise, which would affect the vibrations of the clock, are impossible to account for (this is the problem of "Wienerian time"). That is, the Laplacean, mechanistic, Steampunk idea of absolute certitude is nothing but a pipedream, an unevolved delusion.
|Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle|
The inherent flow of everything is nonlinear. It is nonlinear because there is nothing, absolutely nothing, whatsoever, which is independent of everything. There is nothing that is independent of something else, and so on the network goes ad infinitum. This is the principle of nonlocality as well. I think it was F. A. Wolf that gave the analogy a long time ago, that the universe is like one big gelatin cube; touch one part of it and it reverberates thoroughly throughout the whole. There is no transmission of information from A to B. Everything is instantaneous and simultaneous.
Consider perfect information versus entropy. The illusion of perfect information belongs to the classical paradigm. Where there is information, entropy goes hand-in-hand, in the genuinely C. Shannon information-theoretic sense of the word. The Noise of transmission of information has two dimensions to it. 1) Stochastic, entropic noise per se 2) the metaphorical. 'Noise' is metaphor for the source of all uncertainty. Resonance cuts through Noise; Nonlocality implies that it is unaffected by vicissitudes of Noise and all other stochastic, Chaotic perturbations. As such we see that mechanistic paradigms of epistemological realism have hitherto been poking about within the parameters of only a very minute aspect of reality-as-such. And don't give too much credence to the idea of so-called "theories of everything" approached from the angle and paradigm(s) of materialist science; it's just scientific hubris, that's all. At best, they'd be "theories of everything we pretty much think we know right now using the tools, apparatuses, and scientific paradigms that we currently have at our disposal, staying within the bounds of what is considered to be (politically) acceptable among our scientific colleagues who want to be recognized as good, perhaps great, scientists, who wouldn't want to be blackballed or ridiculed." To say otherwise would be pompous bullshit.