Human Comprehension of Universe

Our interaction with the universe is intrinsically based on what we can understand about it. Since a lot of time has passed—enough for us to document a few thousand years of it—the expectation of society provided by the records of science has built up a number of assumptions about the possibilities and limits of our world and of humans. This has created a habit of shortsightedness that David Hume and William James attempted to broaden in two very different ways. From the perspective that we can predict the turn of events with deserving faith, David Hume insists that the past does not provide evidence for repetition in the future and, more precisely, human expectation and even imagination cannot foresee anything of infinite possibility. He does admit that one can use reasonable prediction to theorize about what could happen, but this habit should be used with caution to maintain a realistic or verist perception of our universe. From discouragement by being trapped in infinity, William James insists that action in light of those odds is the only exit from stagnancy, despite what may exist ad infinitum. This tracks with his belief that truthfulness equals usefulness—that an idea’s factual happenstance is irrelevant, because information is more of a symbolic tool to assist our developing needs. So, to him, any information that is pragmatic is as good as true.

With both of these ideas in mind, it's obvious that they overlap in their coming to terms with our lack of awareness of definite facts concerning the universe and its possibilities. I agree with Hume, however, that assumption (in James’ terms: information which is true but not factual) is not something to be normalized and sold as truth. As Hume explains, “’Tis also obvious, that whatever is capable of being divided ad infinitum, must consist of an infinite number of parts, and that ’tis impossible to set any bounds to the number of parts, without setting bounds at the same time to the division … In rejecting the infinite capacity of the mind, we suppose it may arrive at an end in the division of its ideas” (Hume, A Treatise on Human Nature). Once the unknown is bound to human finities, our allowance and conception for the quantity of possibilities becomes stunted, making us devolve out of the versatility that one would have if they expected there to be contrary realities to what they’d been told. In addition to this, once unfounded knowledge is called true, generations will go by, ingrained with these assumptions for longer than is necessary before reexamining their adoption. People are going to reasonably or unreasonably predict, no matter what wisdom may suggest.  There's not much to do about other people, because prediction is fun. It is important, however, that we maintain that all predictions are projected assumptions. William James illustrates his point, “believe what is in the line of your needs,” (James, line 64) with a hypothetical about being betwixt two possibilities on a perch in a perilous mountain. One of the possibilities is that you die because you did not leap from the perch, and the other is that you leapt and, against some odds and expectation, miraculously survived. Between the worlds is your chance to act, “You make one or the other of two possible universes true by your trust or mistrust, —both universes having been only maybes, in this particular, before you contributed your act,” (James, 66-67). Doing nothing often has a definite result, so if that result is not something you want, you should act. The distinct pieces between Hume and James that I’d like to adopt are what you can reasonably know (Hume) and how you should act in response (James). You can’t reasonably know anything, so your action is entirely on you, regardless of the situation. Are you okay with nothing happening? If not, act. And take responsibility if and when you’re wrong.

William James’s belief that fact is unimportant next to the way knowledge can be used has sketchy implications for everything I am about to talk about, such as the structure of the universe (namely, that it doesn’t matter if your take is false). When you cannot know anything factually—from a Humean perspective—that means you are left to assume anything that you can’t wait to find out. Wielding these two ideas, for me, means that I know nothing factually, and I can neither tell myself nor you that what I think is remotely true. I can only dream and make it up with very potent disclaimers that I know this is probably false. But I’d rather like it if it were true; I think it makes sense, but what do I know?

Works Cited

Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Clarendon Press, 1739. Accessed May 29, 2025.

James, William. “The Will to Believe.” Project Gutenberg, Project Gutenberg, May 2009. 

Accessed May 29, 2025.