Note: This may make not logical sense. It is also likely that if it does, some philosopher somewhere sometime has likely explained it better. But any way I hope you can get some idea of what I'm thinking from it.
One of the problems with human kind is that we are unable to easily consider the unknown. We can not usually comprehend that there are possibilities beyond those that our current understanding can suggest or predict. We can not predict what will or may happen in the future or know for truth what true limitations exist because we lack the knowledge to see what could be.
Thus it was once thought the earth was the center of the universe and the logic of that time was used to support that. Thus some today think that AI or other computational problems can't be solved because our current "provable theories" declare or suggest they can't.
We limit our selves by what we know. It looks to me that we actually "know" nothing and believe everything. We do not necessarily "know something" we believe we "know something". Thus we can not say something is completely impossible because we lack the knowledge to "know" that which might allow it. What we can say though in some things is "that with the knowledge we have now that appears impossible". Within the limitations of our "knowledge/belief" we produce logic to prove our limitations.
We are within the system and part of it and thus limited. Only a truly independent observer who is beyond the system and not reliant on the system can know the "true" limitations.
Our limitations thus limit us and our capabilities until an exception someone or something appears that looks at or allows us to look at the system in a different way and thus opens up our eyes to a new set of limitations.
Proofs only prove that with our current "knowledge/understandings/beliefs" something is or isn't possible.
We exist in a universe of potentially limitless possibilities, yet we believe it to be limited to what we can understand, we do this with out absolute knowledge. Not that I think it possible that we will ever be able to prove that we have absolute knowledge. We lack absolute knowledge of our own lives after all, we can not remember everything we have done and every thought and motivation.
Science I think is a continuation of revolutions, changes that modify the way we see and understand that which exists or may exist, each revolution built upon in a million minor steps, as we seek to refine and extend our knowledge to the potential limits of each revolution.
We may consider our selves advanced but we cannot even conceive that which will come next.
A truly static society is one that is dying, the death may take time but if the society remains static it will die eventually.
We live with our comforting delusions of knowledge as with out we would likely go insane, we seem to be wired to need to know. Thus we create false certainties to maintain our sanity and sentience for with out them we can not function and that which cannot function dies.
Thus evolution duels with the truth of reality.
Perhaps this is why I like Si-Fi. For in Si-Fi to a degree we escape the limitations of our knowledge. The author takes something that we "know/believe" is impossible and utilises it to generate a world or universe with differing limitations from our current view point, opening up new vistas for us to consider.
This was originally written at about 4am in the morning, it still makes sense to me for the most part but if it's abit to hard to follow the jumps between some sections, well then blame it on the time.