There is quite a market industry of writing SEO or alluring headlines and this (above-linked) article’s titular “could” rings of disingenuity, however it is actually quite interesting and worth a read. To my mind, it all begs the question of how we determine or define that we have accomplished “understanding” of the “nature” of the Universe. Insights from Algorithmic Information Theory apply: if a theory or description of material reality is in essence a program from which that entity can be reproduced, the fact that there is demonstrably *no most concise* representation of sufficiently sophisticated data sets, strings, objects (etc.) invokes a principle of logical incompleteness (re: Kurt Gödel and computational friends). There is no “best” or final theory or comprehension, there are only ever “better” ones.
Does this matter? Yes – methodological and theoretical orientation towards epistemological and teleological closure represent more of a cognitive bias than they do any necessary structural or systemic fact of material reality. The kinds of questions and observations cultivated are reflexively shaped by the expected consequences or results of those conjectures, queries and observations.