In this last century, we have made a giant leap of technology development, and it's obvious that human will keep continue to discover new things for few hundred more years.

Is it possible that there's a point where there will be no more discovery, because at that point human will know all the secret of science?
Or maybe the science itself is unlimited, but it's just getting much more difficult to find new discovery?

Well ..

I don't think we will even have enough TIME to getting around to knowing EVERYTHING, We are only just pas scratching the surface of mysterious on our own planet and solar system ..

let along the entire universe ..

No, I don't there will be a time for us when there is nothing left to discover

Its worth bearing in mind that in 1899 the then Patent Commissioner, Charles H. Duell said that "everything that can be invented has been invented."

No matter how much we discover or invent, we're only scratching ever deepening surfaces. Oooh, how poetic.

we will most likely be exploring the universe tell its end... call me an optimist...

Then when we get to exploring the ends of this universe we will probably discover others.

If we make it that far. What if we are part of a cycle that has been going on for ages? Civilization starts, humans evolve, technology increases, and either nature or some human mistake causes a catastrophic event that all but wipes civilization off the planet? The few that are left over basically have to resort to living like cavemen again, and the whole process restarts.

Maybe the furthest point humans can make it in technology is to this certain discovery that creates a massive weapon, or something extremely powerful that humans try to harness, which leads to the eradication of most of human life, and what if it is the same discovery every time?

Just a glimpse into how my brain works...

Finished products are for decadent minds (I. Asimov)

So I guess if humanity gets decadent enough there will be an end to development, followed shortly after by the end of humanity.

With technology advances also comes the ease of discovering new technogily using current technology to make further advances. So no, I don't think we will ever come to an end in technology advances. Wow, is that like talking in a big circle or what?

...and besides we don't have half of the cool things the Jetsons had... I will NOT be satisfied until we advance at least that much.

John Horgan wrote a book called The End of Science where I believe he argued that there'd probably not be much more groundbreaking work to be done in science, that Nobel prizes used to be awarded for Big Things and now just for smaller details in those Big Things, that the pace of discovery will slow down. I personally haven't read his book, but I have read an article of his titled 'The End of Science Revisited'. Maybe you're thinking of something similar?

I think there may be a point where there will be no more discovery, though it doesn't necessarily mean that at that time we'll have everything figured out. It may just be that there's a boundary we are unable to cross, that some secrets will elude us forever.

Mr. Splitkins has it right.

Every technological advance in the last hundred years or so owes it's existence to advances in science that themselves were made possible by advancements made in the technologies of detection and examination.

We could not imagine that there was an upper limit to the speed of light until we were able to accurately measure the speed of light repeatedly and consistently, for example.

Proper description of subatomic physics was impossible until we were able to detect and measure the properties of subatomic particles.

Satellites made weather prediction accurate.

Computers (quantum mechanics) made mathematical modeling of chaotic systems possible (weather prediction again.)

I could go on.

Harte

I believe as long as there are curious minds and someone asking questions, needing or desiring answers there will be new discoveries and technologies.

We may well be rapidly approaching a point that conventional science
can't penetrate. There will still be a lot of technological improvement
for another century.

Chaos theory will lead way after that.

Before any of this happens there will be machine intelligence which
is far superior to biological intelligence and the pace of technological
advancement will quicken.

We and our machines will never learn a significant fraction of what
there is to know. Every answer raises two more questions and it would
remain this way until nature has given up most of her secrets.

We havent even understood properly how a human brain functions. If we realise the true potential of our own brain and thus thinking, imagine how much more advancement that we human kind can make in the future?

No matter what number ou put on it, there is a finite number of things to be discovered. Then, there might be another universe filled with a universe of stuff to discover, then another. Even that number of universes would have to eventually have to have a finite number. For me, I'd have to split that into three questions:
1). Is there a finite number of things to be discovered? Yes, but that number is going to be big enough thta we'd have to call it infinity for a long time to come.
2). Will humans ever get to that point? Not likely, I think that we are closing in on a point where if we do not wipe our selves off the roster of living beings, we will cease to be Homo Sapiens. We are nearing that point as we speak.
3). Will our decendants ever reach that point? Two possible answers here...
A). Yes, in a year that has the same number of digits as all the telephone numbers on Earth lined up end to end.
B ). No. The fundemental laws of the Universe may well alter over time. They may be altered by our ability to jump from universe to universe or deminsion to deminsion. If we develop time travel, we could even alter the past and see an almost limitless number of variations in each manifestation of each universe in each deminsion in each time-line. We may even at some point learn to alter those fundemental laws of nature. Then again, there are only so many colors to shoose from when painting the grains of sand on all the beaches of all the worlds of all the .....

Sigh such a refreshing topic, we could advance right now if somebody got hold of the 20,000> plus patents in a locked vault for National security reasons!?!? Technology will keep advancing regardless of the handbreak imposed upon it. Tiny example is the motor vehicle which has not evolved in a century as regards to economy, Ask people like Stan Meyers, Oh he,s part of my D.I.C. club (the dead inventors club)!! WaterPowered Car.com . That club is HUGE, sigh pity there dead! I could fill a number of page,s of example of Dare I say suppressed Inventions, Just ask?? Any way great Topic chrisfreak.

My Lord,

While I sort of agree with the gist of your post, I must say that your number 1 quoted above is by no means at all clear to me.

It's quite possible that everything we will ever discover might be just slightly wrong.

Like how the Newtonian explanation of planetary motion is just slightly wrong according to General Relativity.

In the future, we may just continually refine further everything we know, like String Theory refines the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics.

This would mean that, even if there were a finite number of things to be discovered, we have never yet even discovered a single thing. The result would be that everything would remain to be discovered.

Harte

...Excellent way to phrase it.

The laws of nature may themselves be flexible and then we
will be left to predict which will apply on smaller and smaller
events. There's no question that only large scale events be-
have harmonically and given sufficient time everything devol-
ves into chaos.

Few people understand the nature of science nor its history.
Many tend to worship it as some entity which has revealed
all the laws of nature but, in fact, there is almost nothing of
nature which is known. People mistake technology for know-
ledge when instead it is merely a way to isolate an event or
activity from chaotic behavior. It takes little knowledge of
what makes a plane fly to build a plane. Its existence in no
way means that we understand gravity or the forces which
allow it to operate. It merely means that, trial and error,
blind luck, inspired intuition, bravery and a rudimentary un-
derstanding of the major forces at work are sufficient to con-
struct a 757 after decades of hard work.

It was a couple of bicycle mechanics/ salesmen who "inven-
ted" the first plane but their real contribution was primarily
the invention of the wind tunnel and the means to flex a wing
to turn. This second invention isn't even used anymore.