home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!1776!bob
- From: bob@1776.COM (Robert Coe)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: Truth vs beauty in physical theories
- Message-ID: <0FswXB1w165w@1776.COM>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 20:24:56 EST
- References: <1993Jan24.134137.10915@math.ucla.edu>
- Distribution: world
- Organization: 1776 Enterprises, Sudbury MA
- Lines: 24
-
- barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
- > Obviously, we can only work with theories that are simple enough for us
- > to understand, and that guarantees a certain level of simplicity, either
- > in the theory or in its applications.
-
- I accept that, but....
-
- > But these are all statements about _us_, not the universe. So I still
- > see no reason to think the universe is simple. Rather, we'll only
- > ever understand those parts of it that are.
-
- For at least the last 300 years, the really major advances in our under-
- standing of the universe have come not from the discovery of increased com-
- plexity (important as such discoveries have been), but from the eventual
- realization that the complexity could be best understood in the context of
- a more global, but ultimately simpler, synthesis. That this keeps happening
- may not be a reason to think that the universe is simple. But it is a reason
- to suspect that the complexity is not fundamental, but arises from the cumu-
- lative effect of the application of simple - and discoverable - principles.
-
- ___ _ - Bob
- /__) _ / / ) _ _
- (_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ bob@1776.COM
- Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265
-