In science, should simplicity play God?
Asked by
ETpro (
34605
)
September 1st, 2011
Scientists at the time of Sir Isaac Newton found the simple elegance of a series of mathematical equations compelling evidence they had discovered a primal truth of the Universe. Newton had written that “Nature is pleased with simplicity and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.” But is that true of the nature we know? Certainly, Einstein proved that even Newton’s integrals of motion are close approximations, but inaccurate due to general relativity.
In 1889, French mathematical genius Henri Poincaré stunned the world of mathematics with a paper proving that as soon as you attempt to fully describe the motion of as few as three objects, such as the Sun, the Earth and its Moon, you are dealing with a set of expanding equations that soon prove to be intrinsically non-integratable. Poincaré‘s work on the three-body system gave mathematics its first understanding of a chaotic deterministic system and gave rise to modern chaos theory.
Expand his three-body system to something no more complex than a one-liter closed flask of a pure gas at room temperature. How difficult would it be to establish the exact position and motion of every molecule in the flask them predict their behavior perfectly till they reach full thermodynamic equilibrium (total entropy)? Impossible? Yes. Poincaré proved that it would be pointless to even try. That being the case, how can we even imagine that we might ever establish the position and motion of everything that erupted from the Big Bang and then exactly predict its behavior out to whatever ending it is destined to reach? Nature is simple? It sure doesn’t seem simple to me—and therein lies its great beauty and fascination.
Seeming simplicity is often a good guide that we are on the right track to solving one particular aspect of how nature works. But isn’t believing we are going to ultimately derive 42 and know what that means so we can apply it—isn’t that just as silly as Douglas Adams intended it to be?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
14 Answers
Response moderated (Writing Standards)
Einstein himself said, “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
Science writer John Horgan made quite a stir in 1997 with The End of Science: Facing The Limits Of Knowledge In The Twilight Of The Scientific Age (which I read just a few months ago), questioning whether various areas of science might be reduced, far in the future, to a few simple ultimate theories of everything from cosmos to consciousness. Which reminds me of another quote: ”All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”—Ernest Rutherford, 100 years ago.
The opposing view, of course, is that nature is endlessly nested in levels or scales of detail, like Russian dolls, meaning new discoveries about the world can go on forever as technology marches forward.
When scientists like Einstein or Hawking refer to “God,” it is usually in a secular sense equivalent to such euphemisms as “Mother Nature” or “Father Time.” This constitutes, at most, deism and not, as I understand terms, theism involving a personal god who interferes directly in human affairs.
At any rate, we’re nowhere close to understanding quantum mechanics, cosmology, molecular biology, or resolving many other Big Questions. I would predict, however, that sooner or later religion will become as obsolete as stone tools.
In science there is nothing simple about the burden of proof. You want simple….then embrace Yin and Yang. Doesn’t get any simpler than that…plus no God needed.
What plays God in science are logic plus repeatable results (facts).
Newtons Law of gravity doesn’t apply throughout the universe. Therefore in my opinion, he’s only sometimes correct scientifically. Philosophically, there’s nothing simple about nature.
It’s certainly silly given our current ability to deal with complex systems. How can any system be simple when the very act of observing its basic elements causes changes in outcomes? And yes, even changes which are apparently retroactive!
@gasman Please read “play God” in my OP as just the sort of meaning Einstein and Hawking attach to the word. Whether there is a creator or not, I do not know. But I do know there is no great master of the universe routinely setting aside cause and effect so that deterministic chaos suddenly becomes truly stochastic chaos.
@Cruiser Yin and Yang is indeed simple, but not of much predictive value.
@dabbler It was figurative speech. To “play God” in something means to take the guiding role. There have been a large number of scientists, and there are still those today who are so certain that all truth is utter simplicity that they reject any discoveries that include any level of complexity. That is letting simplicity “play God.”
@dreamwolf “Philosophically, there’s nothing simple about nature.” Amen to that.
@CaptainHarley Excellent observatin at the quantum level. Wave collapse is thought by some to be an illusion due to our own imperfections of observation, but nobody has come close to proving that. My guess is it’s only wishful thinking.
The point is that the rules of nature can be simple though the results are complex as in the three body problem.
@ETpro
I agree. : )
Lots of people have trouble with the ambiguity ( if that’s the right word )! Heh!
@flutherother When you get down to the level of rule that is actually predictive, simple flies straight out the window. The “relative” simplicity of an explanation seems to be a good guide you are on the right track. Insisting on true simplicity so far has just derailed us.
@CaptainHarley Right words, indeed. These things are extremely difficult to even put into words.
@ETpro Where is there any predictive value in God let alone the Universe??? Random is as random does. No matter how much science you throw at life, you really have no choice in the matter.
@Cruiser I certainly didn’t claim any predictive power in God. I do take issue with the idea that everything is random and thus it’s useless to study it. None of modern science would work it that were the case. There is a great difference between deterministic chaos and pure stochastic chaos. Powerful statistical analysius is required, and a very large number of samples are necessary to arrive at a proof that a given pehnomenon is strictly deterministic, subject to chaotic determinism, or purely stochastic. Research on this is in its infancy, but already it appears that all three may be in play in specific areas of physical behavior.
@ETpro A simple rule with apparently simple maths can give results which we cannot calculate accurately. Not only can we not predict the result, but prediction is impossible.
@flutherother That just restates what I said in the OP about Poincaré‘s Three Body System. Still, it does not undermine all of the scientific method nor mean that thinks like satellite baed GPS don’t work and clocks can’t even tell aproximate time.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
