In science, should simplicity play God?

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?