Does truth resist simplicity?

[Detective Conan]

Hey forum, Conan here. My question for everyone today is "does truth resist simplicity" and why or why not?

I recall that Einstein once said (or, at the very least, has been credited with saying) "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." However, I personally find this quote to be misleading by the common interpretations of the word simple. Look at it from a mathematical standpoint. When you simplify an equation, what are you likely to do? Combine like terms, distribute exponents and parenthesis, and perhaps move terms from one side of the equation to another. However, when you put the word "simplicity" into context with the word "truth," you'll likely never reach an end like you would with a mathematical equation. To better illustrate this example, let's say you're writing a paper on the French Revolution and decide to tackle the factors that influenced the revolution. Chances are that, even in a 10-15 page paper, you would likely have made the situation too simple to properly tell the "true" story behind the causes of the French Revolution. Why? Simply because you didn't cover every last detail of the events leading to and why they lead to the revolution. I don't think that lack of intense detail means that the paper is misleading; it's just an incomplete, and therefore not an entirely truthful recap, of the events leading up to the revolution. I think the said can be said for just about anything. Like Pascal once said "We know too little to be absolutists, and too much to be relativists."

Anyway... other views, opinions, etc.?

 

[Wyote]

lolwut

(relatively incomplete)

 

[Kavalan]

Mathematically simplicity is truth.

Extrapolation of that simple equation derive quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. That is the starting point, the focal point of all of those fields.

As far as history goes the fact is you cannot know truly everything unless you know everything of all those involved were thinking and their drives. Thus you already make assumptions and simplify a historical period. That said it becomes almost semantical in how one breaks down history. You make judgements as to what sources are/aren't credible. You condense things that may be minor on their own relative to the grand scheme.

As an example: The American revolution and the formation of the United states was caused by public disdain for the treatment they received from the British crown. That sums it up fairly well why it happened and it truly is simple.

 

[Detective Conan]

Mathematically simplicity is truth.

See, on a philosophical field, I'd feel a need to disagree with you, even with mathematics. While mathematics under the human perception is truth, our minds as they are now, I think, are limited in how close to ultimate truth they can reach. If we were capable of such a thing, then questions such as the classic problem of Thesus' Ship still wouldn't be a problem several thousands of years later.

As far as history goes the fact is you cannot know truly everything unless you know everything of all those involved were thinking and their drives. Thus you already make assumptions and simplify a historical period. That said it becomes almost semantical in how one breaks down history. You make judgements as to what sources are/aren't credible. You condense things that may be minor on their own relative to the grand scheme.

As an example: The American revolution and the formation of the United states was caused by public disdain for the treatment they received from the British crown. That sums it up fairly well why it happened and it truly is simple.

And I agree with the rest of this.

 

[Kavalan]

I do not see how thesus's ship paradox is that of a mathematical nature. Nor do I understand how my example, a vary simple equation that when used will have classical and quantum mechanics fall out of it is not truth(since it itself is very simple)

 

[Detective Conan]

Nor do I understand how my example, a vary simple equation that when used will have classical and quantum mechanics fall out of it is not truth(since it itself is very simple)

Okay, let's put it this way. What method do you use to prove your simple equation is true? And what method is used to prove that method to be true? And the method for proving that method as truth? And the method for proving that method as being true? See, this problem (which will continue infinitely, in theory) is what I was referring to.

 

[Kavalan]

It doesn't go to infinity as far as explaining most of what comes out of it can be made analogous physically observable phenomena. A good one to do is how a particle behaves in a box as it behaves like a sine wave which is derived from wave-particle duality which is proven by thee double slit experiment which shows that particles statistical distribution is of a wave. Knowing that the correlation can be made that harmonic sound waves are a very well fit and they can be seen my pulsating a string with a consistently.

 

[Kavalan]

From the explanation of your comment(going to infinity of proving) it is semantical. A line must be drawn and it is drawn where statistically anything beyond it is beyond the bounds of certainty or irrelevant

 

[Detective Conan]

It doesn't go to infinity as far as explaining most of what comes out of it can be made analogous physically observable phenomena. A good one to do is how a particle behaves in a box as it behaves like a sine wave which is derived from wave-particle duality which is proven by thee double slit experiment which shows that particles statistical distribution is of a wave. Knowing that the correlation can be made that harmonic sound waves are a very well fit and they can be seen my pulsating a string with a consistently.

But it doesn't explain everything, which is what I was saying in my first post. And I still think my last point stands in that the methods to prove the methods wouldn't come to an end, because even with the example you provided, you can still likely go much further into the issue (which, because I don't have the education to do so, I can't give specific examples).

I think that the limiting factor in knowing truth, personally, is human perception. Granted we know a lot of things and can understand bigger pictures, there's really no way for any living person to be a true absolutist in their field of study or work (and in no way do I mean this to be an insult to any of the members of this forum or the human populace in general).

From the explanation of your comment(going to infinity of proving) it is semantical. A line must be drawn and it is drawn where statistically anything beyond it is beyond the bounds of certainty or irrelevant

And this is sort of what I was trying to get at. Truth, as I understand it's given definition, is an absolute certainty about something. If we can't be absolutely certain about the methods of proving certainty, then I don't think we can say we can be absolutely certain about the main issue. Yes, we can have a general understanding, and in a lot of cases that general understanding works. However, is that general understanding an actual truth? The only way to prove so would be to go through the same methods of constantly proving one method of truth after another, and you have already pointed out that sort of regression will eventually lead to a point beyond our certainty. I think that alone shows that real truth, not just a commonly understood idea, does indeed resist simplicity.

 

[Kavalan]

What it cannot explain is phenomena that have no physical analog or becomes system dependent and in non trivial systems becomes exponentially difficult to solve. This is it's limit but as I said these issues have been dealt with so that they are statistically sound.

 

[Detective Conan]

Oh wow, I just realized how badly I derailed my own thread :\ my attention span isn't that large tonight, and I apologize for that. I almost forgot that my topic is asking whether or not truth resists simplicity, not whether truth exists... however I suppose that, to a certain extent, that can play a role in answering the original question. Ah well, maybe another day I'll try to make a thread on that topic...

To try and jump off the little aside Kav and I got to, I think that shows how real truth, even in an assumed mathematical behavior, isn't as simple as it originally appears. Granted people like Kav, Indy, and other science majors here might understand that, I would think (and if I'm wrong, I apologize for this overgeneralization) that this didn't appear as simple as it does to them after working with formula's such as this. I know for, example, I would never have been able to jump into Calculus and have known how every concept works right off the bat; relatively complex concepts become simple only after you recognize and learn from those complexities, I think. Even after understanding the variables, however, a complex idea can still remain complex. That was what I was trying to get at originally. My thoughts weren't as focused with the OP as I needed them to be.

([MENTION=1751]Kavalan[/MENTION], I don't mean this to invalidate our discussion in anyway, however I did feel the need to get things back on the right track)

 

[aeon]

In as much as Truth encompasses all, it is parallel in idea to the Universe, so non-dual.

Non-duality, as a singularity of being, or “isness,” is no-thing-ness.

No subject, no object, no tense — “is.”

It doesn’t get much simpler than that.


cheers,
Ian

 

[bickelz]

I think simple is a very relative term but as i see it, most truths in nature are elegant because of their simplicity on the surface. We live in a world that is like a waltz or a piece by Chopin where everything is constantly moving simultaneously together to for life elegantly. On the surface, it looks so easy, simple and graceful but when you try to dance the dance or play the music, you realize that everything is only as complicated as our minds can imagine it is.

The truth can be graceful, elegant, hurtful and destructive but even the simplest things are far more complex than anyone could possibly imagine. An open mind can lead you closer to the absolute truth.

 

[Faye]

Speaking of truth and simplicity as abstract concepts presupposes that there is a form of the simple and a form of truth, which there may or may not actually be. Perhaps we should limit ourselves to particulars and try to avoid asserting any such forms.

 

[Siamese cat]

I'd say that truth is always simple and that proof of that truth is complex, the more simple the truth them more complex it's proof will be. And I think that for some truths we will never find proof because it will be too complex for us to comprehend it.

EDIT: So in my opinion your question should have been "Does proof of truth resist simplicity?"

 

[jn56uytrx]

I don't know if the question is humanly answerable because I wonder if we can actually know or even comprehend truth.

If I assume there is truth, my guess is that it is incredibly simple, but our ability to explain it is limited by language and incomplete comprehension. An explanation of what we are able to comprehend is often incredibly complex and unwieldy in order to give descriptive enough label to be understood even a little. Hence, the feeling that truth is complex.

I think that's why when those the world considers "simple" speak something understood as truth it is seen with amazement and appreciation. I think that is also why metaphor is sometimes so appreciated. While metaphor is sometimes difficult to interpret, when understood, the language of it is incredibly simple. If you can see a flower and burst into tears at the beauty of the world, I think you've seen simple truth. Much more than the beauty of a flower was spoken in that moment.

I often see in metaphor, but I have never been able to communicate what I see. Poetry is the closest I have come and it is hampered almost to destruction by words.

 

[jyrffw54]

Going off what Siamese has said, I would say that truth is what one gets when they see through and past all the details and complications.

Take a park for example.

It may be all littered with trash,leaves,etc, but if you look closely, you can still see the green grass, benches, swings that make it a park.

 

[Norton]

In physics, we know that we approach truth when terms cancel out, the equations become simpler, and seemingly disparate forces converge.

 

[~jet]

truth IS simplicity, so I'm confused

 

[jyrffw54]

In physics, we know that we approach truth when terms cancel out, the equations become simpler, and seemingly disparate forces converge.

As with stoichiometry in chemistry