On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 18:58:10 +0200 arthur wrote:
That some try to commit suicide is not a conflict with the theory, that species are driven by the force to live.
I wasn't at the reading, so i don't really know what he was precisly talking about.
Maximizing simplicity does not apply with the things one wishes to deal with, but with the understanding of the things one deals with.
There are maybe two aspects to this:
Scientists big dreams is to find a simple theory. Complex theories are just not beautiful.
If a phenomena can be explained with two theories one being simple, and the other complex, it goes without saying that the simple theory will be chosen. When not the case, it usually means that the complex theory is perceived as being capable of emcompassing more phenomenas, and hence should be prefered. Also, scientists dream of a final theory, not a simple one. If there was a simple theory around, it would have been found a long time ago (although the belief of a simple undiscovered theory never ceases to have an appeal outside the specialists). In fact, all the actual candidates (for a final theory) are quite complex, and involve mathematics of the most abstract nature (algebraic geometry).
One can look at the movement of the moon taking the sun or the earth as a reference point. none of the perspectives is better or more true, but the second is much easier for imagination or calculation and is prefered when trying to understand the movement of the moon: a nice beautiful circle.
What you say is just the obvious: if I play piano and the stool is too far from the piano, should I move the piano or the stool? Yes, there are many ways to skin a cat :-). Patrice.