Are we missing something really fundamental?

[Severian]

Take the Newtonian gravitation formula as compared to Einstein's relativistic one' date=' as slow as my eyes may move they still see that one is more complex than the other.[/quote']

 

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'simpler'. General Relativity is simpler than Newtonian gravity in my book, because all the laws end up being the same in all frames of reference. This is not true for Newtonian gravity, where you have to ask what your frame is doing before solving the problem.

 

You are just applying Newtonian gravity to a very simple case (where you know the answer already) and thinking it looks easier.

[Anjruu]

While I think the basic point is correct (the complexity of modern scientific thought) I happen to disagree that this is a bad thing. For example, having the atom be the most fundemental building block is less compex than bringing in subatomic particles, but we have basically proven that subatomic particles exist. Maybe reality really IS as complex as string theory suggests.

[guardian]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'simpler'. General Relativity is simpler than Newtonian gravity in my book, because all the laws end up being the same in all frames of reference. This is not true for Newtonian gravity, where you have to ask what your frame is doing before solving the problem.

Yes, it would seem that perception of 'simpler' has a lot to do with how one analyzes in this case.

 

While I think the basic point is correct (the complexity of modern scientific thought) I happen to disagree that this is a bad thing. For example, having the atom be the most fundemental building block is less compex than bringing in subatomic particles, but we have basically proven that subatomic particles exist. Maybe reality really IS as complex as string theory suggests.

It is not a bad thing, merely an approximation. If the approximation works for a problem at hand - it's good. The atom here may seem less complex if you take it as being fundamental because you have approximated the particles/interactions within it (some aspects of it are 'hidden' in such a view). If I were to model an atom (not as fundamental) by mapping and considering all particles and interactions within it - it would neccessarily be more complex than each of its constituents (alone?), IMO. String theory is merely a figment of our imagination until proven - which it hasn't done for 20 odd years *sigh*.

[Conceptual]

Without proof does one stay still or move forward. But if one moves forward one may be creating a house of cards. It concensus opinion begins to call the house of cards, a real house, than one will begin to forget that it was never built on a solid foundation. Its percarious perch combined with concensus opinion could turn it into a dogma of science, which prevents questioning its assumptions.

[Bio-Hazard]

I think I understand... and my input on this would be..

 

Reliability = 99.9% validity (we could always be wrong, though)

As long as we can apply it, we have something going for us, we are on the brink.

[guardian]

Exactly Conceptual, very well put!

 

Reliability = 99.9% validity (we could always be wrong' date=' though)

As long as we can apply it, we have something going for us, we are on the brink.[/quote']And that's exactly, IMO, what has had 'man' going since the brink of intelligence.

 

Forgive for swaying off course, but what do you think would happen if it was 100%. ie. no more questions (just a lot of problems to solve & verifying?), no more digging deeper, no more string theorists(?), what would it be like?