Science is a constant process of simplification - split from counterargument against creationist

[Dekan]

It seems to me, that Science is - or should be - a constant process of simplification. Scientists look at apparent complexity, then find an underlying simplicity to explain it.

For example, consider the complex movements of the planets in the sky. The planets aren't like the "fixed stars". They don't stay in the same position like stars. The planets wander around the sky.

 

How can we explain such wanderings? The explanations went through three stages of development:

 

1. The Classical Greeks invented the idea of "epicycles". This involved every individual planet going round in its own unique set of complicated circles,

2. Then, in the early 17th century, Kepler greatly simplified things. He reduced the Greeks' complex, arbitrary epicycles - to just three laws of planetary motion - which applied uniformly to all the planets.

3. Finally, in the late 17th century, Newton achieved a kind of ultimate simplification - by reducing Kepler's three laws to just a single law - the law of Universal Gravitation.

 

Thus we see a constant process of simplification. Which is highly satisfying and gratifying to the scientific mind.

Of course since then, Einstein has come along, and disturbed our minds with his theories. The Nuclear Physicists have been even worse. With their endless stream of complicated and increasingly implausible "particles". And "Forces"

 

Yet, the Physicists show our human yearning for a basic simplicity. Which we all intuitively feel, must be at the heart of the Universe.

That's why they keep trying to "Unify" the Forces. And to reduce the embarrassing prolixity of particles, by classifying them all into combinations of simple "Quarks", or "Strings" or whatever

 

The Physicists might claim, that in doing this, they're only trying to find a "Theory Of Everything" - the TOE.

But could they actually, perhaps subconsciously, be looking for GOD? With the aim of finally identifying that powerful Entity. Pinning it down. Getting It by the throat.

 

Finding out Its source of power, learning all Its secrets. Subjugating It. Bending It to our Human will. Forcing It to confess. And finally - smashing It! So we finally get our own back for all the misery It's caused us. Then, when It's been disposed of, we humans will take over the Universe. And run things properly.

 

Is this the ultimate aim of Science? I really hope so!

Edited December 27, 2014 by Dekan

[CharonY]

I would argue that science is the opposite. Learning about the forces that exist. Learning how complex things truly are and how our imagination is so woefully inadequate to intuit the true fabric of nature and reality. How we, ourselves are just tiny parts in an enormous system that is far beyond our ken.

And yet we take baby steps, and each step reveals more that we do not know. And the truly positive thing about humanity as a whole we do not give up satisfy ourselves by simple stories that empower us. No, many bow our heads in humility and plow on to uncover what else we do not know. With the faint hope that at some point this will give us new insights.

[imatfaal]

I would argue that science is the opposite. Learning about the forces that exist. Learning how complex things truly are and how our imagination is so woefully inadequate to intuit the true fabric of nature and reality. How we, ourselves are just tiny parts in an enormous system that is far beyond our ken.

And yet we take baby steps, and each step reveals more that we do not know. And the truly positive thing about humanity as a whole we do not give up satisfy ourselves by simple stories that empower us. No, many bow our heads in humility and plow on to uncover what else we do not know. With the faint hope that at some point this will give us new insights.

You been taking those poetry pills again? Lovely post. Might steal for a sig - although I cannot cope with 'plow' - ok to change to the english-english plough'? (it is so much more logical to use 3 letters rather than 1)

[Strange]

It seems to me, that Science is - or should be - a constant process of simplification.

 

I don't think so. It is more a matter of looking for better models. Sometimes these are simpler, as in the examples related to planetary motion. But then Einstein came along and, although it could be argued that his conceptual model is simpler (and more unifying) it is far more complex mathematically.

 

The same has happened elsewhere: quantum theory has replaced simple (semi-)classical models such as the Bohr atom; the modern synthesis has replaced/extended the Darwin-Wallace model of evolution; modern genetics has built on the simple rules discovered by Mendel. And on and on...

[Phi for All]

It seems to me, that Science is - or should be - a constant process of simplification.

 

I think this is a very common but incorrect view. It makes an elegant sense, but in reality, reality wins. Science is just looking for the best explanations, which are not always the simplest.

[StringJunky]

You been taking those poetry pills again? Lovely post. Might steal for a sig - although I cannot cope with 'plow' - ok to change to the english-english plough'? (it is so much more logical to use 3 letters rather than 1)

 

 

late Old English plōh, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch ploeg and German Pflug . The spelling plough became common in England in the 18th century; earlier (16th–17th cents) the noun was normally spelled plough, the verb plow .

It seems to be English-English albeit old.

Edited December 29, 2014 by StringJunky

[michel123456]

 

I think this is a very common but incorrect view. It makes an elegant sense, but in reality, reality wins. Science is just looking for the best explanations, which are not always the simplest.

All equations,units, measurements are simplifications. I don't understand your point.

[swansont]

All equations,units, measurements are simplifications. I don't understand your point.

 

That's not a valid counter-argument. Phi said not all explanations are the simplest, not that no parts of science are simplifications.

[michel123456]

 

That's not a valid counter-argument. Phi said not all explanations are the simplest, not that no parts of science are simplifications.

Well understood.

Science is not only about explanation, science is also about prediction, like the path of a photon or the orbit of a planet. A simple (or a complicated set of) equation(s) is required, based on measured and cleverly chosen units. Not the entire reality is required to make the prediction. That's what I call a simplification.

[swansont]

Well understood.

Science is not only about explanation, science is also about prediction, like the path of a photon or the orbit of a planet. A simple (or a complicated set of) equation(s) is required, based on measured and cleverly chosen units. Not the entire reality is required to make the prediction. That's what I call a simplification.

 

The question is was that what Dekan was referring to by simplification? I think the answer is no.

[michel123456]

Let's take another example.

There are four fundamental interactions.

As much as I know, many scientists struggle to find the unification of these four interactions.

Isn't it a step toward simplicity?

[swansont]

Let's take another example.

There are four fundamental interactions.

As much as I know, many scientists struggle to find the unification of these four interactions.

Isn't it a step toward simplicity?

 

Same fallacy. Some things being simple does not mean all things are simple.

 

Anyway, do we have such unification? We have e.g. the electroweak interaction, but I don't think it's a given that we have simplified the physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

[Phi for All]

All equations,units, measurements are simplifications. I don't understand your point.

 

As Strange mentioned, quantum theory isn't as simple as classical models, but in reality it's more functional and describes the real world better.

 

There are many examples of this in science, explanations that seem right because they're simple, but in reality they're wrong. We all know why streamlining makes objects travel more effortlessly through the air, so why do we design space capsules to be blunt and non-aerodynamic as they re-enter our atmosphere? Why is the blunt design better at being a heat-shield that one with a slim profile?

[michel123456]

All things are not simple, but there is a tendency, or a will.

Another example:

If one could present a model with fewer than 16 or 17 or 18 elementary particles, that would be a step forward.

To simplicity.

[CharonY]

So, how would biology fit into this? A significant part has moved toward complex interactions to explain presumably simple traits, as simple models failed to predict physiological responses?

 

With regards to English-English, I am happy when things I write are (mostly) a single language and more so, if someone can actually understand what I type. I certainly rarely do.

Edited December 30, 2014 by CharonY

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So, how would biology fit into this? A significant part has moved toward complex interactions to explain presumably simple traits, as simple models failed to predict physiological responses?

 

With regards to English-English, I am happy when things I write are (mostly) a single language and more so, if someone can actually understand what I type. I certainly rarely do.

.

.

Is this whole area of simplification , what the subject Entropy is trying to explore ?

 

If this is the case . Namely Entropy being defined as the measure of ' degrees of freedom' . Then there appear to be four areas of interest to do with simplicity , freedom or entropy.

 

1. Zero . 0 , ultimately simple , no degree of freedom ,

 

2 infinitely small yet non zero . inevitable. The beginning or not.

 

3. finite value , say now, when there is existence, ( because we are here ) things have many degrees of freedom .

 

4. Infinitely large where everything is spread out and unusable . Yet complex .

 

Mike

Edited January 8, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

.

Is this whole area of simplification , what the subject Entropy is trying to explore ?

 

If this is the case . Namely Entropy being defined as the measure of ' degrees of freedom' .

 

Who defines entropy in this way? And what does that have to do with science being a process of simplification?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Who defines entropy in this way? And what does that have to do with science being a process of simplification?

Wikipedia Links Degrees of Freedom To thermodynamics .

Thermodynamics is one use of the concept of Entropy

Simplification is linked with Order at one end of the ' Entropy spectrum'

Total disorder is linked to the other end of the ' Entropy spectrum'

 

Link :- http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy ....... ENTROPY

 

Link :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_%28statistics%29 ........DEGREES OF FREEDOM

 

link :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(physics_and_chemistry) ..... ENERGY of SYSTEM

 

Link :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics...........Laws of THERMODYNAMICS

 

. Simple very low entropy

Not so simple . Higher value of entropy , disorder and degrees of freedom

 

 

much higher value of entropy , degrees of freedom , and disorder.

 

Mike

Edited January 9, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

Wikipedia Links Degrees of Freedom To thermodynamics .

Thermodynamics is one use of the concept of Entropy

 

 

Being a concept in the same category of physics is hardly the same as one being defined in terms of the other.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Being a concept in the same category of physics is hardly the same as one being defined in terms of the other.

.

Boltzmann originated a formulaic principle of thermo dynamics using the Boltzmann constant . Carnot produced relationships also with closed systems as they applied to entropy.

 

There is nothing to say the universe is a closed system!

 

Ed Whitton ( yet another Nobel prize winner ) , in recent years , spoke about the degrees of freedom , as they applied to quantum mechanics.

 

The subject of entropy has been applied , and spoken of , to much wider disciplines as it relates to :- order and disorder. Thus the subject of Simplicity as it relates to science is endemic only in so far as science is a moving feast , and changes as discoveries are uncovered. Which is reality , is a bit of an interesting thing ! Reality out there , no doubt exists , but what we see is possibly different, yet becoming incrementally clearer! Maybe ?

 

At the end of the day , this is a man made discipline as opposed to an absolute principle. I think ?

 

Mike

 

I have very vague recollections from my university days that there was a formulae lurking somewhere like ( e to the j pi = 1 ) or something like that , which I thought at the time seemed a bit magical as it seemed to tie a lot of things together !

Edited January 9, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

I have very vague recollections from my university days that there was a formulae lurking somewhere like ( e to the j pi = 1 ) or something like that , which I thought at the time seemed a bit magical as it seemed to tie a lot of things together !

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity

 

The fact that you drag this into the discussion is typical of your woolly, unfocussed thinking about science. Your approach may be great for art but not so much science or engineering.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity

 

 

 

Thanks! that is great ! i have remembered that across 50 years, there is life in the old dogs brain yet !

 

I need to have a go at painting that magical concept. Don't knock Art some of our Scientific predecessors were Artists as well as Scientists ! ( See 'Art in Science' on 'Other Science forum' . ) it does help one , to see ' outside the box '.

 

Not saying you are not seeing outside the box , but it is definitely a help with interdisciplinary thought.

 

mike

Edited January 9, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

 

Don't knock Art some of our Scientific predecessors were Artists as well as Scientists !

 

Definitely not. (I mean definitely not knocking art!) You have said, and shown, some interesting things regarding art and even its relation to science. But art is not science and never can be.

 

 

I need to have a go at painting that magical concept

 

Part of me want to say, "it's just a circle" but I will be intersted to see what you come up with.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Strange

[tar]

Strange,

 

"Art is not science and never can be".

 

What aspect of Art has no science as a part of it?

 

What I mean, is that the universe is not divided into an Art section and a Science section, that have nothing what so ever to do with each other.

 

There is the Occum razor situation, in regards to this thread that indicates that simpler is better.

 

E=MC squared is rather simple a statement, yet from it, emerges the complexities of the universe. Not that the equation made the universe, but the model, provided by the equation, is representative of the actual universe in the universe"s adherence to the simple relationship expressed in the equation.

 

I have been working with clay balls, drawing dots and lines on them and cutting them up. More art than science. Simple, direct fitting of pattern to actual space and geometry. Not too much math involved. No sines or cosines, just pi and measurements and multiplication and angle measurements.

 

More art than science, but the relationships I am discovering are real and fit reality nicely. The complexity of the equations that figure volumes and such adding up matrix elements and taking the square root of a bunch of terms and dividing that by quotients of other items is complex. Cutting a piece of clay up and experimenting with the angles and relationships, is simple. Simple, but real and fitting in terms of the universe.

 

Art is thus real science, in the sense that the imagination is guided by the possible forms and shapes and interactions of reality.

 

You can not paint blue in a picture, unless you have pigment that absorbs the other wavelengths of light, other than blue, or unless you have a computer pixels that put off the right wavelengths.

 

If you think science is only the understanding of the complex equations required to figure a simple angle or shape, I think you might have the whole operation backward. The complexity of the model of the simple thing is not better than the simple thing.

 

Then, on the other hand, science attempts to express the activity of the universe, including all the complex emerging entities within, in terms of simple equations, like the gas law. This attempt is more imaginary in nature, than actually fitting and proper in describing reality, so this type of scientific venture would in some ways be more Art, than science.

 

Bottom line, the act of being a human, involves to a large extent the internalization of the outside world, the building of an analog model of the place within the synapses and arrangements in the brain, and working with the model, to construct a next action or non action that will be beneficial to survival and will result in the avoidance of pain and in the achieving of some pleasure.

 

There therefore has to be some art in science and some science in art. They are not separate things.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

Strange,

 

"Art is not science and never can be".

 

What aspect of Art has no science as a part of it?

 

What I mean, is that the universe is not divided into an Art section and a Science section, that have nothing what so ever to do with each other.

 

 

…

 

 

There therefore has to be some art in science and some science in art. They are not separate things.

 

 

"Art is not science and never can be" is not the same as saying there is no overlap between art and science, so this is all basically a non-sequitur. Art and science are distinguishable endeavors.

 

The big question is what all does this have to do with the topic under discussion?