Complexity verses simplicity.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Caroline
 
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 03:24 am
@thing-N-ghost,
thing-N-ghost wrote:
Believe it or not, there was a philosopher (what was his name?) who said the more simple a theroy is, the more likely it is to be true! The idea was that an atribute of perfectness was in fact . . . simplicity.

I agree with that, i actually have discovered myself that theory and proving to myself that is is most effective than any other solution.
 
Phosphorous
 
Reply Wed 1 Apr, 2009 05:25 pm
@Elmud,
Soo... occams razor?
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 12:18 am
@thing-N-ghost,
thing-N-ghost wrote:
Believe it or not, there was a philosopher (what was his name?) who said the more simple a theroy is, the more likely it is to be true! The idea was that an atribute of perfectness was in fact . . . simplicity.


I agree. The only true theory is one that cannot be spoken. Nietzsche and Kierkegaard both said something to the effect of 'regarding the truth, we must remain silent.' Description implies arbitrary division of the world into parts; e.g. 'the dog ate the cat' implies the existance of two distinct 'things,' when in fact the distinction is purely conceptual and arbitrary. It is neccessary to see the world divided into the things we do because we are us, seeing through our own eyes and not others, not because there are concretely delimited things independent of our experience of them. (not advocating solipsism by the way...not today anyhow :bigsmile: ...just saying that, while there is (may be) an independent reality beyond our experience of reality, it most certainly does not exist as distinct things or perfect forms, but rather as a monism that appears divided from any given perspective; from our perspective we have cats, dogs and trees; from a squirells perspective they have...well, I'm not a squirell)
 
Nameless 23232
 
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 01:20 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;51730 wrote:
Life is simple; explanations of life are complex. Life proceeds and is, regardless of our analysis of it; the only 'problems' are those that we create by seeking 'Truth.'


I'd agree with this post, a good concise account.

Life goes on irregardless of what we know of it. Of course a Cartesian skepticist may dispute this but to my mind life would still exist in all it's complexity if I were asleep, and not dreaming.

It's impossible to be certain that life is eminently simple or complex because of course we can only know of life from our own perspective and that perspective is always subject to change. I personally choose to belief that it is more likely to be the latter of the two, but I readily admit that this is merely a result of my experiences in the past and my reflecting upon them.
 
Elmud
 
Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2009 08:31 pm
@Nameless 23232,
Nameless_23232;67177 wrote:
I'd agree with this post, a good concise account.

Life goes on irregardless of what we know of it. Of course a Cartesian skepticist may dispute this but to my mind life would still exist in all it's complexity if I were asleep, and not dreaming.

It's impossible to be certain that life is eminently simple or complex because of course we can only know of life from our own perspective and that perspective is always subject to change. I personally choose to belief that it is more likely to be the latter of the two, but I readily admit that this is merely a result of my experiences in the past and my reflecting upon them.
Irregardless is not a word.:sarcastic:
 
Nameless 23232
 
Reply Thu 25 Jun, 2009 05:19 am
@Elmud,
Your right, its a double negative. I blame it on americanisation, it's a pseudo-word in their dictionary. I'll have to stop using that.
 
Elmud
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 02:22 pm
@Nameless 23232,
Nameless_23232;72058 wrote:
Your right, its a double negative. I blame it on americanisation, it's a pseudo-word in their dictionary. I'll have to stop using that.
Sorry. Don't mean to correct anyone. Just reminded me of someone who use to say to her mother, "irregardless is not a word". Ignore the correction.
 
William
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 06:40 pm
@Elmud,
Interesting dialog. I hate to see it end on the grammatical understanding of revelancy, another really ambiguous word we use to communicate. IMO, we make the simple complicated because we had to. It is our "nature". We "want" to understand. Here comes a bird flying thourgh our widow. Wow, a creature that can soar through the air. How does it fly? We grab a net and capture it, put it on the table and kill it to "see how it works". Now as a result of the sacrifice of that bird, we to can fly through the air, yet we have no wings. Extraordinary. Now we can go faster and higher, but at what cost? We can generate funds by encouraging people without wings to fly. That's he ticket. Let's do that. But at what cost? Fuel, energy, pollution, speed, efficiency? hmmm? We just need more fuel. That will work. So we invade the Earth more and more pulling syphoning it's energy source responsible for it's balance and polluting our atmosphere with it and we go faster and faster to get from one point to another. Now I am not sure just how valuable fossil fuels are as it relates to the balance that is the Earth, but it is there for a reason, and perhaps that invasion was not needed either in that we have abundant natural, above ground resources we can avail ourselves of. Ah, but what about all those whose responsibility it is to keep the equillerbrium of costs in line. What of them? Hmmm? We can't just "lay them off". How much will it cost to develop new sources of fuel and keep everyone satisfied at the same time and keep them employed? Hmmm?

A young man comes in the door and he is hot. His temperature is rising as he hallucinates uncontrollably. What is wrong with this boy. Like the bird we cut him open to see how he works so we can come up with an answer to that to; if we don't he will surely die? What if this happens to me? Damn! We need to understand how the body works. We need to do more investigation. How can we investigate how the body works if it is sick. We need to understand how it works in pristine condition for if it is sick, we will only discover how it works when it is ailing producing erroneous results. Let's investigate pristine animals. They are similar to us. Look at what we learned from the bird. That's it. Let's do that. What is an abundant animal that we can dig into that will not be missed. Ahh, the rat. That will do it. No one will contest that. Hmmm? My goodness, just look at the physical similarities. But what about the tail and the sharp destructive teeth and the size of the gonads. Are you sure we should be venturing here. Well, let's just see how it goes. Now if this works we can use what we learn and keep the body from getting ill by arriving at "cures". It's worth the risk.

Medicine was invented based on research on the rat. Wow! But people are still getting sick. What's going on here. Damn! This is getting complicated. Why are people still getting sick and dying. Now we have cancer, heart failure, obesity, baldness, poor vision, birth defects, tuberculosis, kidney failure, liver disfunction, mental illness, abnormalities out the kazoo. Damn! What's wrong with our immune system. It's not working. Perhaps we should not have invaded that rat in the first place. Hmmm?

We need a perfect pristine human being to do research on. Cadaver's won't get it. We need to use it in it's perfect pristine state, but doing research means we have to invade it, thereby destroying it to do so. How are we going to pull that off. Hmmm?

Hey, look at what we accomplished with the polio vaccine. That was research initiated by what we learned from miscarried aborted fetuses. But we are getting into dire staits here. We just can wait around for miscarriages to occur. We have a lot to learn. I got it! Here's what we need to do to create more "test material". The rest is history.

The moral of this story is "invasion" doesn't work. It just makes things more and more complicated. Invasion is Pandora's box. Now how do we shut that lid, and get back to that pristine condition that is our creation. Now since we really don't know, for sure, exactly how we got here that is a moot point.

Do not distrub is the key to life. We have disturbed it enough, IMO. Now is that our fault? I think not. We cling to life regardless how disturbed it can get, regardless of the "costs". Hmmm? Perhaps "that" has something to do with it. Costs are indeed out of control. What do we do now? Everything we do depends on "affordability". We studied rats because it was affordable. we studied the bird because a few birds would not be missed. We studied aborted fetuses, because the did not represent "life", just pieces of meat waiting to live. Ain't that right? Hmmm?

If you don't "mind", just how are we going to accompish closing that lid? By undisturbing the secret of the universe hidden in the undistrubed "mind" of man. We need to stop "invading it" to see what is hidden there. How can we close the lid, when we have no idea what it is that disturbs the mind? Closing Pandora's box will not be easy for it has been open for a long time and a lot of complexities have arisen from within it's domain. Too many for just a few minds to figure out. The mind needs to be "free" to arrive at those solutions. All minds complimentary with each other seeking a unified goal: LIFE. Not so much the abundance of it, but the quality of it that will lead to an abundance for all with plenty left over to spare.

The greatest fear out there that disturbs the mind of man the most are acquiring those costs needed to survive. Our No 1 "mental" problem! Yes, we were destined make the mistakes because of the overwhelming "nature" of life itself. It is time we learned by invading it we disturbed that life. Big time. It was par for the course; it's the only way we would learn being the perfect and hard headed creations we are. Perhaps it time we consulted the 'creator' who created this stage we perform on as this play of life continues. If we ease the noise in the mind amidst all the complexities there, then we will be able to hear those instructions as each and everyone of us has his and her roles to play in this performance that will allow that creator to use us synergistically for the benefit of all. God in motion as we understand we are a part of that god; just new and stupid and stubborn. As in all children. Consider the Earth, gods mate in it all. Once we harmonize, it will bring harmony to heaven and the earth as it was meant to be. IMMHO.

Wow, I really got out there this time. But you know me. I have a tendency to do that. Can't help it. I hope this helped. Maybe a little over simplified; what's wrong with that? :perplexed:

William
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 08:53 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;59169 wrote:
... but rather as a monism that appears divided from any given perspective; from our perspective we have cats, dogs and trees; from a squirells perspective they have...well, I'm not a squirell)


... does this monism have to have a certain degree of objective complexity in order for humans to carve up the world into dogs and cats and squirrels to carve it up into - well, I'm not a squirrel, either ...
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 09:01 pm
@Nameless 23232,
Nameless_23232;72058 wrote:
Your right, its a double negative. I blame it on americanisation, it's a pseudo-word in their dictionary. I'll have to stop using that.
It's not really a double negative, it's more like a portmanteau of irrespective and regardless.
 
parker pyne
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 01:40 am
@Elmud,
Ideas should be complex, but the language used to convey these ideas should be simple.

Though by "complex ideas" I mean it is a collection of interwoven facts that prove each other; not plagued by unnecessary assumptions. Hey Ockham!
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/22/2020 at 12:27:02