quote:
Ha ha, I would expect so much better from him. It is not the "preponderance of mathematics in particle physicists' account of reality " that is surprising. It is the utter simplicity of the fundemental physics when couched in mathematical terms: both particle physics and GR. No-one would have been too surprised if these areas turned out to be tractable using existing mathematics, given the history of mathematics and physics, but the simplicity is astounding and unprecedented in scientific enquiry.
Is the fact that it is modeled simplistically simply a result that science tries to model things as simply as possible?
But if your argument is that simplicity of fundamental physics is unreasonable, doesn't it suffer from the ambiguities of "simple"? I certaintly don't find theoretical physics simple, but then again I have never studied it beyond college level physics II. I just don't think an argument the hinges on the notion of simple is very effective.
On the other hand, are you referring to the fact that it is unreasonable that the universe is so "simple" that humans can come to have a good understanding of it in a lifetime?
And earlier, when I said "myth of our time" that was just a nod to a book I read by Gribbon. I know science makes good predictions about the world, but does that mean it is a more "real" depiction of reality than any other one? Can there be empirically equivalent theories?
That may be for the "Theory Evolution" thread though.
™ Version 4.2