My own belief is that as you bore down to an essential underlying theory of everything, explanations should become simpler and the math more elegant, not more complex.
That's my opinion too, but I'm hardly an expert in this area. In the past, the great scientific work seemed to simplify the world, and describe it in ways that were relatively easy to understand. If I'm to understand anything more, there needs to be a new simplification, not this 11-dimensional beast that seems to be the most promising bridge between the Einsteinian and the quantum-mechanical world.
It's a bias -- and a hope -- built on my own limitations, but my suspicion is that deep down, and I mean way deep down, the universe is based on a few very simple rules.
posted on 03/16/2005 7:26:27 AM PST
(<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
"It's a bias -- and a hope -- built on my own limitations, but my suspicion is that deep down, and I mean way deep down, the universe is based on a few very simple rules"
You and I have disagreed in the past on that lightning rod of subjects (crevo) which I have no intention of reopening at this time.
Your comment, quoted above, however, I could not agree with more. My personal belief is that for these "few simple rules" to be discovered and understood, seekers of the truth will have to step outside the box of their own scientific disciplines and realize that there literally is no spoon - that consciousness itself is the stuff of the universe.
posted on 03/16/2005 10:26:54 AM PST
(You'd rather cry, I'd rather fly.)
To: PatrickHenry; finnigan2
posted on 03/16/2005 12:10:19 PM PST
(Liberalism: comparable to a chicken with its head cut off, but with more spastic motions)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson