Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh
Craig,
An interesting point and depends on how we define "the limit to complexity".
In earlier times, man put the Earth at the centre of the universe. Nice and simple. In the geocentric model, everything just rotated around the Earth.
Copernicus put the Sun at the centre of the universe with his heliocentric model. Galileo related the laws of nature to mathematics e.g. the trajectory of a projectile is a parabola. Kepler formalised the laws of planetary motion.
Newton formulated the universal law of gravitation, the three laws of motion and used calculus to describe planetary motion.
Einstein derived the special and general theories of relativity.
The universe is found to be much bigger than we thought and contains other island universes or galaxies. Hubble helps establish the universe is expanding.
Historically, each individual builds on the knowledge of others and finds some new insight that escapes others around them. The insight often depends on observations made from new technologies e.g. Galileo and the telescope. Invariable, the models become ever more complex and we seem to gain a more accurate understanding of the operation of the system. Our understanding depends on our capacity to provide a generally understood model upon which a mathematical framework can be built that further extends our understanding.
A mathematical model allows us to test our understanding of the system by comparing its predictions with future observations. In fact, we both simplify and complicate our understanding with each progression. The model helps us picture the reality but the mathematical description proposed by the model becomes ever more complex. Thus, in special relativity, the model pictures light traveling at the same speed relative to all observers but the mathematical description leads to non-intuitive realities such as length contraction and time dilation.
One would think (and this is my view) that there would be a point at which one could construct a finite set of basic modeled principles that would provide an explanation of the physics that leads to the overall structural of the universe. I guess they call it "the theory of everything". Newton's law of gravitation went a long way to explaining the dynamics of a lot of systems. GR extended this to exotic bodies like Black Holes. Current quantum models describe a finite set of basic particles. In comparison, complex biological organisms reduce to a finite set of molecules and the code (DNA) to produce the organism is finite. That is not to say that there is no more to be discovered. Example, the formulation of GR still led to new discoveries such as Black Holes, relativistic jets and frame dragging. But these new discoveries come in under the umbrella of existing theoretical knowledge.
Each new correction and extension of an existing model, requires an extraordinary leap of both insight and intellectual expression. The leaps made by Newton and Einstein were nothing short of extraordinary. In fact, each new leap now requires something more extraordinary and is becoming increasingly beyond the mind of one person to solve. Isolated, "stab in the dark" hypotheses are coming thick and fast and unification is becoming increasingly more difficult as theories reach way beyond the current technology to confirm them as either true or false.
My point about the the universe is that either there is finite complexity or it is a bottomless pit, in which case it is going to be beyond man's evolved intellectual capacity to resolve.
Regards, Rob.
|
Thankyou for the above post Rob
Very well thought out.
Cheers