in reply to Re: Code for elegance, code for clarity
in thread Code for elegance, code for clarity

On the mathematics line, some physicist... (I forget the name Kinku? First name was Michael I believe), had an interview/show on TechTV about his perceptions of finding a Grand Unified Theory.

He said routinely rejected theories and equations because they were too complex, every time saying God's universe would be governed by beautiful (&simple*) equations. Though I think String Theory is off in unprovable never-never-land, there was a lot that I learned from that statement.

* = By simple, I mean short an elegant, without a lot of fudge constants and operators, I'm not saving the Creator would be afraid of a flux integral or something like it :)

  • Comment on Re: Re: Code for elegance, code for clarity

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Code for elegance, code for clarity
by dd-b (Pilgrim) on Jan 14, 2004 at 04:10 UTC

    There seems to be a strong human prejudice for simple explanations of reality. It has a history of working pretty well; which I find startling.

    Then again, I suspect Planck's constant, for example, is just a fudge factor.